Is there any user case I can test after have add patch for this?
2009/10/2 Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> > @David pools are not name-based, but currently there's validation > during creation (both via Web UI and REST-like API) so that one cannot > create a pool with the same name. It would be confusing for the user, > but if this validation is removed, it would be possible to have pools > with the same name. > > @Xuefeng Instead of having two fields (respectively two database > columns)- one to indicate read/write/admin permission and one for > disabled/enabled, you could have one field (and one database column) > with read/write/admin and *no* permission. This way we avoid the > situation when there's e.g. admin permission set, but disabled turned > on. You not only must never forget to check both for permission *and* > validity, but also find all existing queries in the code and check if > they include validity checks. > > Furthermore, you avoid some tricky issues. How do you find all users > with admin privileges? You find privileges which have value Admin and > validity is set to true. What about the ones with non-admin > privileges? Ones with privileges which either don't have value Admin > or ones for which validity is false? Wrong! With so many checks it's > easy to forget that users with no privilege are effectively the same > as ones which have validity set to false. And for issues like ESME-66 > you have to do this same check twice- once for the current user, and > once for all other users. Seems to me it's complicated enough even > without multiple states that mean the same thing. > > Vassil > -- Global R&D Center,Shanghai China,Carestream Health, Inc. Tel:(86-21)3852 6101
