lhotari commented on code in PR #23372:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23372#discussion_r1793336356
##########
pulsar-broker-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/authorization/PulsarAuthorizationProvider.java:
##########
@@ -251,6 +254,68 @@ public CompletableFuture<Void>
grantPermissionAsync(TopicName topicName, Set<Aut
});
}
+ public CompletableFuture<Void>
grantPermissionAsync(List<GrantTopicPermissionOptions> options) {
+ return getPoliciesReadOnlyAsync().thenCompose(readonly -> {
+ if (readonly) {
+ if (log.isDebugEnabled()) {
+ log.debug("Policies are read-only. Broker cannot do
read-write operations");
+ }
+ throw new IllegalStateException("policies are in readonly
mode");
+ }
+ TopicName topicName = TopicName.get(options.get(0).getTopic());
+ return pulsarResources.getNamespaceResources()
+ .setPoliciesAsync(topicName.getNamespaceObject(), policies
-> {
Review Comment:
This code seems to assume that all topics are in the same namespace. That
seems like a problematic assumption. Is there a goal to support
`GrantTopicPermissionOptions` that apply to topics that could be in different
namespaces?
Although I can see that there's a check in the different layer. The
validation should happen here again unless support for multiple namespaces is
added. The reason for this is that the caller shouldn't need to know
implementation details. If it needs to know the implementation details, it's a
leaky or broken abstraction.
##########
pulsar-broker-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/authorization/PulsarAuthorizationProvider.java:
##########
@@ -251,6 +254,68 @@ public CompletableFuture<Void>
grantPermissionAsync(TopicName topicName, Set<Aut
});
}
+ public CompletableFuture<Void>
grantPermissionAsync(List<GrantTopicPermissionOptions> options) {
+ return getPoliciesReadOnlyAsync().thenCompose(readonly -> {
+ if (readonly) {
+ if (log.isDebugEnabled()) {
+ log.debug("Policies are read-only. Broker cannot do
read-write operations");
+ }
+ throw new IllegalStateException("policies are in readonly
mode");
+ }
+ TopicName topicName = TopicName.get(options.get(0).getTopic());
+ return pulsarResources.getNamespaceResources()
+ .setPoliciesAsync(topicName.getNamespaceObject(), policies
-> {
+ options.stream().forEach(o -> {
+ final String topicUri =
TopicName.get(o.getTopic()).toString();
+ policies.auth_policies.getTopicAuthentication()
+ .computeIfAbsent(topicUri, __ -> new
HashMap<>())
+ .put(o.getRole(), o.getActions());
+ });
+ return policies;
+ }).whenComplete((__, ex) -> {
+ if (ex != null) {
+ log.error("Failed to grant permissions for {}",
options);
+ } else {
+ log.info("Successfully granted access for {}",
options);
+ }
+ });
+ });
+ }
+
+ @Override
+ public CompletableFuture<Void>
revokePermissionAsync(List<RevokeTopicPermissionOptions> options) {
+ return getPoliciesReadOnlyAsync().thenCompose(readonly -> {
+ if (readonly) {
+ if (log.isDebugEnabled()) {
+ log.debug("Policies are read-only. Broker cannot do
read-write operations");
+ }
+ throw new IllegalStateException("policies are in readonly
mode");
+ }
+ TopicName topicName = TopicName.get(options.get(0).getTopic());
+ return pulsarResources.getNamespaceResources()
+ .setPoliciesAsync(topicName.getNamespaceObject(), policies
-> {
Review Comment:
This code seems to assume that all topics are in the same namespace. Similar
comment as in the previous case.
--
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]
