Support grant/revoke writer/owner #1572
Conversation
tarrencev
force-pushed
the
authupdate
branch
from
06ad0ca to
86c60ce
Compare
tarrencev
force-pushed
the
authupdate
branch
from
86c60ce to
6fee787
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1572 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 70.66% 69.63% -1.04%
==========================================
Files 264 265 +1
Lines 25623 26298 +675
==========================================
+ Hits 18107 18313 +206
- Misses 7516 7985 +469 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
tarrencev
force-pushed
the
authupdate
branch
from
6fee787 to
60a1e58
Compare
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| _ => todo!(), |
bin/sozo/src/commands/auth.rs
Outdated
| let owner = FieldElement::from_hex_be(owner_part) | ||
| .map_err(|_| anyhow::anyhow!("Invalid owner address: {}", owner_part))?; | ||
|
|
||
| let resource_parts: Vec<&str> = resource_part.split(':').collect(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the resource can be contract:contract_name, we're expecting the fully qualifier name of the contract or the short name? It will fail here if we have to pass the fully qualified name due to : split.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree, this would be an issue for fully qualified name.
We can use split_once for this to capture the first occurrence of : if we wanna maintain this format.
Considering most contract name would be fully qualified name, i think this format can cause a bit of confusion when user do something like contract:examples::action::action_1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hm yeah good point. i was following the starkli schema pattern but perhaps we should do something difference
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thinking about this a bit more, i feel like it is ok. so going to plan to keep as is, unless you guys feel strongly about it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really, this is a needed feature so don't wanna block too much. We can always address it if it becomes an actual concern later.
| impl FromStr for OwnerResource { | ||
| type Err = anyhow::Error; |
bin/sozo/src/commands/auth.rs
Outdated
| let owner = FieldElement::from_hex_be(owner_part) | ||
| .map_err(|_| anyhow::anyhow!("Invalid owner address: {}", owner_part))?; | ||
|
|
||
| let resource_parts: Vec<&str> = resource_part.split(':').collect(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree, this would be an issue for fully qualified name.
We can use split_once for this to capture the first occurrence of : if we wanna maintain this format.
Considering most contract name would be fully qualified name, i think this format can cause a bit of confusion when user do something like contract:examples::action::action_1
tarrencev
force-pushed
the
authupdate
branch
from
60a1e58 to
b424dcc
Compare
tarrencev
force-pushed
the
authupdate
branch
from
b424dcc to
cf0a8de
Compare
Adds support for granting owners and setup for revoke commands.