Add security admin scope requirement on accesses routes#104
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #104 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.31% 88.32% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 27 27
Lines 787 788 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 695 696 +1
Misses 92 92
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Thanks for the quick PR ! |
frgfm
left a comment
frgfm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR! Small question/comment about where the scope constraint of the functions should be made, but the scopes on pure routes are fine by me!
frgfm
left a comment
frgfm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, the codebase looks perfect to me now! Could you add a short unittest to test the behaviour please?
|
@jeanpasquier75 ? 🙏 |
|
Strange, I just checked, the unittests for accesses routes should fail. In the mock access table, there are only accesses with "me" scope. But the tests do pass 🤔 |
I do agree it is weird ahah, I am not really familiar with the mocking access part |
3 participants
Accesses routes were accessible without any security requirement. Added admin scope requirement to all accesses routes