Updated version of the patch then. Includes case where there is no such row
('create' action).
However, I'm not sure if these changes are GAE-compartible. Not sure if
bigtable likes .belongs on multiple columns.
Can anybody test?

Regards
Alexey.

--- tools.py_   2010-09-08 08:40:22.266751051 +0400
+++ tools.py    2010-09-08 09:44:30.050746520 +0400
@@ -2415,17 +2415,10 @@
                         == user_id).select(membership.group_id)
         groups = set([row.group_id for row in rows])
         permission = self.settings.table_permission
-        rows = self.db(permission.name == name)(permission.table_name
-                 == str(table_name))(permission.record_id
-                 == record_id).select(permission.group_id)
+        rows = self.db(permission.name.belongs((name,'any'))&
+                       permission.table_name.belongs((str(table_name),''))&
+
permission.record_id.belongs((record_id,0))).select(permission.group_id)
         groups_required = set([row.group_id for row in rows])
-        if record_id:
-            rows = self.db(permission.name
-                            == name)(permission.table_name
-                     == str(table_name))(permission.record_id
-                     == 0).select(permission.group_id)
-            groups_required = groups_required.union(set([row.group_id
-                    for row in rows]))
         if groups.intersection(groups_required):
             r = True
         else:

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:14 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:

> I think this should be considered a bug and I agree with the change.
> Anybody opposed?
>
> Massimo
>
> On Sep 7, 11:46 pm, Alexey Nezhdanov <snak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi. I think that I found some inconsistency in the topic.
> > When you do, say,
> > auth.add_permission(group_id) - it assumes the permission name 'any',
> table
> > name empty and record_id 0.
> > Which in turn feels like "full admin rights" - any action on any table on
> > any record.
> > In fact, that gives no permissions whatsoever.
> >
> > I've came out with the following patch to make it work for me, but since
> > that is the very core of RBAC, I'm not sure if that is the right solution
> or
> > if I am looking in the correct direction at all.
> >
> > --- tools.old.py        2010-09-08 08:40:22.266751051 +0400
> > +++ tools.py    2010-09-08 08:41:25.894746181 +0400
> > @@ -2420,10 +2420,9 @@
> >                   == record_id).select(permission.group_id)
> >          groups_required = set([row.group_id for row in rows])
> >          if record_id:
> > -            rows = self.db(permission.name
> > -                            == name)(permission.table_name
> > -                     == str(table_name))(permission.record_id
> > -                     == 0).select(permission.group_id)
> > +            rows = self.db(permission.name.belongs((name,'any'))&
> > +
> > permission.table_name.belongs((str(table_name),''))&
> > +
> > permission.record_id.belongs((record_id,0))).select(permission.group_id)
> >              groups_required = groups_required.union(set([row.group_id
> >                      for row in rows]))
> >          if groups.intersection(groups_required):
> >
> > Regards
> > Alexey
>

Reply via email to