Github user kevdoran commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi-registry/pull/99#discussion_r167076913
--- Diff:
nifi-registry-web-api/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/registry/web/api/AccessPolicyResource.java
---
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ public Response getAccessPolicy(
final AccessPolicy accessPolicy =
authorizationService.getAccessPolicy(identifier);
if (accessPolicy == null) {
- throw new ResourceNotFoundException("No access policy found
with ID + " + identifier);
+ throw new ResourceNotFoundException("The specified access
policy does not exist for this bucket.");
--- End diff --
I'm on board with the spirit of this change: removing cryptic UUIDs from
the UX error messages, while still providing enough context to be
useful/meaningful to the user. In general these changes look fine.
In this particular case, however, I think the wording of this message
assumes too much regarding "... does not exist _for this bucket_". Access
policies on the backend are generic to all types of resources, not just
buckets. So for instance, one could be attempting to add a user to the access
policy for the Proxy Resource, or the Tenants (users and groups) Resource. In
such a case, it would be confusing to receive an error message referencing
buckets.
I think we need use a more generic error message that is suitable for all
cases (REST API or UI).
---
