Skip to content

Consider differentiation between cases for Policy.Unauthorized to be raised #2740

@derekpierre

Description

@derekpierre

Related to #2687 .

Full discussion here - #2687 (comment)

@derekpierre derekpierre 4 days ago Member
Do we want to differentiate the reason for these raised Policy.Unauthorized exceptions (L1830, L1835, L1839) by contextualizing with a string message? Or is it unsafe to leak the reason?

 
@KPrasch KPrasch 3 days ago Member
You're sensing my thoughts there. Do you think there's an added advantage to provide a bob with the reason why he's been denied access over obscurity?

 
@derekpierre derekpierre 3 days ago • 
 Member
Feels like it - the one raised from the VerificationError (L1835) may be interesting to know ...

 
@derekpierre derekpierre yesterday Member
Alternatively, we could do sub-classes of Policy.Unauthorized if differentiation is worth it.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Bob 👨‍💼Effects the "Bob" development areaPREStrictly effects PREUrsula 👩‍🚀Effects the "Ursula" development areawontfixNon-issue or no intent for changes

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions