Skip to content
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

BC-4942 - authorization reference service #4413

Merged
merged 96 commits into from
Oct 19, 2023

Conversation

CeEv
Copy link
Contributor

@CeEv CeEv commented Sep 18, 2023

Description

Links to Tickets or other pull requests

https://ticketsystem.dbildungscloud.de/browse/BC-4942

Changes

Datasecurity

Deployment

New Repos, NPM pakages or vendor scripts

Approval for review

  • DEV: If api was changed - generate-client:server was executed in vue frontend and changes were tested and put in a PR with the same branch name.
  • QA: In addition to review, the code has been manually tested (if manual testing is possible)
  • All points were discussed with the ticket creator, support-team or product owner. The code upholds all quality guidelines from the PR-template.

Notice: Please remove the WIP label if the PR is ready to review, otherwise nobody will review it.

CeEv added 30 commits September 6, 2023 08:42
@SevenWaysDP
Copy link
Contributor

authorization/domain/rules/*

authorization/domain/rules/* is ok
or
authorization/rules/*

I personally would not expect the rules to lie in the services

@dyedwiper
Copy link
Contributor

I also wondered about the placement of the rules-folder. I was a bit surprised at first to find it in the service-folder and would have expected it one level up. But it shouldn't be outside of the domain-folder because the rules are part of the domain.

@CeEv
Copy link
Contributor Author

CeEv commented Oct 12, 2023

I move the folder to domain/rules but after thinking about it, the really correct place are domain/uc. The rules are part of the domain. The domain include 2 layers with clear dependency order, the service and the uc. The rules are part of the UC and should unknown in service layer.
But in the context that they are placed in the wrong module, it is simpler to hold them on the place domain/rules.

Edit: interessting point is ..they should unknown in service layer. But the rules manager is places in service layer. It is interessting to think about it. :D

@dyedwiper
Copy link
Contributor

Regarding the layer question: I see no contradiction to our concept. The service is exported by the module and can be used in other modules' UCs. That's just like the services in other modules.

Or in other words: The rules can be known by the service of the authorization module, but the authorization service (and thus the rules) shouldn't be known to other modules' services, but only to the UCs.

@CeEv CeEv requested a review from alweber-cap October 12, 2023 15:34
@CeEv CeEv dismissed stale reviews from alweber-cap and arnegns October 19, 2023 10:03

Questions should be resolve

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 42 Code Smells

100.0% 100.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

warning The version of Java (11.0.20) you have used to run this analysis is deprecated and we will stop accepting it soon. Please update to at least Java 17.
Read more here

@CeEv CeEv merged commit 4e8cfa0 into main Oct 19, 2023
46 checks passed
@CeEv CeEv deleted the BC-4942-authoriazation-reference-service branch October 19, 2023 15:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants