Permission implication#447
Merged
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The permission currently operates on a strict equality check, either a user has a permission or not. This means every cal site needs to check if the caller has direct permission to a resource or permission to all resources of that type.
Instead the caller should only be asking "does this user have a given permission on a resource". This PR addresses this by introducing the concept of implication. A given permission can imply that the caller has another permission. Namely
This applies both to the *All permissions as well as permissions that carry a set of ids. A permission carrying a set of ideas implies access to any individual id in that set as well as any subset of that set.