Add routes for user management #1
Open
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
remexre
suggested changes
Sep 28, 2018
remexre
suggested changes
Sep 28, 2018
doc/api.md
Outdated
| Returns the canonical user object for the user with database id `<id>`. | ||
|
|
||
| ### POST `/api/thetis/users/user/<id>` | ||
|
|
||
| **UNIMPLEMENTED** | ||
|
|
||
| `id` is a base-10 integer corresponding to the `db_id` of the user you wish to access. | ||
| Requires an authentication token granting membership privileges to access any user that is not the user whose token was used to make the request. | ||
| Requires an authentication token granting the requisite `user.modify.<field>(db_id)` privileged. |
| @@ -162,22 +162,22 @@ Returns the canonical user object for the user whose token was used to make the | |||
| **UNIMPLEMENTED** | |||
|
|
|||
| `id` is a base-10 integer corresponding to the `db_id` of the user you wish to access. | |||
| Requires an authentication token granting membership privileges to access any user that is not the user whose token was used to make the request. | |||
| Requires an authentication token granting view permissions for the user. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, yeah, so we don't have a users.view cap that is separate from users.list. users.list presumably allows you to see the details for all listed users, so we need something more fine-grained. I'd propose
cap(Id, users.view(Id)).
cap(Id, users.view(_)) :- cap(Id, users.list).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh, really we should have users.view(Id, Property); e.g. the discord bot shouldn't have access to people's card numbers etc.
And really that should apply to searches too, but I can't think of a way to do that sanely...
If we aren't doing fine-grained permissions for search, it'd ideally be separate from view so that could do fine-grained permissions.
If that seems OTT though, I'm fine with yours.
| Takes a parameter `update` containing a user object with one or more fields set. Updates those fields on the user with database id `<id>` and returns a canonical user object for that user. | ||
|
|
||
| ### POST `/api/thetis/users/user/new` | ||
|
|
||
| **UNIMPLEMENTED** | ||
|
|
||
| Requires an authentication token granting membership privileges. | ||
| Requires an authentication token granting `user.add`. |
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.
Correct-er wording for the capabilities requirement probably depend on wether or not we are going to have expressions in the jwt.