Skip to content
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

Revert module name to legacy value and set IS_IN_PDP to false for JDBC policy addOrUpdate flow #5865

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 15, 2024

Conversation

Yoshani
Copy link
Contributor

@Yoshani Yoshani commented Aug 15, 2024

Proposed changes in this pull request

  • Revert the module name to legacy value of Registry Policy Finder Module
  • Set IS_IN_PDP to false for JDBC policy addOrUpdate flow since it only does PAP inserts

Related issues

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
  • Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

@Yoshani Yoshani changed the title Revert module name to legacy value and set IS_IN_PAP to true for JDBC policy addOrUpdate flow Revert module name to legacy value and set IS_IN_PDP to false for JDBC policy addOrUpdate flow Aug 15, 2024
@@ -842,7 +843,7 @@ private void insertPolicy(Connection connection, PolicyDTO policy, int tenantId)

createPolicyPrepStmt.setString(POLICY_ID, policy.getPolicyId());
createPolicyPrepStmt.setInt(VERSION, Integer.parseInt(policy.getVersion()));
createPolicyPrepStmt.setBoolean(IS_IN_PDP, policy.isPromote());
createPolicyPrepStmt.setBoolean(IS_IN_PDP, !IN_PDP);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this intentional?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, refer #5844 (comment)

@Yoshani Yoshani merged commit 771d330 into wso2:feature-remove-registry-xacml Aug 15, 2024
1 check passed
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