## Description
> Cognito returns **Malformed URI** for redirect when User tries to
Login. Due to this, browser ends up throwing `400 Bad Request`. In order
to fix this, we have removed the padding from the `state` query
parameter which we send to the OIDC, in order to avoid the cases where
the additional `=` will lead to malformed URIs being created. Read
[here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6916805/why-does-a-base64-encoded-string-have-an-sign-at-the-end)
for Additional information on the Base64 encoding and padding.
> Also, we are changing the delimiter from `=` to `-` when server tries
to find the redirect URI for other use cases.
> Server uses `,` in order to split the state to get the `origin value`.
Now we will use `@` instead of `,`.
> TL;DR, remove `=` and `,` in order to avoid malformed URI strings.
Fixes https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/issues/19692
Media
> A video or a GIF is preferred. when using Loom, don’t embed because it
looks like it’s a GIF. instead, just link to the video
## Type of change
- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to not work as expected)
## How Has This Been Tested?
> Tested manually with different use case scenarios.
### Test Plan
> Add Testsmith test cases links that relate to this PR
### Issues raised during DP testing
> Link issues raised during DP testing for better visiblity and tracking
(copy link from comments dropped on this PR)
## Checklist:
### Dev activity
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] PR is being merged under a feature flag
### QA activity:
- [ ] Test plan has been approved by relevant developers
- [ ] Test plan has been peer reviewed by QA
- [ ] Cypress test cases have been added and approved by either SDET or
manual QA
- [ ] Organized project review call with relevant stakeholders after
Round 1/2 of QA
- [ ] Added Test Plan Approved label after reveiwing all Cypress test
Co-authored-by: Nilesh Sarupriya <20905988+nsarupr@users.noreply.github.com>
e39d6af9ef