-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 555
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
XWIKI-22683: Move org.xwiki.security.authorization.DefaultAuthorizationManager to internal package #3791
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
XWIKI-22683: Move org.xwiki.security.authorization.DefaultAuthorizationManager to internal package #3791
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ public class Right implements RightDescription, Serializable, Comparable<Right> | |
* @param impliedByRights the already existing rights that imply this new right. | ||
* @since 12.6 | ||
*/ | ||
Right(RightDescription description, Set<Right> impliedByRights) | ||
public Right(RightDescription description, Set<Right> impliedByRights) | ||
{ | ||
this(description.getName(), description.getDefaultState(), description.getTieResolutionPolicy(), | ||
description.getInheritanceOverridePolicy(), | ||
|
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ public static List<Right> getStandardRights() | |
* | ||
* @since 13.5RC1 | ||
*/ | ||
void unregister() | ||
public void unregister() | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Shouldn't this be marked as Further, from what I can see, this would be the only method on There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Actually, I just found out that it is already possible to access There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for checking it, I agree it's probably not a good idea. But I'm not yet sure how to avoid this, creating a SecuredRight wrapper doesn't feel like the right way here. |
||
{ | ||
Set<EntityType> entityTypes = this.getTargetedEntityType(); | ||
synchronized (VALUES) { | ||
|
@@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ public int compareTo(Right other) | |
* @param description a right description to compare this right to. | ||
* @return true if the right is equivalent to the provided description. | ||
*/ | ||
boolean like(RightDescription description) | ||
public boolean like(RightDescription description) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As for the other methods, I think this method should be marked as |
||
{ | ||
return new EqualsBuilder() | ||
.append(this.isReadOnly(), description.isReadOnly()) | ||
|
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.
This change is in contradiction to the documentation of the method. Either, this method must be kept package-private or the documentation must be changed. To me, making this constructor public seems like a very important API change.
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.
Interesting, I'm starting to wonder if the component implem wasn't public just because of this... I'm not a big fan of making this public but I'm not sure how to avoid it.