This PR changes delete behavior:
* On success, a 204 is returned rather than a 200 with an empty JSON object
* The CLI now passes through the 404 error if encountered instead of swallowing it
It also updates formatting for JSON to use the response body, which means that the item (or items) in the JSON format are actually the format across the wire, instead of being reinterpreted by unmarshaling into the Go SDK and then remarshaling.
Because of listing visibility, if no actions are assigned to a user for
an individual resource, it's excluded from the list. This is fine and
good. However, when we made a change in 0.2.0 to restrict the
information returned from listing for the anonymous user for scopes and
auth methods, it exposed the fact that because of the way this
visibility works we had to add `read` to scopes by default -- thereby
rather defeating the purpose of restricting what goes back to `u_anon`
requests.
The purpose of "no-op" is to never be used for real actions within the
API, but as something that can be granted to specifically enable
visibility for the targeted user. This makes the controls over list
visibility much more granular.
When using a disabled verifier context we were faking scope information. Due to other recent changes, this was now causing test errors. This adjusts that flow to actually query the DB, fixing tests and making them more like real code.
Current behavior is that you need list grant on the parent scope when
recursively listing, and this is sufficient. This is good for
administrative workflows but can be unintuitive for resources that only
exist at a project level. This change allows permissions on the child
scope to also be taken into account, so that you can start a recursive
list from a parent scope without direct list support on that scope but
still get back child scopes for which list access is granted.
This also fixes a bug where visibility of a scope for recursive listing
would be based on whether the user had list resources for roles within
that scope instead of for the resource type in question.
* Sessions support for read:self and cancel:self permissions. This is automatic with fallback; no API change is needed.
* Strips out values from listing if only self actions are allowed on the resource and the user ID is different. This prevents a default ACL of id=*;type=session;actions=read:self,cancel:self from causing all values to be visible when listing.
* Adds an unprivileged user to development/testing instances. This user has only default permissions plus the ability to authorize sessions in the default target.
* Remove list:self from main
As per futher discussions, we won't be supporting this, in favor of
simply read:self and cancel:self (since listing now already filters out
items on which you have no permissions).
This doesn't remove list:self entirely from the code base as much of
that will simply be converted to read:self and cancel:self -- that will
be in a later PR. However, with this removed if we want to release we
won't expose an API publicly that isn't going to stick around.
* Update deps
This also updates for the new (and required) paradigm for registering
service implementations as spelled out in
https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go/issues/3385
* Roll back dockertest
* Scopes inline version into update request body.
* Users inline version into update request body.
* Group inline version into update and add|set|remove member request body.
* Role inline version into update and add|set|remove grant|principal request body.
* Auth method inline version into update request body.
* Auth Account inline version into update request body.
* host catalog version is inlined for update.
* Gen after merge.
* Submitting template changes for version handling.
* Change auth validity feedback
Move from a bool indicating validity to lack of an error. This allows
the error to be directly returned and typed.
* Fix erroneous line
Don't rely on token for scopes collection actions
This requires `scope_id` to be passed (via query param) for actions on
the scopes collection; that is, listing or creating. However, it removes
the dependency on using the token for the scope of the command. For
actions on a specific scope, we use the given ID to determine the scope
we should be operating at, doing a lookup if necessary.
Existing tests have been updated. Of particular note, the CORS test was
already operating on the scopes collection so served as a good test to
ensure that from an API level the scope_id parameter was being parsed
and passed through (the tests fail without adding that query parameter
in).
Jeff Mitchell
s-christoff
Lars Lehtonen