I'm making requests against the Instagram API from a mobile app. Currently, I'm just directing the user to the Instagram auth url and specifying the response type to be "access_token". Specifying this response_type is known as implicit auth.
Explicit auth: response_type=code
Implicit auth: response_type=access_token
I'm trying to get around needing to stand up a web service to facilitate explicit auth. This would be necessary because in explicit auth flow, the Instagram API needs to make a call to a redirect URL and pass in a "code" parameter. The code would then be used by my server-side code to make a final request to Instagram for an access token.
It's much more efficient for a mobile app to use implicit flow because no extra privately-maintained auth service needs to be stood up to handle it.
Instagram supports the following scopes:
- basic - to read any and all data related to a user (e.g.
following/followed-by lists, photos, etc.) (granted by default)
- comments - to create or delete comments on a user’s behalf
- relationships - to follow and unfollow users on a user’s behalf
- likes - to like and unlike items on a user’s behalf
When I make any other type of scope specification besides "basic", I get the following response when the user provides the credentials at the auth URL:
{"code": 400, "error_type": "OAuthException", "error_message": "Invalid scope field(s): basic+likes"}
Any combination of scopes other than "basic" gives the same response.
So, my question are these:
- Is explicit auth required in order to specify scopes beyond "basic"??
- Do I need to specify response_type=code in order for extended scopes to work?
- Is this an Instagram limitation, or is it a limitation of OAuth 2.0?
Thanks in advance.
See Question&Answers more detail:
os 与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…