US77579: Created an interface that connectors should implement to get… #88
Conversation
| import java.util.Set; | ||
|
|
||
| public interface AttributeStore { | ||
| Set<Attribute> getAttributes(String identifier); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extend this interface to DefaultAttributeStore with method Set getAttributesByCriteria(String identifier, Set criteria)
| .thenReturn(subject); | ||
| Set<String> criteria = Collections.singleton("someCriteria"); | ||
| this.defaultSubjectAttributeStore.getAttributesByCriteria(subject.getSubjectIdentifier(), criteria); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This expectedException would change with the new DefaultAttributeStore interface. See above comment
| private PolicyEvaluationCacheCircuitBreaker cache; | ||
|
|
||
| @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") | ||
| @Test(enabled = true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why explicitly enable the test?
| testSubject.setSubjectIdentifier("/test/subject"); | ||
|
|
||
| Set<Attribute> supplementalSubjectAttributes = new HashSet<>(); | ||
| supplementalSubjectAttributes.add(new Attribute("https://acs.attributes.int", "site", "sanramon")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like this test isn't asserting anything nor expecting any exceptions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@FrankGasparovic , this test is asserting that if subject doesn't have any attributes but supplemental attributes are passed in, then supplemental attributes are returned by the attribute resolver.
|
|
||
| public interface AttributeStore { | ||
| Set<Attribute> getAttributes(String identifier); | ||
| Set<Attribute> getAttributesByCriteria(String identifier, Set<?> criteria); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- getting subject attributes by 'scope' has a specific meaning, so i suggest we keep that naming.
getAttributesByScope(String identified, Set<Attribute> scopes). - keep the criteria to a specific type (
Set<Attribute>) and name(scopes) as well. When we have another usecase, we can add a new method for it. - also raises the question if we should have 2 separate interfaces at this level for Subject and Resource - the underlying implementation can still be shared.
|
|
||
| import java.util.Set; | ||
|
|
||
| public interface AttributeStore { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe use a name which implies that is is read-only. AttributeReader or similar ?
| this.privilegeService = privilegeService; | ||
| public ResourceAttributeResolver(final AttributeStore resourceAttributeStore, | ||
| final String requestResourceUri, | ||
| final Set<Attribute> supplementalResourceAttributes) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this format is better, though is not per our current project settings. pls re-concile
| MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pls add a test for existing resource as well. (and subject for DefaultSubject store)
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testGetAttributesByCriteriaForNonExistentSubject() throws Exception { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for all criteria related test, isn't it sufficient to test that DefaultSubjectAttributeStore calls the corresponding call on the PrivilegeManagementService with the appropriate criteria/scopes ?
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| public void testGetSubjectAttributesSubjectFoundWithAttributesAndNoSupplementalAttributes() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
testGetResourceAttributesWithAttributesAndNoSupplementalAttributes ?
6fce478 to
978fc28
Compare
… attributes and refactored existing code to adhere to said interface Signed-off-by: Irina <[email protected]>
978fc28 to
9afbb6d
Compare
All your comments have been addressed
… attributes and refactored existing code to adhere to said interface
Signed-off-by: Irina [email protected]