Issue 2550700
Created on 2011-04-18 20:16 by elic, last changed 2024-07-16 23:13 by rouilj.
msg4300 |
Author: [hidden] (elic) |
Date: 2011-04-18 20:16 |
|
Attached is a patch which makes some (hopefully) minor changes to the
security system:
It adds a 'klass_check' flag to the Permission constructor. When this
flag is set, Permission.test() will call the check function even if
itemid is None, allowing check functions to be used for permissions that
don't have itemid set. It defaults to False, so the default behavior
should be exactly the same.
This patch also changes Permission.searchable() so that it *will* honor
check functions, but only if klass_check is set to True - as it is only
in this case that it makes sense for searchable to honor them. This
allows View+Issue to have a check function, and nevertheless operate in a
manner compatible with Security.filterSortspec(). By default, klass_check
is False for new Permissions, so searchable() will still return False if
a check function is present, preserving it's default behavior.
Allowing Permission.searchable() to call a check function required
altering it's call signature to pass in db & userid. This also required
altering Security.roleHasSearchPermission() to take in a userid, in order
to pass it to searchable(). This last bit might break compatibility with
existing deployments, if trackers are using roleHasSearchPermission
directly. Other than that, this patch shouldn't affect the current
behavior.
|
msg4347 |
Author: [hidden] (schlatterbeck) |
Date: 2011-07-15 14:23 |
|
Interesting. Could you document on the wiki how you're using this?
BTW: The attached patch seems to be reversed.
|
msg5588 |
Author: [hidden] (rouilj) |
Date: 2016-06-11 01:35 |
|
Hello Mr. Collins:
Did you ever document this on the wiki?
Do you have a description of how you are using this that can go there or
in this ticket?
|
msg5712 |
Author: [hidden] (rouilj) |
Date: 2016-07-02 19:45 |
|
Ralf:
Do you think this patch should be merged or should we mark it abandoned?
In it's current state it looks like we need to write:
test_security tests to cover it
where should doc for this go? customizing.txt??
Also it looks like the patch is inverted.
-- rouilj
|
msg8106 |
Author: [hidden] (rouilj) |
Date: 2024-07-16 23:13 |
|
Closing as abandoned.
|
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2024-07-16 23:13:26 | rouilj | set | status: open -> closed resolution: abandoned messages:
+ msg8106 |
2016-07-02 19:45:10 | rouilj | set | messages:
+ msg5712 |
2016-06-11 01:35:57 | rouilj | set | type: rfe messages:
+ msg5588 nosy:
+ rouilj |
2011-07-15 14:23:50 | schlatterbeck | set | status: new -> open assignee: schlatterbeck messages:
+ msg4347 nosy:
+ schlatterbeck |
2011-04-18 20:16:31 | elic | create | |
|