Issue 48499: Use preferred SecurityPolicyManager.savePolicy() variant#178
Merged
labkey-jeckels merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom Aug 29, 2023
Merged
Issue 48499: Use preferred SecurityPolicyManager.savePolicy() variant#178labkey-jeckels merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom
labkey-jeckels merged 1 commit intodevelopfrom
Conversation
labkey-nicka
approved these changes
Aug 28, 2023
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale
We're uneven in terms of the validation and auditing we do for saving SecurityPolicies and related updates, and want to be more consistent.
Related Pull Requests
Changes
savePolicyandcreateContainermethods that don't take a user, check permissions, or log for audit purposesUser.getAdminServiceUser()forsudolike scenarios or when we're doing an operation not initiated by a user, like bootstrapping the server