michaeljmarshall commented on code in PR #17393:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17393#discussion_r961295279
##########
pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/admin/impl/PersistentTopicsBase.java:
##########
@@ -354,8 +354,12 @@ private CompletableFuture<Void>
revokePermissionsAsync(String topicUri, String r
||
!policies.auth_policies.getTopicAuthentication().get(topicUri).containsKey(role))
{
log.warn("[{}] Failed to revoke permission from role
{} on topic: Not set at topic level {}",
clientAppId(), role, topicUri);
- return FutureUtil.failedFuture(new
RestException(Status.PRECONDITION_FAILED,
- "Permissions are not set at the topic level"));
+ if (force) {
Review Comment:
Sure, it's worth discussing if we should fail a `DELETE` request for
something that is already deleted. Do we have a common pattern in Pulsar
already for this design choice? My preference is to be consistent with the rest
of the API.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
