-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/74493/#review225586
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- Dineshkumar Yadav


On June 28, 2023, 7:03 a.m., Rakesh Gupta wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/74493/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 28, 2023, 7:03 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for ranger, Dineshkumar Yadav, Kishor Gollapalliwar, Abhay 
> Kulkarni, Madhan Neethiraj, Mehul Parikh, Pradeep Agrawal, Ramesh Mani, 
> sanket shelar, Sailaja Polavarapu, and Velmurugan Periasamy.
> 
> 
> Bugs: RANGER-4300
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RANGER-4300
> 
> 
> Repository: ranger
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Steps to reproduce:
> Case 1 :
> Grant access request from shell command
> Revoke access twice 
> 
> Case 2 :
> Grant access to user1 from shell command
> revoke access from user2 from shell command
> 
> Case 3 :
> Ranger policy created at Group/Role access level 
> Revoke access request for user belongs to Group/Roles from shell command
> 
> Case 4 :
> Grant access to user with Table from shell command
> revoke access from user without Table from shell command
> 
> 
> Current behaviour:
> when we revoke access to user and that user don't have any specific grant 
> policy then it's throws exception
> 
> Expected behaviour:
> when we revoke access to user and that user don't have any specific grant 
> policy then that user should be added in Deny policy-item.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   security-admin/src/main/java/org/apache/ranger/rest/ServiceRESTUtil.java 
> 60e34c0c7 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/74493/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> verified that when we revoke access to user from hbase shell command, then 
> user will be added in Deny policy-item.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rakesh Gupta
> 
>

Reply via email to