-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 395
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[#2242] docs(open-api): Add the open-api for access control #4519
Conversation
@mchades Could you help me review this pull request? |
Overall LGTM.
Can you describe the steps to reproduce it? Or provide detailed error information? |
Put them into one file. [1] ../docs/open-api/user_permissions.yaml:118:5 at #/paths/ Property 116 | $ref: "./openapi.yaml#/components/responses/ServerErrorResponse" referenced from ../docs/open-api/openapi.yaml:138:5 at #/paths/ Error was generated by the spec rule. [2] ../docs/open-api/user_permissions.yaml:165:5 at #/paths/ Property 163 | $ref: "./openapi.yaml#/components/responses/ServerErrorResponse" referenced from ../docs/open-api/openapi.yaml:138:5 at #/paths/ Error was generated by the spec rule. [3] ../docs/open-api/openapi.yaml:141:5 at #/paths/ Can't resolve $ref: ENOENT: no such file or directory '/Users/roryqi/Code/gravitino/docs/open-api/users_permissions.yaml' 139 | Error was generated by the no-unresolved-refs rule. [4] ../docs/open-api/openapi.yaml:144:5 at #/paths/ Can't resolve $ref: ENOENT: no such file or directory '/Users/roryqi/Code/gravitino/docs/open-api/users_permissions.yaml' 142 | Error was generated by the no-unresolved-refs rule. |
Indentation issue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Add the open-api for access control. ### Why are the changes needed? Fix: #2242 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? By hand.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Add the open-api for access control.
Why are the changes needed?
Fix: #2242
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
By hand.