[18.0][IMP] auth_jwt: allow more authorization options over aud

[dnplkndll]

@kobros-tech can you add some tests?

probably want to require one of the possible types too. so maybe a type selection [aud,scope,group] then the aud_text to use to parse the match value?

need to rebase after: #752 merges

or

[dnplkndll]

@sbidoul working aws cognito as a token provider, there are no aud. but we do have scopes and user groups. would it be useful to replace the aud with these new tests to validate a server to server account has proper scope or a user has a group? the tests are pretty sloppy ( any intersection of the sets) can refine if useful. another option might be a simple disable but really do need the scope test in our case.
The next issue is we would have tokens that have sub and map user/partner via oath provider data? I guess that can be done in partner_id_strategy extension.

server-auth/auth_oidc/models/res_users.py

Line 72 in 035093d

validation["user_id"] = validation["sub"]

[sbidoul]

I'm ok to make audience optional. May I suggest doing that in an independent PR to facilitate review?

Then adding validation on additional claim sounds ok too. I would not override the meaning of the audience field, though. How about an expected_claim field containing a literal dictionary (to be parsed with ast.literal_eval) or a json field.

[dnplkndll]

optional aud only
#755

[github-actions]

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

[kobros-tech]

@sbidoul

We have added test cases here and there is another PR for the optional aud, do you need any thing else?

@lmignon
I like you to review if there is any observation, welcome to your opinion.

[lmignon]

Version should not be modified. It will be automatically bumped at merge.

[lmignon]

Thank you for the proposal @dnplkndll
Can you improve the documentation to explain your new options. I personally find it difficult to understand the proposed changes and the problem they are trying to solve. I am therefore unable to give an informed opinion on what is being proposed.