Khalid Qarryzada
Khalid Qarryzada
The SCIM specification indicates in [RFC 7644 section 3.5.2.2](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7644#section-3.5.2.2) that the `remove` patch operation does not have a "value" field. This is why the SCIM SDK doesn't allow you to...
Thanks @tony-zhang-nz. It's unfortunate that Azure also follows that model. Even though there are workarounds for this, it could be helpful for the SDK to provide some form of support...
@karianna, thanks for the guidance. We advised our client to upgrade to 11.0.12, and a few days later, they had another SIGSEGV, though it appears different: ``` # # A...
I have some preliminary changes for this issue, but they will require more testing before we can release this fix.
@egorksv, this behavior will be available in the next release of the SCIM SDK. To opt into this feature, set the following value in your code: ```java PatchOperation.APPEND_NEW_PATCH_VALUES_PROPERTY = false;...
This feature is now available in the 3.2.0 release.
This behavior was made the default in 4.0.0, so if you added the property before, it can be removed when you upgrade.
@andreim11, it's true that the `SearchRequest` model is not easily accessible once `DotSearchFilter.filter()` is invoked. Could you give some details about your use case and the problem you're trying to...
Closing due to inactivity.
Hi @tsvetelin-petrov, I agree that the SCIM SDK should not fail to deserialize responses in this case. I plan to take a look at this in the coming weeks.