athmangude/permissionspec #343
Open
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
Moved properties to correct objects
athmangude
requested review from
MIchaelMainer,
baywet,
ddyett,
nikithauc,
peombwa and
zengin
as code owners
| "userConsentDescription": "Allows the app to read and report the signed-in user's activity in the app.", | ||
| "requiresAdminConsent": true | ||
| "requiresAdminConsent": true, | ||
| "privilegeLevel": 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using integer values is problematic because how does anyone know if 1 is high privilege or 5 is? I see it is in the description, but that doesn't help when just looking at the JSON object.
specs/permissions.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The owner info object contains information related to the ownership of the permission. This object should only contain information that is not required by a consumer of the API and can safely be removed in any public projection of the permissions information. | ||
| ### ownerSecurityGroup | ||
| The "ownerSecurityGroup" member is a REQUIRED string that provides a contact mechanism for communicating with the owners of the permission. It is important that owners of permissions are aware when new paths are added to an existing permission. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should qualify that ownerSecurityGroup is only required when ownerInfo is present otherwise it is a contradiction saying that it can be "safely removed".
specs/permissions.md
Outdated
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### implicit | ||
| The "implicit" member is a boolean value that indicates that the current permission object is implied. The default value is "false". This member is usually set to "true" in combination with a "alsoRequires" expression. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's just remove implicit unless we find a place where we need it.
We cannot associate implicit to a path because we don't describe paths anywhere. We only describe relationships between paths and permissions.
|
|
||
| ### alsoRequires | ||
| The "alsoRequires" member is logical expression of permissions that must be presented as claims alongside the current permission. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to go back here.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Changes
alsoRequiresandimplicitproperties into path object from the permissions objectalsoRequiresfor simple and complex expressions of additional permissionspathobject to string