> === modified file 'lib/lp/code/interfaces/gitrepository.py'
> --- lib/lp/code/interfaces/gitrepository.py 2016-10-05 09:54:42 +0000
> +++ lib/lp/code/interfaces/gitrepository.py 2016-10-13 12:29:37 +0000
> @@ -946,14 +951,24 @@
> return identities
> -def user_has_special_git_repository_access(user):
> +def user_has_special_git_repository_access(user, repository=None):
> """Admins have special access.
> :param user: An `IPerson` or None.
> + :param repository: An `IGitRepository` or None when checking collection
> + access.
> if user is None:
> return False
> roles = IPersonRoles(user)
> if roles.in_admin:
> return True
> - return False
> + if repository is None:
> + return False
> + code_import = repository.code_import
> + if code_import is None:
> + return False
> + return (
> + roles.in_vcs_imports
> + or (IPersonRoles(repository.owner).in_vcs_imports
> + and user.inTerm(code_import.registrant)))
Granted that the Git side at least isn't tested, and the typo you noticed. As
for why it's there, there used to be a comment about this but Curtis removed it
during the last refactoring:
# It used to be the case that all import branches were owned by the
# special, restricted team ~vcs-imports. For these legacy code import
# branches, we still want the code import registrant to be able to
# edit them. Similarly, we still want vcs-imports members to be able
# to edit those branches.
This case is tested
There are still 34 distinct registrants of vcs-imports-owned branches on
dogfood, quite a few of whom aren't privileged, so I think I should still leave
this code there for the Bazaar case. However, I'll put the comment back so
that it's less mystifying, and I'll drop this from the Git side since we have
no legacy concerns there.
Your team Launchpad code reviewers is subscribed to branch lp:launchpad.
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-reviewers
Post to : email@example.com
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-reviewers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp