Skip to content

V1.4.1 - #161

Closed
manishagele wants to merge 3 commits into
gitblit-org:masterfrom
manishagele:v1.4.1
Closed

V1.4.1#161
manishagele wants to merge 3 commits into
gitblit-org:masterfrom
manishagele:v1.4.1

Conversation

@manishagele

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Please commit this to the main branch. This has the modified RPCUtils implementation for gitblit along with the test.

@gitblit

gitblit commented Mar 21, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Hi Manisha,

Thanks for proposing this pull request. I'll wait for you to add the remainder of the code (e.g. server changes) and to finish the unit tests before I review.

Thanks,
James

@manishagele

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi James,

Thanks for pointing out. I have missed adding the server changes to the PR. Added it now.
Also I think I have put everything related to the unit test also.

Please let me know, if anything is needed.
Thanks,
Manisha

@gitblit

gitblit commented Mar 25, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I still don't like the composite class. I think sending the repository name as a the name parameter would be sufficient. That leaves the UserModel. The way you've designed this, the fork RPC can only be executed by an administrator and the administrator must supply the target user. This feels backwards. I expect that users will want to create their own fork and not have to rely on an administrator to do this for them - that fits in with the permissions model too. Unit tests. I think these must have missed the "git add" step.

@manishagele

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi James,

Need a bit of a clarification here.
As per the backend implementation, the gitblitmanager.fork method needs both RepoModel and the UserModel as arguments. So in that case, don't we need to pass both UserModel and RepoModel?
I have tried this and even for the non admin users, could create forks.

@gitblit

gitblit commented Apr 3, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

The fork method UserModel argument should be the UserModel who authenticated for the request. I shouldn't be able to authenticate and create a fork for your account. As for non-admins successfully forking, I'll have to review the security more carefully.

@manishagele

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Hi James,
When will this be merged to the trunk?
Has the security being reviewed?
Thanks
Manisha

@gitblit

gitblit commented May 5, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

I'll get some variation of this merged for the next major release. I'm looking at around June 1 for release - so, somewhere in the next 30 days.

@manishagele

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Ok. Great.
So I guess what you meant by "a variation" is, a method call without UserModel argument?

@gitblit

gitblit commented May 7, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Yes. And I still think there is an issue with non-admins being able to fork. They should be able to, but I haven't tested that with your code. There is a subtle implied permission in the ordering of the requests enum.

@gitblit

gitblit commented May 8, 2014

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

This has been revised and merged into develop.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants