Jira Software parsing and permission resolvers with unit tests #60
Conversation
dxu2atlassian
force-pushed
the
feat/EAS-2547-js-parsing
branch
8 times, most recently
from
311d709 to
e2fc593
Compare
| let request_type = RequestType::Get; | ||
| let result = check_url_for_permissions(&permission_map, ®ex_map, request_type, url); | ||
|
|
||
| println!("Permission Map: {:?}", permission_map); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, this should be removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gotcha, do we also want to remove debug text from the other existing test cases as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think that'd be good. I see there is some from my code too 😬 😓
dxu2atlassian
force-pushed
the
feat/EAS-2547-js-parsing
branch
from
e2fc593 to
d52f69e
Compare
|
|
||
| if scopes.is_empty() { | ||
| // For Jira Software if the initial scopes are empty, try the scopes from the security field | ||
| scopes.extend( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there any cases where the security field has additional scopes with a nonempty permission field?
| if intrinsic_func_type == IntrinsicName::RequestJiraSoftware { | ||
| let permissions = check_url_for_permissions( | ||
| interp.jira_software_permission_resolver, | ||
| interp.jira_software_regex_map, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think a match statement for intrinsic_func_type would be more idiomatic here. I realize this was originally my code, sorry 😓.
Also, maybe we have the second argument be set to get if it does not exists. That eliminates the need for the first if else block.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These may be out of scope for this PR, and I can make the changes since this was originally my bad code.
… resolver with unit tests and refactor products to use match statement
dxu2atlassian
force-pushed
the
feat/EAS-2547-js-parsing
branch
from
d52f69e to
0ce2619
Compare
As Jira Software swagger doc format isn't the same format as others like Bitbucket, JSM, etc.