Corrected scopes for impersonation tokens (#374) #375
Merged
Conversation
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
gmessner
reviewed
Jun 7, 2019
Collaborator
|
@PhilippeVienne Have you had a different result? For now, I'm going to rollback the change (but leave the modified test) and get ready for the release. Let me know if you have different results than I do. |
Contributor
Author
|
I had a different result by using only read registry.
One solution, is the user impersonated an admin ? If not then the sudo
scope should logically fail.
Le ven. 7 juin 2019 à 22:33, Greg Messner <notifications@github.com> a
écrit :
… @PhilippeVienne <https://github.com/PhilippeVienne>
The testCreateImpersonationToken() test actually fails if any scope other
than API or READ_USER is used for the scope. This has been tested on
GitLab CE 11.10.4 and 11.11.2 with the same results. So it appears that the
API documentation is correctly specifying only api and read_user. I get
the following error:
org.gitlab4j.api.GitLabApiException: The following fields have validation errors: scopes
at org.gitlab4j.api.AbstractApi.validate(AbstractApi.java:593)
at org.gitlab4j.api.AbstractApi.post(AbstractApi.java:264)
at org.gitlab4j.api.UserApi.createImpersonationToken(UserApi.java:824)
at org.gitlab4j.api.TestUserApi.testCreateImpersonationToken(TestUserApi.java:227)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:26)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:26)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:89)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:41)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:541)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:763)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:463)
at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:209)
Have you had a different result?
For now, I'm going to rollback the change (but leave the modified test)
and get ready for the release. Let me know if you have different results
than I do.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#375?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAPF45SGCT2AXGL4R3CHPRTPZLAYXA5CNFSM4HVXQKNKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXG5ONI#issuecomment-500029237>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAPF45WGIY4DGWWORVIZSKDPZLAYXANCNFSM4HVXQKNA>
.
|
Collaborator
|
@PhilippeVienne Actually, it is only I will remove |
Contributor
Author
|
Oh maybe is it because registry is not enabled on gitlab container
Le ven. 7 juin 2019 à 22:56, Greg Messner <notifications@github.com> a
écrit :
… @PhilippeVienne <https://github.com/PhilippeVienne>
The test user is an admin user.
Actually, it is only READ_REGISTRY that causing the failure, and I would
assume that is because the registry is NOT configured in the GitLab server that
is being spun up in the Docker container.
I will remove READ_REGISTRY from the test and leave the other scopes in
place.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#375?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAPF45TWNMQCW6QZDGGODI3PZLDOLA5CNFSM4HVXQKNKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXG7CKQ#issuecomment-500035882>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAPF45S2G63K77UB3T7VXHTPZLDOLANCNFSM4HVXQKNA>
.
|
Collaborator
|
@PhilippeVienne |
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.
See issue #374 for details