-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New endpoint to allow admins to get all access requests #2888
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…quests, with auth and flexibility to return only user relevant accessRequests
…lst working around express middleware
…nticationConnector
| * - user is not the owner of the model | ||
| * - the user is trying to delete or update an existing AR | ||
| */ | ||
| if ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this condition should remain as being for updating and deleting an access and request and a new condition should be added for viewing access requests where we reject if the user cannot view the model or is not named on the access request
|
|
||
| // authorisation | ||
| const modelIds = results.map((result) => result.modelId) | ||
| let auths: any[] = [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it worth creating a return type for authorisation.accessRequests() so we don't have to use any here?
Although tracing through to accessRequests it looks a little more complicated than i thought
… new condition for viewing ARs
TODO:- work out api routing issue with middleware- tests tbd