RockteMQ-AI commented on code in PR #4798:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/pull/4798#discussion_r4067304801
##########
server/src/main/java/org/apache/rocketmq/studio/auth/AuthController.java:
##########
@@ -60,12 +60,28 @@ public ResponseEntity<Result<AuthStatusVO>> status(
.body(Result.ok(status));
}
+ /**
+ * Reports the policy {@link AuthInterceptor} actually enforces, and
answers exactly as it does.
+ * Both read the same static property and the same runtime "requireLogin"
row, so the failure
+ * branches have to line up too: the frontend reads this flag to choose
between the login page
+ * and the console, and a policy that fails differently in the two places
strands the console.
+ * The interceptor fails closed (see its own {@code isLoginRequired}), so
an unreadable policy
+ * still demands a login here; letting the read failure escape as a 500
instead used to leave the
+ * frontend on its error screen, where the retry could never succeed and
the login page that
+ * would in fact work was unreachable.
+ */
private boolean isLoginRequired() {
if (authProperties.isLoginRequired()) {
return true;
Review Comment:
Consider logging the exception at DEBUG level for troubleshooting:
`log.debug("Settings load failed, failing closed", exception)`. This helps
operators diagnose policy read failures without cluttering production logs.
--
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]
