Skip to content
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

[revert] "[fix][broker] Fix tenant admin authorization bug. (#20068)" #20143

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 20, 2023

Conversation

michaeljmarshall
Copy link
Member

This reverts commit fc17c1d.

Motivation

In #20068 we changed the way that the AuthorizationService is implemented. I think this approach could have unintended consequences. Instead, I think we should change the Consumer and the Producer logic to call the correct AuthorizationService method. I propose an update to the Consumer and Producer logic here #20142.

Given that our goal is to deprecate the AuthorizationService methods for canProduce and canConsume, I think we should not change their implementations.

Modifications

Verifying this change

This change is trivial. It removes certain test changes that were only made to make the previous PR work.

Documentation

  • doc-not-needed

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository: Skipping PR as I ran tests locally.

@michaeljmarshall michaeljmarshall added doc-not-needed Your PR changes do not impact docs ready-to-test area/authz labels Apr 19, 2023
@michaeljmarshall michaeljmarshall added this to the 3.1.0 milestone Apr 19, 2023
@michaeljmarshall michaeljmarshall self-assigned this Apr 19, 2023
@nodece
Copy link
Member

nodece commented Apr 19, 2023

Thank you for your point, you are right!

In #20068, I have only considered the default authorization provider, so it looks like the correct implementation. If the custom authorization provider didn't handle the TopicOperation, which introduces unintended consequences.

@michaeljmarshall michaeljmarshall merged commit 00dc7a0 into apache:master Apr 20, 2023
@michaeljmarshall michaeljmarshall deleted the revert-20068 branch April 20, 2023 05:17
@dragonls
Copy link
Contributor

dragonls commented Apr 20, 2023

After revert, the test cases modification should be added anyway. See #20151

@poorbarcode
Copy link
Contributor

poorbarcode commented May 7, 2023

poorbarcode pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 7, 2023
…#20143)

This reverts commit fc17c1d.

### Motivation

In #20068 we changed the way that the `AuthorizationService` is implemented. I think this approach could have unintended consequences. Instead, I think we should change the `Consumer` and the `Producer` logic to call the correct `AuthorizationService` method. I propose an update to the `Consumer` and `Producer` logic here #20142.

Given that our goal is to deprecate the `AuthorizationService` methods for `canProduce` and `canConsume`, I think we should not change their implementations.

### Modifications

* Revert #20068

### Verifying this change

This change is trivial. It removes certain test changes that were only made to make the previous PR work.

### Documentation

- [x] `doc-not-needed`

### Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository: Skipping PR as I ran tests locally.

(cherry picked from commit 00dc7a0)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants