Allow multiple instances of my app to share a Server-to-Server OAuth token

[KyMback]

Please take a look at https://devforum.zoom.us/t/randomly-receiving-invalid-access-token-for-server-to-server-oauth/74432 issue at zoom.

I have multiple ZoomNet client apps which are sharing the same credentials to Zoom Server-to-Server application. And each time when one client receives new access token the previous ones are invalidated. Currently this library have no way to working with this case (no token_index, no ability to manually refresh access token), so I'm forced to request new access token each time before new API call.

Could you advice smth or add support of token_index and ability to manually refresh access tokens (in order to do this at RetryCoordinator)?

[Jericho]

Thanks for the link. This is very interesting, I wasn't aware of this token_index and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think this is documented in Zoom's API documentation.

I think adding an Index parameter to the OAuthConnectionInfo in ZoomNet would be a reasonable solution. What do you think?

[Jericho]

My account is not setup with multiple token_index, therefore I can't test this new functionality. Are you in a position to test it for me? If I publish a beta package to my MyGet feed, would you be able to try it and give me some feedback?

[Jericho]

I published the beta package here. Let me know if you can test it.

By the way, you'll notice that the syntax to instantiate your OAuthConnectionInfo is changing slightly in this beta package. That's because I am working on #270

[KyMback]

I don't think this is documented in Zoom's API documentation.

You are right, I also didn't find anything in documentation. I was surprised to find this behavior. I mean when new access token invalidates the previous one.

My account is not setup with multiple token_index, therefore I can't test this new functionality

My account also doesn't support it right now. At least I have checked that zoom returns me the "Maximum group number limit exceeded" error. I found on a ticket above that this is the correct behavior...

Could you also add ability to manually refresh access token? Mb by providing OAuthTokenHandler? Because now this is internal class and I have no way to reuse RefreshTokenIfNecessary functionality

[Jericho]

I have checked that zoom returns me the "Maximum group number limit exceeded" error.

Thanks for validating.

Could you also add ability to manually refresh access token?

To be honest with you, I did not intend to make it public. My goal is to shield developers from the intricacies of requesting and refreshing authentication tokens but I did make sure to include a "OnRefresh" delegate on the OAuthConnectionInfo class which allows you to be notified whenever a token is requested. I'm wondering if that's good enough for your scenario?

As always though, I'm keeping an open mind. Maybe you could expand on your scenario and explain why you need to be able to manually request/refresh authentication token? Maybe you have a scenario that I never envisioned?

[KyMback]

Maybe you could expand on your scenario and explain why you need to be able to manually request/refresh authentication token?

To try get access token again without instantiating a new instance of ZoomClient, when I get error "Invalid access token", otherwise I have no chance to do this. So I just want to avoid extra auth call on each ZoomClient call => I'm trying to use singleton OAuthConnectionInfo.

ZoomClient doesn't handle this case, so it's impossible to refetch access token if you have singleton OAuthConnectionInfo and receive "Invalid access token"

[Jericho]

Even if ZoomNet provided you a way to manually get a new token, that would not solve the problem of having to instantiate a new instance of ZoomClient. There's currently no way for you to update an instantiated ZoomClient to use a token you manually requested. So I think we need to invest a little time to come up with a better design.

By the way, I did some testing about this scenarios and I have a few observations:

Observation number 1: it's really easy to reproduce the problem

var connectionInfo1 = OAuthConnectionInfo.ForServerToServer(clientId, clientSecret, accountId);
var connectionInfo2 = OAuthConnectionInfo.ForServerToServer(clientId, clientSecret, accountId);

// Instantiate two clients, each with their own connectionInfo.
var client1 = new ZoomClient(connectionInfo1);
var client2 = new ZoomClient(connectionInfo2);

// Connection number 1 requests a new token prior to the API call and User.GetAsync call subsequently completes successfully 
var myUser1 = await client1.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

// Connection number 2 requests a new token (thereby invalidating the token in connection number 1) and the User.GetAsync call completes successfully 
var myUser2 = await client2.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

// The call to User.GetAsync fails because the token in connection number 1 has been invalidated
myUser1 = await client1.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

Observation number 2: this problem can be mitigated by sharing the connection info rather than setting up a connection for each client.
This works well if you need multiple clients in the same .NET process but it obviously doesn't help at all if you have multiple machines or multiple processes that are not able to share memory objects:

var connectionInfo = OAuthConnectionInfo.ForServerToServer(clientId, clientSecret, accountId);

// Instantiate two clients sharing the same connectionInfo (this is important!)
var client1 = new ZoomClient(connectionInfo);
var client2 = new ZoomClient(connectionInfo);

// Connection number 1 requests a new token and the User.GetAsync call completes successfully 
var myUser1 = await client1.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

// Connection number 2 does not need to request a new token and the User.GetAsync call completes successfully 
var myUser2 = await client2.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

// Both of the following calls succeed because the token in the shared connection is still valid
myUser1 = await client1.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);
myUser2 = await client2.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

Observation number 3: I can't test because my account is not setup for multiple "group numbers" but I'm fairly certain the addition of the token index solves this problem:

var connectionInfo1 = OAuthConnectionInfo.ForServerToServer(clientId, clientSecret, accountId, null, 0); // <-- token index zero
var connectionInfo2 = OAuthConnectionInfo.ForServerToServer(clientId, clientSecret, accountId, null, 1); // <-- token index one

// Instantiate two clients, each with their own connectionInfo.
var client1 = new ZoomClient(connectionInfo1);
var client2 = new ZoomClient(connectionInfo2);

// Connection number 1 requests a new token for group number zero and the User.GetAsync call completes successfully 
var myUser1 = await client1.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

// Connection number 2 requests a new token for group number one and the User.GetAsync call completes successfully 
var myUser2 = await client2.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

// Both of the following calls succeed because the token in their respective connections are still valid
myUser1 = await client1.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);
myUser2 = await client2.Users.GetCurrentAsync(CancellationToken.None).ConfigureAwait(false);

Observation number 4: Configuring your account for multiple "group numbers" is great but not scalable.
My understanding is that Zoom is willing to increase your group number to a relatively low number such as 2 or 3 or maybe 5 (I could be wrong though. I base my opinion on the comments made by Zoom employees in the forum discussion you previously linked). This is great if you need an equally low number of ZoomClients. But what happens when you have a cloud solution with ten, twelve or ever more instances of your application? We are back to square one.

Observation number 5: This whole issue can be bypassed by creating multiple Server-to-Server OAuth apps in your Zoom account.
A Zoom employee said the following:

There is no limit to the number of server to server OAuth apps that you can have in your account.

What this means is that you can create a large number of OAuth apps to match the number of instance of your application. Each OAuth app will have their own secret info (account id, client id and client secret) and therefore requesting/refreshing access token for one app does not interfere with the tokens for the other apps. This is great but I don't know how realistic this is. Will developers really create large number of apps (10, 20, 50, etc.) and manage three secret values for each app?

[Jericho]

Observation number 6: Server-to-Server connection should accept a previously issued token.
This would be an improvement to the current connection info. ZoomNet should allow developers to instantiate a S2S connection info with a previously issued token (in addition to the necessary clientId, client secret and account id, of course). This would help in scenarios where you have multiple instances of your app and you want them to share the same token token (hence reducing the likelihood of one instance of your app requesting a new token which invalidates previously issued tokens).

This would not completely solve the problem but it's a step in the right direction.

Something along these lines:

// Notice the 'access token' parameter.
var connectionInfo = OAuthConnectionInfo.ForServerToServer(clientId, clientSecret, accountId, accessToken);

[KyMback]

Even if ZoomNet provided you a way to manually get a new token, that would not solve the problem of having to instantiate a new instance of ZoomClient

This helps to add some retry policy to refetch access token if it for some reasons isn't active

This is great but I don't know how realistic this is. Will developers really create large number of apps (10, 20, 50, etc.) and manage three secret values for each app?

I also see that this is not really scalable solution

Observation number 6: Server-to-Server connection should accept a previously issued token.

Yes it should get ability to reuse same access token between multiple instances, but still if you receive "Invalid access token" you should either create new instance of OAuthConnectionInfo to refetch access token either we can have ability to refetch access token in this cases (or do it manually). I just want to have not tricky way to create smth like "retry policy" for such cases

[Jericho]

Observation number 7: ambiguous error code when a token has been invalidated.
It's very unfortunate that Zoom returns { "code": 124, "message": Invalid access token." } when a token has been invalidated because it's the same error code when developer attempts to use an invalid token. I wish the message had been something clearer like "access token is expired", or "access token has been invalidated" or something similar.

Therefore, I can't think of a way to accurately detect when a token has been invalidated.