> On Oct. 28, 2014, 6:20 p.m., Lenni Kuff wrote:
> > sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/provider/db/service/thrift/SentryPolicyStoreProcessor.java,
> >  line 609
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/27290/diff/1/?file=735499#file735499line609>
> >
> >     I could see how this could grow in the future, consider splitting this 
> > out to its own function (with a comment on the purpose) so you just have:
> >     
> >     if (isBannedConfigVal(attr)) {
> >       throw ...
> >     }

I think an entirely new function is a bit of overkill... but I did address 
this, sort of, by splitting out the regexes into a "requiredPattern" and an 
"excludePattern" String.  Now we just issue two Pattern.matches(), and if the 
excludePattern grows we just make the string bigger.


- Mike


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27290/#review58842
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 28, 2014, 5:35 p.m., Mike Yoder wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/27290/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 28, 2014, 5:35 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for sentry.
> 
> 
> Repository: sentry
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> SENTRY-507 adding two more items to banned config vals in getConfigVal()
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/provider/db/service/thrift/SentryPolicyStoreProcessor.java
>  6de9992556d176aec546b93d928e33e8aa2f2ab4 
>   
> sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/provider/db/service/thrift/TestSentryServiceIntegration.java
>  23bd7653c94f6337b5cbbc927b39fc811f275482 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27290/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Unit testing; added new tests for additional items.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike Yoder
> 
>

Reply via email to