[PM-18876] Refine PolicyRequirements API #5445
Open
+430
−314
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
New Issues (13)Checkmarx found the following issues in this Pull Request
Fixed Issues (30)Great job! The following issues were fixed in this Pull Request
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5445 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 44.48% 44.49%
=======================================
Files 1533 1535 +2
Lines 71073 71079 +6
Branches 6379 6379
=======================================
+ Hits 31619 31624 +5
- Misses 38087 38089 +2
+ Partials 1367 1366 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
r-tome
reviewed
Feb 26, 2025
| /// </remarks> | ||
| public delegate T RequirementFactory<out T>(IEnumerable<PolicyDetails> policyDetails) | ||
| where T : IPolicyRequirement; | ||
| public interface IRequirementFactory<out T> where T : IPolicyRequirement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This interface could use a separate file
| /// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam> | ||
| public abstract class SimpleRequirementFactory<T> : IRequirementFactory<T> where T : IPolicyRequirement | ||
| { | ||
| protected abstract IEnumerable<OrganizationUserType> ExemptRoles { get; } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think most policies will have these roles exempt so we could make it virtual to be overridden if necessary
Suggested change
| protected abstract IEnumerable<OrganizationUserType> ExemptRoles { get; } | |
| protected virtual IEnumerable<OrganizationUserType> ExemptRoles { get; } = | |
| [OrganizationUserType.Owner, OrganizationUserType.Admin]; |
We could do the same thing for the exempt statuses
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was also Matt Gibson's feedback. I've done this for roles, statuses and exempting providers, all with sensible defaults.
| /// <summary> | ||
| /// Policy requirements for the Disable Send and Send Options policies. | ||
| /// </summary> | ||
| public class DisableSendRequirement : IPolicyRequirement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This name would be very specific
Suggested change
| public class DisableSendRequirement : IPolicyRequirement | |
| public class DisableSendPolicyRequirement : IPolicyRequirement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've brought all the names into line so that the PolicyRequirement wording is more consistent.
src/Core/AdminConsole/OrganizationFeatures/Policies/Implementations/PolicyRequirementQuery.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
eliykat
changed the title
|
audreyality
approved these changes
Mar 7, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18876
📔 Objective
@MGibson1 provided feedback that the static factory methods for policy requirements had too many responsibilities to be a clear interface for other teams. When implementing it, the developer needs to know to:
It would be easy to only implement the last item, which would be wrong.
This PR replaces that with an
IPolicyRequirementFactoryinterface instead, which requires that you handle those 3 business requirements explicitly when implementing it. This way, the interface describes the questions you need to answer. This will be accompanied with documentation (maybe a deep dive) once merged.I've also provided a default base implementation, which makes the
Enforcepredicate fully declarative (i.e. configurable just by listing who you want to exempt), and has sensible defaults so that you don't miss something important. This should work in 99% of cases. (To the point where I almost made this the interface, but I wanted to maintain a distinction between the required interface vs. a default implementation.)Lastly, I've updated the Send requirement I'd already implemented to use the new api.
There are a few flow-on effects worth noting:
IPolicyRequirementFactoryimplementations can be registered as scoped dependencies in the usual fashion, instead of the more flexible but weirder currying of static factory methods to inject any dependencies (if you're wondering "huh what does he mean by that" - exactly). While most factories won't require additional dependencies, some do (mostly GlobalSettings and feature flags) and we need to facilitate that.BasePolicyRequirementFactorydon't need as many tests, because they can rely on the base class to have implemented - and therefore in my view, tested - theEnforcemethod. They only really need to test theirCreatemethod. Given that we're going to have a lot of factories, this should result in way fewer tests.IPolicyRequirementFactoryalso makes your tests more granular, and therefore easier to arrange.📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:) or similar for great changes:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info:question:) for questions:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:) for suggestions / improvements:x:) or:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes