Rename acting_user accessor in policies #834
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
maebeale
approved these changes
Feb 12, 2021
maebeale
reviewed
Feb 12, 2021
app/policies/person_policy.rb
Outdated
| person_attached_to_acting_user? || | ||
| sys_admin? || | ||
| admin? | ||
| own_person? || sys_admin? || admin? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
own_person takes me a minute to translate, but, I don't have a different suggestion atm that doesn't have a namespace issue. :)
maebeale
approved these changes
Feb 12, 2021
maebeale
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2021
solebared
force-pushed
the
rename-acting-user-in-policies
branch
from
978d35b
to
dca3c31
Compare
|
@maebeale , i brought this up to date with latest main. Please give it another look when you get a chance. |
Definite tradeoffs in both directions but after a group discussion, felt that new engineers having to investigate/learn another term wasn't worth the benefits of the explicit qualification. Dropping back to the term used in pundit docs/examples with the understanding that any _other_ users in play can be qualified as needed.
Doesn't feel like the qualification is necessary, falling back to the term used in pundit docs/examples.
solebared
force-pushed
the
rename-acting-user-in-policies
branch
from
dca3c31
to
4098a99
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why
Definite tradeoffs in both directions but after a group discussion, felt that new engineers having to investigate/learn another term wasn't worth the benefits of the explicit qualification.
Pre-Merge Checklist
What
user-- the term used in pundit docs/examples with the understanding that any other users in play can be qualified as needed.UserPolicyandPersonPolicyoriginal_scopetoscope. Doesn't feel like the qualification is necessary so falling back to theterm used in pundit docs/examples.
Note: this changeset builds on #833 which first drops some spec code that uses the same term.
Outstanding Questions, Concerns and Other Notes
We discussed that we'd love @bhaibel to weigh in on this since she likely considered these tradeoffs. We'd ideally not merge these suggested changes until we have a chance to talk to her.