additional unit tests for jwts signing key resolver class

[havetisyan]

Description

additional tests to increase code coverage

Contribution Checklist:

• The pull request does not introduce any breaking changes
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• Create an issue and link to the pull request.

Attach Screenshots (Optional)

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @havetisyan, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly enhances the test suite for the JwtsSigningKeyResolver class by introducing comprehensive unit tests. The new tests focus on edge cases and error handling, specifically addressing how the resolver behaves when encountering unsupported key types, malformed RSA and EC key data within JWKS, and exceptions originating from the key source. This ensures greater stability and reliability in JWT signature verification by validating the resolver's ability to gracefully handle various invalid or unexpected key configurations.

Highlights

• Enhanced Test Coverage: New unit tests have been added to the JwtsSigningKeyResolver class to improve code coverage and robustness.
• Unsupported Key Type Handling: Tests now verify that the resolver gracefully handles JWKS files containing unsupported key types, ensuring getPublicKey returns null as expected.
• Malformed Key Handling: Additional tests cover scenarios where JWKS files contain malformed RSA or EC keys, confirming that the resolver can identify and handle these invalid key structures without crashing.
• Key Source Exception Handling: The getPublicKey method is now tested for resilience against various KeySourceException scenarios, including when the underlying key source returns null, an empty list, or throws an exception.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds several unit tests for the JwtsSigningKeyResolver class to improve code coverage, specifically for handling various failure scenarios in the getPublicKey method. The new tests cover cases with unsupported key types, malformed keys, and issues with the key source. The changes are good and improve test coverage as intended. I have one suggestion to improve the maintainability and clarity of one of the new tests by splitting it into more focused, single-purpose tests.