[WIP] add support for file level auditing / metrics management that frontend can use#91
[WIP] add support for file level auditing / metrics management that frontend can use#91matthewpeterkort wants to merge 14 commits into
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for drs-server ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 42a6b9c958
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| obj.scopeAmbiguous = ambiguous | ||
| obj.inferredScope = resource | ||
| if known { | ||
| obj.scope = scopes[resource][0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a record already has exactly one controlled_access project but that project has no bucket scope returned by loadScopeTargets, inferRecordResource still returns known=true; indexing scopes[resource][0] then panics with index out of range and aborts the whole audit/apply run. Treat this as an unknown or non-canonical scope unless a target exists.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| if authz.HasMethodAccess(ctx, methods[0], []string{"/programs", "/data_file"}) || authz.HasAnyMethodAccess(ctx, []string{resource}, methods...) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the apply route calls this helper with read, delete, HasAnyMethodAccess succeeds if the caller has only one of those methods, so a read-only project user can enter the apply path and receive a 200 dry-run/delete plan instead of being rejected up front. Require the destructive method explicitly (and read separately if needed) before calling Apply.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if sawMissing { | ||
| return StorageProbeStatusMissing, "storage object not found" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For records with multiple access URLs, this returns missing as soon as any URL was not found, even if another URL returned a credential/permission/provider error. In that mixed case the record is later treated as a stale duplicate or stale orphan and can be deleted, although one storage location was never successfully verified; return error whenever any non-not-found probe failed.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
…et name in the same storage url
1 participant
what has started as a metrics PR has turned into a cleanup PR.
file path based metrics don't make sense to go here, since the system revolves around github paths,
so this functionality is added to Gecko instead.