KeycloakResourceBuilderExtensions.WithRealmImport is unnecessarily constraining the bind to a directory

[paulomorgado]

Background and Motivation

KeycloakResourceBuilderExtensions.WithRealmImport is unnecessarily constraining the bind to a single directory, constraining the user choices.

Proposed API

Consider something like this, instead:

    public static IResourceBuilder<KeycloakResource> WithRealmImport(
        this IResourceBuilder<KeycloakResource> builder,
        string import,
        bool isReadOnly = false)
    {
        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(importDirectory);

        if (Directory.Exists(import))
        {
            builder.WithBindMount(import, "/opt/keycloak/data/import", isReadOnly);
        }
        else
        {
            var fileName = Path.GetFileName(import);

            builder.WithBindMount(import, $"/opt/keycloak/data/import/{fileName}", isReadOnly);
        }

        return builder;
    }

Do not test if the source file or directory exists, because the user might create them later.

Usage Examples

var keycloak = builder.AddKeycloak(...);
// ...
keycloak.WithRealmImport(<path to file>);
// ...
keycloak.WithRealmImport(<path to another file>);

[eerhardt]

@julioct @DamianEdwards - any thoughts on this?

[paulomorgado]

The user might want to bind a single file at a time or the whole directory.

[DamianEdwards]

Seems fine at first glance. I admit I've only used this pattern in containers by binding whole directories so far (it's a similar pattern to how many of the DB container support init SQL files).

What happens if a user calls it with a directory first, and then with a file? Does the right thing just happen?

[paulomorgado]

Not any different than what happened with a container resource bind.

I have an Aspire host where I, by host configuration, use local or remote identity providers. To avoid load unused realms, I conditionally load realms by conditionally binding to the realm configuration files.

[DamianEdwards]

So this ends up being a tweak to the existing API and shouldn't be a compatibility issue AFAICT. @paulomorgado feel free to send a PR for this change and we can review there.

[paulomorgado]

@DamianEdwards, PR #7121 created!