-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/73920/#review224226
-----------------------------------------------------------




agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerDefaultDataMaskPolicyItemEvaluator.java
Line 48 (original), 48 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/73920/#comment313115>

    This condition is in fact not needed. Earlier commit in RANGER-2086 added 
"result.getMaskType() == null" - which is to be removed. I will update the 
patch shortly.



agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerDefaultDataMaskPolicyItemEvaluator.java
Lines 52 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/73920/#comment313114>

    This is done to stop further evaluation of policies. I will change this to 
result.isAccessDetermined(true).


- Madhan Neethiraj


On March 29, 2022, 10:54 p.m., Madhan Neethiraj wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/73920/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 29, 2022, 10:54 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for ranger, Ankita Sinha, Kishor Gollapalliwar, Abhay 
> Kulkarni, Mehul Parikh, Pradeep Agrawal, Ramesh Mani, and Sailaja Polavarapu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: RANGER-3688
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-3688
> 
> 
> Repository: ranger
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> updated masking policy evaluation to enable policies with override priority 
> to override decision made by normal priority policy
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> agents-common/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/plugin/policyevaluator/RangerDefaultDataMaskPolicyItemEvaluator.java
>  558212471 
>   
> agents-common/src/test/resources/policyengine/test_policyengine_tag_hive_mask.json
>  a97bd2b77 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/73920/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> - updated unit tests for this use case
> - verified that all existing unit tests pass successfully
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Madhan Neethiraj
> 
>

Reply via email to