-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
HBASE-28391 Remove the need for ADMIN permissions for listDecommissionedRegionServers #5695
Conversation
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
@@ -1203,12 +1203,6 @@ public void preDecommissionRegionServers(ObserverContext<MasterCoprocessorEnviro | |||
requirePermission(ctx, "decommissionRegionServers", Action.ADMIN); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
@Override |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO we should not drop the method. If we want to allow every user to be able to be able to do so, we should have a no-op method and capture same as comments.
Although I am curious why only this change when we have other methods around listing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Although I am curious why only this change when we have other methods around listing?
Just saw the JIRA description.
Also, please have a look at @Apache9 comment to change this to Action.READ
. And also to start a discussion thread on dev list about this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated to Action.READ. However I am curious to know the difference between removing this method vs having a no-op method?
And also to start a discussion thread on dev list about this.
Created a thread here. https://lists.apache.org/thread/vcf50plmsx59yh4fyvsfpo7xht4rbhz8
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
However I am curious to know the difference between removing this method vs having a no-op method?
IMO removing a method may send a false impression to a future auditor that there is no Access Rule defined for the method or it is somehow missing. And the person may end up re-adding the method. So it's better to have it, even if no-op.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Makes sense !!
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, given no objections are raised in mailing list.
No description provided.