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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Feature activation for multi-tenancy #2568
Feature activation for multi-tenancy #2568
Changes from 2 commits
132af64
79fac2f
d861441
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If there are additional actions that reuse this pattern
{ "value": {VALUE} }
these names might need to be made more generic and moved outside of the tenancy package. The same is true for the Request types as well.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think about using
cluster:admin/config/tenancy/multitenancy_enabled/read
?This is currently being used in ConfigUpdateAction.java
security/src/main/java/org/opensearch/security/action/configupdate/ConfigUpdateAction.java
Line 34 in 575c2bc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking about making a new prefix instead of 'cluster'. What would you think about
feature:cluster/tenancy/multitenancy_enabled/(read|update)
instead?I'd like it to be unassociated from where the setting is stored, it should be abstract enough it could move to another plugin, it should indicate the scope (e.g. cluster wide!), and then the local namespace tenancy followed by feature name.
What do you think, other recommendations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think about swapping the order of
feature:cluster
to becluster:feature
? Unless there is a reason to put feature first, I am generally in favor of broadest-->granlur(est) ordering for the route. What do you think?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the idea of
cluster:feature/...
This should be clear in reading and will identify the scopes in the decreasing order.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've updated it to
cluster:feature/tenancy/multitenancy_enabled/update
- but it seems like we should also update the rest request url to be inline with this, otherwise the coupling is still in place.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think about using
cluster:admin/config/tenancy/multitenancy_enabled/update
?This is currently being used in ConfigUpdateAction.java
security/src/main/java/org/opensearch/security/action/configupdate/ConfigUpdateAction.java
Line 34 in 575c2bc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The point of these new actions is they can be permissioned separately from the security config, if I make them the same this removes its benefit, see the related issue for details