-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.2k
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
Change response for Saved Objects share/unshare operations #74995
Change response for Saved Objects share/unshare operations #74995
Conversation
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.
I intentionally left the external APIs unchanged; these will still return an empty HTTP 204 result. My reasoning is that external consumers do not need this information and it would require several changes to integration tests. We only need this change to support an internal consumer (audit logging).
I was initially going to push back on this because we'd be missing the runtime guarantees that we're redacting the namespaces properly, but we do have API tests to verify that we get an empty response back at the API level.
So tl;dr LGTM!
@elasticmachine merge upstream |
@elasticmachine merge upstream |
💚 Build SucceededBuild metrics
History
To update your PR or re-run it, just comment with: |
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 for platform changes
Resolves #74989.
Overview
This makes two changes:
SavedObjectsRepository
'saddToNamespaces
/deleteFromNamespaces
methods to return an object'snamespaces
arraySecureSavedObjectsClientWrapper
to check privileges and filter (redact) any namespaces that the user is not authorized to viewI intentionally left the external APIs unchanged; these will still return an empty HTTP 204 result. My reasoning is that external consumers do not need this information and it would require several changes to integration tests. We only need this change to support an internal consumer (audit logging).