#5301 sensitive fields acl

[awgeorge]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5334 into master will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 97.61%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5334      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.89%   93.96%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         123      127       +4     
  Lines        8972     9091     +119     
==========================================
+ Hits         8424     8542     +118     
- Misses        548      549       +1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Options/index.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
src/Options/Definitions.js	100% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
...rc/Adapters/Storage/Mongo/MongoSchemaCollection.js	95.34% <ø> (+0.05%)	⬆️
...dapters/Storage/Postgres/PostgresStorageAdapter.js	97% <ø> (-0.08%)	⬇️
src/Controllers/DatabaseController.js	95.09% <100%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
src/RestQuery.js	96.09% <100%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
src/Controllers/SchemaController.js	96.39% <100%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
src/ParseServer.js	96.32% <91.66%> (-0.43%)	⬇️
src/requiredParameter.js	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
... and 58 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 78eb3df...7c57ffa. Read the comment docs.

[awgeorge]

Closes: #5301

[flovilmart]

Nice one! I’ll review shortly!

_{Sent with GitHawk}

[milesrichardson]

This is a good PR and oddly timely given what I'm working on. :P Thanks! Hope it gets merged. Now I've just gotta upgrade to parse 3...

[oallouch]

magnifique !

[flovilmart]

@acinader @dplewis can you give a review to this one? I believe the community is aching for those features.

[acinader]

yes, I will.

[acinader]

@awgeorge this is really nice. Thanks!

I found a typo or two.

It would be nice to add a ProtectedFields.spec to exercise this feature on non-user objects, which has the added benefit of being some documentation.

I think that protectedFields can be set not only in a CLP, but also in an objects ACL (even though the sdk's don't support yet). If so, this would be good to exercise in a protectedFields spec?

I know it has been a while since you first submitted. Is adding a spec something you can bite off? If not, I can give it a try...

would be good to get the docs updated to include this too, but I don't see that ads a merge dependency.

[awgeorge]

@acinader Thanks for reviewing, I should be able to sort those specs out, but I won't be able to get to it for a little while. Maybe if someone in the community who wanted this feature could lend a hand with the last tests that would be amazing. I'll pick it back up when my storm blows over if the work is still outstanding.

[acinader]

@awgeorge there's a few failing tests for pii now. hope it wasn't one of my suggestions :0.

we don't need to wait for the tests i'm asking for to merge this into master and I can try my hand at it but not until next week.

if someone can take a look at the failed test, otherwise I'll try to later.