[1.0.x] JWT / Simple_Oauth Fallback

Thank you for applying!

Before giving links helpful to understand how the review process works, what to expect from a review, and what to do to avoid a review takes more time than needed, I would like to thank all the reviewers for the work they do.
These applications are volunters-driven, which also means it is not possible to predict when an application will be marked fixed and the applicant will get the permission to opt projects into security advisory policy. While we aim to make an application as quick as possible, it is also important for us that more people review the project used for an application. In this way, we make sure applications do not miss some important points that should be instead reported.
Applications are not meant to be complete debugging sessions that eliminate every existing bug, though. I apologize if sometimes applications seem to go into too-detailed reviews.

Please read Review process for security advisory coverage: What to expect for more details and Security advisory coverage application checklist to understand what reviewers look for. Tips for ensuring a smooth review gives some hints for a smoother review.

The important notes are the following.

• If you have not done it yet, you should enable GitLab CI for the project and fix the PHP_CodeSniffer errors/warnings it reports.
• For the time this application is open, only your commits are allowed.
• The purpose of this application is giving you a new drupal.org role that allows you to opt projects into security advisory coverage, either projects you already created, or projects you will create. The project status will not be changed by this application; once this application is closed, you will be able to change the project status from Not covered to Opt into security advisory coverage. This is possible only 14 days after the project is created.
  
  Keep in mind that once the project is opted into security advisory coverage, only Security Team members may change coverage.
• Only the person who created the application will get the permission to opt projects into security advisory coverage. No other person will get the same permission from the same application; that applies also to co-maintainers/maintainers of the project used for the application.
• We only accept an application per user. If you change your mind about the project to use for this application, or it is necessary to use a different project for the application, please update the issue summary with the link to the correct project and the issue title with the project name and the branch to review.

To the reviewers

Please read How to review security advisory coverage applications, Application workflow, What to cover in an application review, and Tools to use for reviews.

The important notes are the following.

• It is preferable to wait for a project moderator before posting the first comment on newly created applications. Project moderators will do some preliminary checks that are necessary before any change on the project files is suggested.
• Reviewers should show the output of a CLI tool only once per application.
• It may be best to have the applicant fix things before further review.

For new reviewers, I would also suggest to first read In which way the issue queue for coverage applications is different from other project queues.

Usually, after reviewing a project, we allow the developer to opt projects into security advisory coverage. This project is too small for us; it does not contain enough Drupal-related PHP code to really assess your skills as a developer.

Do you have any other project hosted on drupal.org that we could instead review? It needs to have most of the commits (but preferably all the commits) done by you, in at least a branch.

@avpaderno For transparency: I'm a colleague of @cchiste at Acro Commerce.

I understand the criterion is about having enough Drupal-related code to assess the applicant's skills, and that it's the developer being reviewed rather than the project. However, I'm concerned about the position that leaves this module in. JWT / Simple OAuth Fallback is an authentication provider, exactly the area where you'd want a project inside the security advisory process and its maintainer committed to Drupal's security best practices. It's small because it does one thing: resolve a conflict between two modules both authenticating bearer tokens from the Authorization header. Being small is what keeps it outside that process for now.

Is volume of code the best available proxy for the judgement you're making? A narrowly scoped module is arguably easier to review thoroughly than a large one. It offers less material to judge the author on, which isn't quite the same thing as offering less evidence that the author can be trusted.

Would something along these lines be workable: grant the opt-in on the strength of a passing review, whatever the project's size, on the understanding that it
can be revoked if that trust turns out to be misplaced? That keeps the safeguard while avoiding a barrier that falls hardest on precisely the single-purpose modules the ecosystem benefits from.

I appreciate this isn't a decision for one application, and I'm not asking for an exception here — I'd be interested to know whether it's been raised before and where that discussion lives.

Is volume of code the best available proxy for the judgement you're making?

Enough Drupal-related PHP code to really assess your skills as a developer is not really about volume of code, since boiler-plate code is not considered. It is not that classes that contain more property definitions or more comments make the project more worthy to be used in an application compared to classes that use less properties but do the same job.

My concern is that these applications are not for opting a single project into security advisory coverage, but for giving people the permission to opt into security advisory coverage any project they maintain, including future projects they create, and those could also include an alternative project for the View module which is written in a less secure way.
If the used project does not contain enough code to understand what the person understands about writing secure code that follow Drupal coding standards, and correctly uses the Drupal API, I need to call that out.

If I were merely concerned about the code volume, there would not be applications that are on hold on because the person who supposedly wrote the code does not seem to understand the code enough to be able to answer questions about the code itself.

Yes, I could ask questions about the code, but when the code is not sufficient for these applications, which questions am I supposed to ask? I cannot ask hypothetical questions like If you were to rewrite this project to use more code, how would you rewrite it? which could possibly show it is possible to use a project with more code for these applications (if the code is not added just to make the project acceptable).

Also, we are not judging the project's merits. I am sure that when somebody writes a project, there is a use case behind that project, which is surely useful in at least a site.
It is just that not all the projects can be used for these applications. Technically, a project could just be a set of YAML files (as long as there is a .info.yml file), but that does not mean that those projects would be accepted for these applications.

If people apply just to opt a project into security advisory coverage, which is not the purpose of these applications, they could add as maintainer/co-maintainer a person who has the permission to opt projects into security advisory coverage.

A narrowly scoped module is arguably easier to review thoroughly than a large one.

We do not judge the project scope.
Projects with a narrow scope surely have a use case. It is a call for site builders whenever to use that project or add code in a custom project already used from the site.
People create projects on drupal.org to share code. We are not judging whenever a project should be hosted on drupal.org or be a custom project. We cannot just accept every project for these applications.

I'd be interested to know whether it's been raised before and where that discussion lives

In other applications, somebody commented about projects which were not accepted for these applications, and the answer has been always been similar to the answer I gave here (using different words).
There is no discussion about changing these applications' purpose. Those discussions should involve the group of people who decided that these applications are necessary, and the group of people who are going to approve these applications (the project moderators).
(I do not really recall which team / working group decided that these applications are necessary; these applications, even if handled in a different issue queue, have been used since 17 years ago. I do know which team / working group does still require that applications are done. I can only imagine there is a team / working group which still prefers people do not automatically get the permission to opt projects into security advisory coverage.)