837 new policies

[jasmingacic]

fixes #837

This PR has breaking changes to the policies (formerly known as extensions) schema.

I decided to go with host instead of authorizer-hostname and authorizer-port. It makes it easier to copy past shorter property names

x-kusk:
  auth:
    cloudentity:
      host:
         hostname: cloudentity-authorizer-standalone-authorizer.kusk-system
         port: 9004

scheme: Basic is now custom

x-kusk:
  auth:
    custom:
       host:
         hostname: example.com
         port: 80

x-kusk:
  auth:
    oauth2:
      token_endpoint: *TOKEN_ENDPOINT* # <- for example https://yourdomain.eu.auth0.com/oauth/token
      authorization_endpoint: *AUTHORIZATION_ENDPOINT* # <- for example https://yourdomain.eu.auth0.com/authorize
      credentials:
        client_id: *CLIENT_ID*
        client_secret: *CLIENT_SECRET*
      redirect_uri: /oauth2/callback
      redirect_path_matcher: /oauth2/callback
      signout_path: /oauth2/signout
      forward_bearer_token: true
      auth_scopes:
        - opened

This one is ugly but I opted for underscores instead of hyphen because it is easier to select words with underscore in it. I think we should take this property to the "drawing board"

x-kusk: 
  public_api_path: /openapi

disabled is now hidden. Hidden is more descriptive than disabled as the endpoint isn't really disabled but just hidden from the users.

/path:
  x-kusk:
    hidden: true

All tests have passed locally and on are remote cluster. We only need to wait on the CI to agree with that.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for kusk-docs-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1f583e6
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kusk-docs-preview/deploys/634e6a9927d9cd000ca35211
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-868--kusk-docs-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[jasmingacic]

While at this change we should start designing how JWT should fit into policies. I already have a proposal in this issue -> #402

[jasmingacic]

Note: In this PR i have disabled check-cache as it was failing too often for integration tests to be practical

[mbana]

Note: In this PR i have disabled check-cache as it was failing too often for integration tests to be practical

Good choice.

[mbana]

LGTM.

Needs a few changes though.

[kylehodgetts]

Approved. Feel free to merge once the E2E tests have passed

[jasmingacic]

@aabedraba do you need more input for the docs update? I tried to fix where I could

[aabedraba]

I think we need a generic check:
if: more than 1 auth mechanism is defined
return: Only 1 authentication mechanism allowed

or something like that? 🤔

[jasmingacic]

That's already in place