Edit history

Earlier versions of Applications OAuth2 Scope, newest first.

Current version | Edited by Rex
Changes
Introduce a new applications OAuth2 scope that, when granted, allows the requesting service to read basic details about the applications owned by the authenticating user. This would include fields such as the application ID, name, avatar, and description. No sensitive fields like the bot token should ever be exposedRemoved: ### Notes (optional)Removed: Removed: _No response_Removed: Removed: ### ChecksRemoved: Removed: - ☑ I searched for existing discussions and didn't find a duplicate.Removed:
Show

Applications OAuth2 Scope

Problem

Currently there is no way for third party services to request access to a user's applications via OAuth2. This makes it difficult to build tools or platforms that need to verify bot ownership or display information about bots a user owns without requiring them to manually provide their bot's ID or token

Proposed solution

Introduce a new applications OAuth2 scope that, when granted, allows the requesting service to read basic details about the applications owned by the authenticating user. This would include fields such as the application ID, name, avatar, and description. No sensitive fields like the bot token should ever be exposed
Original by bizo
Show

Applications OAuth2 Scope

Problem

Currently there is no way for third party services to request access to a user's applications via OAuth2. This makes it difficult to build tools or platforms that need to verify bot ownership or display information about bots a user owns without requiring them to manually provide their bot's ID or token

Proposed solution

Introduce a new applications OAuth2 scope that, when granted, allows the requesting service to read basic details about the applications owned by the authenticating user. This would include fields such as the application ID, name, avatar, and description. No sensitive fields like the bot token should ever be exposed

Notes (optional)

No response

Checks

  • ☑ I searched for existing discussions and didn't find a duplicate.