lizhimins commented on PR #6015: URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/pull/6015#issuecomment-6120358811
Thanks — this is merged, as part of [`d2f0f762c`](https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/commit/d2f0f762cc8e503fe314168e7cb79ef6bf40fab1) on `rocketmq-studio`. Your change went in together with #6011 and #6013 — all yours, all in the same area — so we folded them into a single commit instead of landing several near-identical entries for the same subsystem. Nothing was dropped. The commit message calls this one out explicitly: > #6015 `MybatisPlusAclRepository.createAndUpdatePlainAccessConfig` always executes `entity.setUsername(config.getAccessKey())` at `:257` and then a bare `userMapper.updateById(entity)` at `:270`, so when a stored row's username had been renamed away from its access key (`replaceUser` supports renaming, `:164-176`) and another row already owned `username = accessKey`, the `uk_username` violation escaped as a 500 "Internal Server Error" and the `@Transactional` method (`:235-236`) rolled back the permission rows it had already written → that update is wrapped in `catch (DuplicateKeyException)` and rethrown as `aclUserConflict(config.getAccessKey())`, the existing `BusinessException(409, "ACL user already exists: …")` helper at `:200-202` that the insert branch here (`:276-282`) and both `saveUser`/`replaceUser` paths already use; the `DuplicateKeyException` import is already present, and `ruleMapper` writes never touch `uk_username`. Closing as folded, not rejected. -- 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]
