Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MGRTENANT-32: Implement the ability to designate a tenant as "secure" #85

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 6, 2024

Conversation

OleksiiKuzminov
Copy link
Collaborator

@OleksiiKuzminov OleksiiKuzminov commented Aug 5, 2024

Purpose

In order to support the Congressional Loans functionality, we need a way to designate a tenant as “secure”.
MGRTENANT-32

Approach

  • Add a new “secure” field to the tenant schema
    • type: boolean
    • required: no - should be optional for backwards compatibility
    • default: none, if a value is not specified when the tenant is created, the field should not be present in the tenant record.
    • read-only: yes - this should be immutable. Once the tenant is created it cannot be changed.
  • Enforce the immutability of this field - return a 400 if a PUT request attempts to change this field.

TODOS and Open Questions

  • Check logging

Learning

Pre-Merge Checklist:

Before merging this PR, please go through the following list and take appropriate actions.

  • Does this PR meet or exceed the expected quality standards?
    • Code coverage on new code is 80% or greater
    • Duplications on new code is 3% or less
    • There are no major code smells or security issues
  • Does this introduce breaking changes?
    • Were any API paths or methods changed, added, or removed?
    • Were there any schema changes?
    • Did any of the interface versions change?
    • Were permissions changed, added, or removed?
    • Are there new interface dependencies?
    • There are no breaking changes in this PR.

If there are breaking changes, please STOP and consider the following:

  • What other modules will these changes impact?
  • Do Rally stories exist to update the impacted modules?
    • If not, please create them
    • Do they contain the appropriate level of detail? Which endpoints/schemas changed, etc.
    • Do they have all the appropriate links to blocked/related issues?
  • Are the Rally stories under active development?
    • If not, contact the project's PO and make sure they're aware of the urgency.
  • Do PRs exist for these changes?
    • If so, have they been approved?

Ideally, all the PRs involved in breaking changes would be merged on the same day to avoid breaking the folio-testing
environment. Communication is paramount if that is to be achieved, especially as the number of inter-module and
inter-team dependencies increase.

While it's helpful for reviewers to help identify potential problems, ensuring that it's safe to merge is ultimately the
responsibility of the PR assignee.

@OleksiiKuzminov OleksiiKuzminov self-assigned this Aug 5, 2024
@OleksiiKuzminov OleksiiKuzminov requested a review from a team as a code owner August 5, 2024 07:32
@OleksiiKuzminov OleksiiKuzminov requested review from a team and removed request for a team August 5, 2024 07:33
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Aug 5, 2024

@OleksiiKuzminov OleksiiKuzminov merged commit 7134eaf into master Aug 6, 2024
8 checks passed
@OleksiiKuzminov OleksiiKuzminov deleted the MGRTENANT-32 branch August 6, 2024 11:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants