Kuali Rice Development
  1. Kuali Rice Development
  2. KULRICE-13211

Investigate attachmentTypeCode and KIM Permissions.

    Details

    • Type: Task Task
    • Status: Closed Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 2.5.1
    • Fix Version/s: 2.5.1
    • Component/s: Analysis
    • Security Level: Public (Public: Anyone can view)
    • Labels:
      None
    • Similar issues:
      KULRICE-2354KIM Permission Service Test
      KULRICE-4356KIM permission for laborEnterpriseFeederFileSetType (FSKD-528)
      KULRICE-7185Optimization of KIM Permission Checks
      KULRICE-6015Document the various Rice KIM permissions
      KULRICE-3735KIM Permission templates are queried from the DB too often
      KULRICE-4898Remove org.kuali.rice.kew.web.session.Authentication and calls to it. Replace with KIM permissions.
      KULRICE-11190KEW Training: Adding KIM Permission Exercise
      KULRICE-4566Permission details can't be modified/created through KIM Permission screen
      KULRICE-4803Add unique constraint on KIM permission namespace:name
      KULRICE-7458Restore the display of permission/responsibility details on KIM Inquiries
    • Rice Team:
      Middleware
    • Sprint:
      Middleware 2.5.1 Sprint 2
    • KAI Review Status:
      Not Required
    • KTI Review Status:
      Not Required
    • Code Review Status:
      Not Required
    • Include in Release Notes?:
      Yes
    • Story Points:
      5

      Description

      This is related to KULRICE-13090, where it was desired to create a set of KIM permissions which would allow the following scenario…

      A KIM principal receives a Travel Account Maintenance document in its “Action List”, and is able to see the Notes and Attachments section of that document, but is not be able to see the “Download Attachment” button.

      Currently, DocumentAuthorizerBase.canViewNoteAttachment() is called, once to authorize for the visibility of the Notes and Attachments section, and once to authorize for the visibility of the “Download Attachment” button. Authorization for the “Download Attachment” button can be based on “attachment type code”, as canViewNoteAttachment() takes that as an optional parameter.

      I attempted to get the needed KIM permissions in place, but was unsuccessful. I consulted with Kristina, who provided some additional investigation, and it was decided to write up a Jira case to further investigate the situation.

      The goals of this case are …

      • Determine the KIM permissions and roles for the above scenario.
      • If KIM modifications are required, implement those, if they are minor. Any major KIM changes should first be reviewed by a KIM expert.
      • Add an AFT to DemoTravelAccountMaintenanceViewPermissionAft.java to test the scenario.

        Activity

        Hide
        Jonathan Keller added a comment -

        I'll take this one. We use attachment type-based permissions extensively in the UCD KFS implementation.

        Show
        Jonathan Keller added a comment - I'll take this one. We use attachment type-based permissions extensively in the UCD KFS implementation.
        Hide
        Jonathan Keller added a comment -

        So - initial investigation shows that the issue is that the permissions are not overriding each other on this type.

        There is both a permission for all attachments and one for the OTH attachment type. (See screen shot) Theoretically, that should block out the other permission, but it is not. Both are being considered in that case, making it additive.

        This may be a preexisting issue, but is certainly not how we want it to behave.

        I'm going to look into how hard it would be to make permissions of this type with an attachment type override those without.

        Show
        Jonathan Keller added a comment - So - initial investigation shows that the issue is that the permissions are not overriding each other on this type. There is both a permission for all attachments and one for the OTH attachment type. (See screen shot) Theoretically, that should block out the other permission, but it is not. Both are being considered in that case, making it additive. This may be a preexisting issue , but is certainly not how we want it to behave. I'm going to look into how hard it would be to make permissions of this type with an attachment type override those without.
        Hide
        Jonathan Keller added a comment -

        Attaching Selenium IDE script used to test fix

        Show
        Jonathan Keller added a comment - Attaching Selenium IDE script used to test fix
        Hide
        Jonathan Keller added a comment -

        Fix verfied (with attached Selenium script) and checked in.

        Still need to create an AFT to validate.

        Show
        Jonathan Keller added a comment - Fix verfied (with attached Selenium script) and checked in. Still need to create an AFT to validate.
        Hide
        Martin Taylor (Inactive) added a comment -

        Closing 2.5.1 Development

        Show
        Martin Taylor (Inactive) added a comment - Closing 2.5.1 Development

          People

          • Assignee:
            Jonathan Keller
            Reporter:
            Steve Edgar (Inactive)
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Agile

                Structure Helper Panel