Audit authorize events #588
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
apotterri
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2018
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's just me, but I find statements like this really hard to parse. It always take me an extra look, and a moment of wondering, "do the precedence rules mean that this is going to behave correctly?" I'd have a much easier time with:
head(result ? : no_content : :not_found)
This makes it much easier to tell what's going on and to write new tests, which don't need special substitution rules.
3d83fff to
e382c3d
Compare
conjur-jenkins
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 22, 2024
Temporarily disable security scans
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes conjurinc/appliance#203
What does this pull request do?
Add authorization events.
What background context can you provide?
There is still an open question whether implicit authorization checks should generate these events. Comments welcome.