本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

okta-tests

Authors tests against Okta - uses org-isolation strategy (per-PR org via Okta Developer Edition vs shared org with namespaced data); tests sign-in policy + MFA enforcement; exercises Okta Identity Engine (OIE) workflows including factor enrollment, recovery flows, and SCIM provisioning; tests scoped API tokens for least-privilege automation. Use when the user works with Okta as IdP and needs unit / integration tests for org config, sign-in policies, or OIE workflows.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qaスター 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)
連携ツールTerraform

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md7.7 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json598 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

okta-tests

Overview

The current Okta platform (Okta Identity Engine, OIE) replaces the older Okta Classic engine; tests target OIE for new orgs.

Tests against an Okta org fall into four layers:

  1. Org-level config - apps, users, groups, sign-in policies; tested via Okta API or Terraform Okta provider for env parity.
  2. Auth flow - exercise OIDC endpoints from the application.
  3. Sign-in policy + MFA - verify enforcement of factor requirements per app + per user-group.
  4. OIE workflows - factor enrollment, recovery flows, SCIM provisioning.

When to use

  • The repo uses Okta as IdP (often enterprise or B2B SaaS).
  • The team has multiple Okta orgs (dev / staging / prod) needing config parity.
  • Sign-in policies (per-app MFA, IP restrictions, device trust) need integration coverage.
  • SCIM provisioning hooks need verification.

Step 1 - Org strategy

PatternProsCons
Per-PR Okta Developer Edition org (free tier)Isolated; safe destructive testsSpin-up time + manual approval to create new orgs
Shared dev org + namespaced fixtures (pr-123-* user prefixes)Cheap; no spin-upCleanup discipline required
Mocked OIDC serverNo Okta dep; fastMisses Okta-specific behavior

For new flows, prefer per-PR org; for app-side flow tests on a stable Okta config, mocked OIDC is fine (cross-ref Auth0 Step 7).

Step 2 - Org config parity

Manage org config as code:

  • Terraform Okta provider (okta/okta) for declarative config-as-code
  • Okta CLI (okta) for ad-hoc operations
  • Direct REST API for custom automation

Test config drift by re-running terraform plan against the live org and asserting no drift:

terraform init
terraform plan -detailed-exitcode  # exit 2 if drift; 0 if no drift

Source: registry.terraform.io/providers/okta/okta and developer.okta.com/docs.

Step 3 - Test the OIDC token endpoint

Okta's token endpoint:

https://{your-org-domain}/oauth2/{authorization-server-id}/v1/token

The default authorization server is oauth2/default; custom auth servers are common in B2B for tenant-specific scopes.

import requests

def test_client_credentials_grant(okta_domain, auth_server_id, client_id, client_secret):
    response = requests.post(
        f"https://{okta_domain}/oauth2/{auth_server_id}/v1/token",
        auth=(client_id, client_secret),
        data={"grant_type": "client_credentials", "scope": "api:read"},
    )
    assert response.status_code == 200
    body = response.json()
    assert "access_token" in body
    assert "expires_in" in body

Source: developer.okta.com/docs/reference/api/oidc/.

Step 4 - Test sign-in policies

Sign-in policies in Okta enforce per-app MFA, IP restrictions, and device trust. The policy itself is org-config (Step 2); tests verify enforcement at runtime:

def test_signin_policy_requires_mfa_for_admin_app(okta_session_for_admin_user):
    # Initiate auth code flow
    response = okta_session_for_admin_user.get(
        f"https://{okta_domain}/oauth2/{auth_server_id}/v1/authorize",
        params={
            "client_id": admin_client_id,
            "response_type": "code",
            "redirect_uri": redirect_uri,
            "scope": "openid profile",
            "state": "test",
        },
    )
    # Should redirect to MFA enrollment / challenge per sign-in policy:
    assert response.status_code == 302
    assert "mfa" in response.headers["Location"].lower()

(Exact verification depends on the policy + factor setup; consult developer.okta.com/docs.)

Step 5 - Test OIE factor enrollment

Okta Identity Engine has a well-defined factor enrollment flow. Test pattern: drive the flow via Playwright (Universal-Login style) or via the OIE REST API directly. The Okta Auth JS SDK (@okta/okta-auth-js) ships idiomatic helpers for OIE flows; unit-test against the SDK's mock mode.

Source: developer.okta.com/docs/guides/authentication-flows/.

Step 6 - Test SCIM provisioning

For B2B SaaS that integrates with customer Okta orgs via SCIM:

def test_scim_user_provisioning_creates_user_in_app(scim_test_client):
    response = scim_test_client.post(
        "/scim/v2/Users",
        json={
            "schemas": ["urn:ietf:params:scim:schemas:core:2.0:User"],
            "userName": "alice@example.com",
            "name": {"givenName": "Alice", "familyName": "Smith"},
            "emails": [{"value": "alice@example.com", "primary": True}],
            "active": True,
        },
        headers={"Authorization": "Bearer scim-token"},
    )
    assert response.status_code == 201
    body = response.json()
    assert "id" in body
    assert body["userName"] == "alice@example.com"

For SCIM compliance verification, Okta provides a SCIM tester at developer.okta.com/standards/SCIM/.

Step 7 - Scoped API tokens

For tests that call Okta admin APIs, use scoped tokens (limited to specific scopes via OAuth 2.0 client credentials), not super-admin SSWS tokens:

def test_with_scoped_token():
    # Pre-test: get a scoped token via client_credentials with limited scopes
    token = get_admin_token(scopes=["okta.users.read"])
    # Now use this token for the test - it can read users but NOT modify
    ...

Source: developer.okta.com/docs/guides/implement-oauth-for-okta/.

Step 8 - CI integration

- run: terraform init
- run: terraform plan -detailed-exitcode    # config drift check
- run: pytest tests/integration/okta/ -v

For per-PR org provisioning, automation requires Okta partner-tier access; most teams use shared dev orgs (Step 1).

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Use SSWS super-admin tokens in testsToken leak compromises entire orgScoped client-credentials tokens (Step 7)
Skip config-drift checkManual dashboard changes never reach prodTerraform plan in CI (Step 8)
Hardcode authorization-server ID defaultMost B2B uses custom auth servers per tenantPass via env var
Test with Okta Classic engine patterns on OIE orgClassic API ≠ OIE API; tests failVerify org engine type before authoring tests
Use shared user accounts across testsTest interference (e.g., failed-login lockout)Per-test user namespace

Limitations

  • Okta Developer Edition (free tier) has rate limits - large test suites may hit them.
  • Shared dev orgs have inherent test interference; cleanup hooks are mandatory.
  • OIE migration from Okta Classic has different APIs; test patterns diverge.
  • SCIM compliance details vary by Okta connector configuration; verify against Okta's SCIM tester for production use.
  • Performance tests of Okta require explicit Okta approval (per Okta ToS).

References

  • developer.okta.com/docs - Okta Developer documentation
  • developer.okta.com/docs/reference/api/oidc/ - OIDC API reference
  • developer.okta.com/docs/guides/authentication-flows/ - flow guides
  • developer.okta.com/standards/SCIM/ - SCIM 2.0 reference + tester
  • registry.terraform.io/providers/okta/okta - Terraform Okta provider
  • IETF RFC 6749 / 7636 / 9700 - OAuth 2.0 + PKCE + Security BCP
  • keycloak-tests, auth0-tests - sister IdP tools
  • oauth-flow-test-author, session-management-test-author - build-an-X authors

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

testland のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する