Api keypair restructure #9504

KlausDornsbach · 2024-08-08T15:04:39Z

Description

API access keypairs are primarily used to support interactions between systems, without the need to create sessions (through user and password authentication). Currently, CloudStack's implementation of API keypairs does not allow you to specify permissions for each keypair, simply using the account's default permissions. Additionally, the number of keypairs is limited to one per user and they have no start and end dates.

An extension of the API keypairs functionality was implemented, adding several new features that increase flexibility and security. It is now possible to specify a subset of permissions (from the base account) for each keypair, as well as create more than one key per user. It is also possible to define start and end dates for the validity of a keypair. A key created without an expiration date will always be valid up until it is deleted. It should be noted that creating API keypairs without specifying permissions just creates an API keypair with all account's base permissions. Also, API keypairs older than this patch will always be viewed as keypairs with full account permissions.

The following endpoints were created:

A new listUserKeys API was added. Through this API the user will be able to specify a single keypairid to fetch its specific properties, or apikeyfilter to return a specific keypair based on an apikey. The user can inform an userid to fetch an user's api keypair list. If no keypairid, apikeyfilter or userid is provided, the API defaults to fetching information on the calling user. The listall property allows for fetching all keypairs in the structure that are visible based on the calling user/keypair permissions, if not specified, it defaults to false, fetching only the apikeys on the level of the calling user/keypair. Also, it is possible to inform showpermissions to list all permissions associated with each returned apikey.

Name	Description	Required	Default
userid	id of the owner of the keypairs	no	none
keypairid	id of the keypair	no	none
listall	list all accessable keypairs	no	false
apikeyfilter	apikey of they keypair	no	none
showpermissions	lists all associated apikey permissions	no	false

The API getUserKeys was modified preserving backwards compatibility. It now fetches the last keypair created for the informed user.

The api registerUserKeys was modified so the new API keypair parameters could be specified on creation:

Name	Description	Required	Example	Default
id	user id	Yes	b8914774-771e-11ee-8e59-5254003754dc	none
name	name of the keypair	No	MyKey	userId + " - API Keypair"
startdate	date when key becomes valid	No	2024-04-09	none
enddate	date when key expires	No	2024-04-09	never expires
description	keypair description	No	read only permissions	none
rules	list of API access rules	No	rules[1].rule=list* rules[1].permission=allow	all user API permissions based on Account Role

A new keypair deletion API was added (deleteUserKeys). It will accept only one required argument, the keypair id.

Name	Description	Required
keypairid	id of the keypair	yes

I also added a listUserKeyRules api, allowing the user to list the rules associated with an API keypair.

Name	Description	Required
keypairid	id of the keypair	yes

Types of changes

Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
build/CI
test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Major
Minor

Bug Severity

How Has This Been Tested?

API Key Creation and Basic Testing

Single Key (via UI):

I was able to create API keypairs through the UI through the button on the top right of the user view;
Through Cloud Monkey, validated that the keypair had the same permissions as the base user by calling a series of APIs;

Multiple Keys (via Cloud Monkey):

Created multiple keys;
Validated the operation was successful on the DB;
Tested creating a key that was not valid and would become valid in the future, with success;
Tested creating a key that was valid and would become invalid in the future, with success;
Tested trying to create keys that were already invalid and got errors;
All permissions of the API key pairs were consistent with each key pair tested.

Permissions Validation

Tested the permissions of keyrules listing, keypair listing, keypair deletion and keypair cretion with the following user/account/domain setup:

domain /ROOT
- account root admin
  - user root admin
  - user user1
- domain subdomain
  - account domain admin
    - user domain admin
  - account userAccount
    - user user2
    - user user3

The following table describes the results obtained when the user on the first column attempted to operate on the keypairs of users on the first row (V: operation was possible, F: operation was not possible).

user	rootAdm	user1	domainAdm	user2	user3
rootAdm	V	V	V	V	V
user1	V	V	V	V	V
domainAdm	F	F	V	V	V
user2	F	F	F	V	F
user3	F	F	F	F	V

Migration to `api_keypair` Table

A key was created for a read-only user
The database was updated from version 4.19 to 4.20
The API key data was successfully migrated to the api_keypair table, with the corresponding columns in the user table deleted.
Confirmed correct permission handling of the api key.

General validations

Could not create an API keypair with more permissions than the base keypair.
Deleting system keys was not possible.
After deleting a user or account, the API keypairs were invalidated.

codecov · 2024-08-12T13:09:52Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 15.63071% with 923 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 15.78%. Comparing base (46201ee) to head (f5efd4e).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...c/main/java/com/cloud/user/AccountManagerImpl.java	30.33%	177 Missing and 9 partials ⚠️
...he/cloudstack/api/response/ApiKeyPairResponse.java	0.00%	127 Missing ⚠️
...n/java/org/apache/cloudstack/acl/ApiKeyPairVO.java	26.77%	92 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ck/api/command/admin/user/RegisterUserKeysCmd.java	0.00%	80 Missing ⚠️
...src/main/java/com/cloud/api/ApiResponseHelper.java	0.00%	66 Missing ⚠️
...g/apache/cloudstack/acl/dao/ApiKeyPairDaoImpl.java	0.00%	64 Missing ⚠️
...ava/com/cloud/upgrade/dao/Upgrade41910to42000.java	2.63%	37 Missing ⚠️
.../cloudstack/discovery/ApiDiscoveryServiceImpl.java	12.82%	32 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...dstack/api/command/admin/user/ListUserKeysCmd.java	0.00%	31 Missing ⚠️
...tack/api/command/admin/user/DeleteUserKeysCmd.java	0.00%	27 Missing ⚠️
... and 21 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               main    #9504    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage     15.78%   15.78%            
- Complexity    12565    12578    +13     
==========================================
  Files          5627     5637    +10     
  Lines        492260   493125   +865     
  Branches      63882    63301   -581     
==========================================
+ Hits          77710    77857   +147     
- Misses       406076   406781   +705     
- Partials       8474     8487    +13

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	`4.04% <ø> (ø)`
unittests	`16.60% <15.63%> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

DaanHoogland · 2024-08-13T06:59:57Z

nice feature @KlausDornsbach , some suggestions,

would it make sense to be able to delete a kay based on name?
also is admin allowed to delete keys for other users? (would make sense from a maintainance point of view, would it?)

KlausDornsbach · 2024-08-14T21:36:15Z

Hey @DaanHoogland, thanks for taking a look!

It would make sense to be able to delete a keypair by name, we would just need to block users from creating multiple API keypairs with the same name.

At the moment an admin is allowed to delete keypairs from users it has access, for example, a root admin user could delete any keypair in the platform, domain admin users can delete any keypair in the domain, normal users can only delete their own keys. These permissions are also true for visualization and creation APIs.

DaanHoogland · 2024-08-16T07:38:35Z

It would make sense to be able to delete a keypair by name, we would just need to block users from creating multiple API keypairs with the same name.

Well, I think a unique constraint on UserId/KeyPairName makes sense also from a usability sense.

At the moment an admin is allowed to delete keypairs from users it has access, for example, a root admin user could delete any keypair in the platform, domain admin users can delete any keypair in the domain, normal users can only delete their own keys. These permissions are also true for visualization and creation APIs.

👍

rajujith · 2024-08-19T12:04:24Z

@blueorangutan package

api/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/ListUserKeysCmd.java

engine/schema/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/acl/ApiKeyPairPermissionVO.java

github-actions · 2024-08-20T10:54:33Z

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

blueorangutan · 2024-09-25T14:12:03Z

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2024-09-25T15:14:15Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 11204

DaanHoogland · 2024-09-26T19:51:02Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2024-09-26T19:52:03Z

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2024-09-27T17:12:57Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-11556)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 74517 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr9504-t11556-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 135 look OK, 5 have errors, 1 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
ContextSuite context=TestISOUsage>:setup	`Error`	0.00	test_usage.py
test_01_secure_vm_migration	`Error`	133.28	test_vm_life_cycle.py
test_01_secure_vm_migration	`Error`	133.29	test_vm_life_cycle.py
ContextSuite context=TestVmSnapshot>:setup	`Error`	1910.14	test_vm_snapshots.py
test_01_cancel_host_maintenace_with_no_migration_jobs	`Error`	29.68	test_host_maintenance.py
test_02_cancel_host_maintenace_with_migration_jobs	`Error`	164.07	test_host_maintenance.py
test_01_redundant_vpc_site2site_vpn	`Failure`	467.13	test_vpc_vpn.py
all_test_vm_strict_host_tags	`Skipped`	---	test_vm_strict_host_tags.py

KlausDornsbach · 2024-09-27T20:41:37Z

Hey guys, looking at the Marvin test logs I have found the following error

n3.6/unittest/case.py", line 60, in testPartExecutor
    yield
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/unittest/case.py", line 622, in run
    testMethod()
  File "/marvin/tests/smoke/test_accounts.py", line 1711, in test_user_key_renew_same_account
    new_keys = User.registerUserKeys(cs_api, user_1.id)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/marvin/lib/base.py", line 338, in registerUserKeys
    return apiclient.registerUserKeys(cmd)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/marvin/cloudstackAPI/cloudstackAPIClient.py", line 2215, in registerUserKeys
    response = self.connection.marvinRequest(command, response_type=response, method=method)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/marvin/cloudstackConnection.py", line 381, in marvinRequest
    raise e
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/marvin/cloudstackConnection.py", line 376, in marvinRequest
    raise self.__lastError
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/marvin/cloudstackConnection.py", line 310, in __parseAndGetResponse
    response_cls)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.6/site-packages/marvin/jsonHelper.py", line 155, in getResultObj
    raise cloudstackException.CloudstackAPIException(respname, errMsg)
Execute cmd: registeruserkeys failed, due to: errorCode: 531, errorText:Only admins can operate on API keys owned by other users

Which indicates the API is outputting an error with the message Only admins can operate on API keys owned by other users. This was removed in the following commit fixing marvin test and there are no more occurrences of this specific error in the code.

is it possible blueorangutang is basing tests on an older commit?

DaanHoogland · 2024-09-30T13:16:09Z

is it possible blueorangutang is basing tests on an older commit?

by the looks of the history of comments in PR, I'd say no, @KlausDornsbach . Let me redo it once

DaanHoogland · 2024-09-30T13:16:16Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2024-09-30T13:18:03Z

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2024-09-30T14:29:21Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 11241

DaanHoogland · 2024-09-30T14:36:21Z

@blueorangutan test

blueorangutan · 2024-09-30T14:38:03Z

@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests

blueorangutan · 2024-10-01T11:05:54Z

[SF] Trillian test result (tid-11579)
Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8
Total time taken: 71453 seconds
Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr9504-t11579-kvm-ol8.zip
Smoke tests completed. 129 look OK, 1 have errors, 11 did not run
Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:

Test	Result	Time (s)	Test File
test_01_create_redundant_VPC_2tiers_4VMs_4IPs_4PF_ACL	`Error`	690.83	test_vpc_redundant.py
test_02_redundant_VPC_default_routes	`Error`	61.49	test_vpc_redundant.py
test_03_create_redundant_VPC_1tier_2VMs_2IPs_2PF_ACL_reboot_routers	`Error`	34.20	test_vpc_redundant.py
test_04_rvpc_network_garbage_collector_nics	`Error`	53.01	test_vpc_redundant.py
test_05_rvpc_multi_tiers	`Error`	87.27	test_vpc_redundant.py
ContextSuite context=TestVPCRedundancy>:teardown	`Error`	129.80	test_vpc_redundant.py
all_test_vm_deployment_planner	`Skipped`	---	test_vm_deployment_planner.py
all_test_vm_life_cycle	`Skipped`	---	test_vm_life_cycle.py
all_test_vm_lifecycle_unmanage_import	`Skipped`	---	test_vm_lifecycle_unmanage_import.py
all_test_vm_schedule	`Skipped`	---	test_vm_schedule.py
all_test_vm_snapshots	`Skipped`	---	test_vm_snapshots.py
all_test_vpc_router_nics	`Skipped`	---	test_vpc_router_nics.py
all_test_vpc_vpn	`Skipped`	---	test_vpc_vpn.py
all_test_webhook_delivery	`Skipped`	---	test_webhook_delivery.py
all_test_webhook_lifecycle	`Skipped`	---	test_webhook_lifecycle.py
all_test_host_maintenance	`Skipped`	---	test_host_maintenance.py
all_test_hostha_kvm	`Skipped`	---	test_hostha_kvm.py

rajujith

@KlausDornsbach

Creating multiple key pairs works fine
Deletion of keypair works fine
registerUserKeys creates keypair in disabled state, is this expected? How to change the state to enabled?
Able to set validity
Is there a way to update user keys, such as updating the enddate, rules etc.. ?
Creating rule works fine in general but rule with asterisk fails.

(PR-9504) 🐱 > register userkeys id=55cde672-3fd4-4670-95f2-4a88513d9d05 name=jithin-test-rules description=jithin-test-rules startdate=2024-10-08 enddate=2024-10-10 rules[1].rule=list* rules[1].permission=allow
🙈 Error: (HTTP 431, error code 4350) API list* was not found on the user's account, a valid keypair rule must be also present at the account level

github-actions · 2024-10-16T19:24:35Z

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

rajujith · 2024-10-18T05:37:47Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2024-10-18T05:40:03Z

@rajujith a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2024-10-18T05:53:21Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 11389

DaanHoogland · 2024-10-23T11:21:25Z

@KlausDornsbach , can you have a look at these?

05:51:43 [ERROR] removeRolesIfNeededTestRoleWithDifferentPermissionsRemoveRoles(org.apache.cloudstack.acl.RoleManagerImplTest)  Time elapsed: 1.399 s  <<< FAILURE!
05:51:43 java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<1> but was:<2>
05:51:43 	at org.apache.cloudstack.acl.RoleManagerImplTest.removeRolesIfNeededTestRoleWithDifferentPermissionsRemoveRoles(RoleManagerImplTest.java:272)
05:51:43 
05:51:43 [ERROR] roleHasPermissionTestRolePermissionsDeniedApiContainRoleToAccessAllowedApiReturnsFalse(org.apache.cloudstack.acl.RoleManagerImplTest)  Time elapsed: 0.001 s  <<< FAILURE!
05:51:43 java.lang.AssertionError
05:51:43 	at org.apache.cloudstack.acl.RoleManagerImplTest.roleHasPermissionTestRolePermissionsDeniedApiContainRoleToAccessAllowedApiReturnsFalse(RoleManagerImplTest.java:306)
05:51:43 
05:51:43 [ERROR] removeRolesIfNeededTestRoleWithLessPermissionsRemoveRoles(org.apache.cloudstack.acl.RoleManagerImplTest)  Time elapsed: 0.001 s  <<< FAILURE!
05:51:43 java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<1> but was:<2>
05:51:43 	at org.apache.cloudstack.acl.RoleManagerImplTest.removeRolesIfNeededTestRoleWithLessPermissionsRemoveRoles(RoleManagerImplTest.java:255)
05:51:43 
05:51:43 [INFO] Running org.apache.cloudstack.annotation.AnnotationManagerImplTest
05:51:43 [INFO] Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.505 s - in org.apache.cloudstack.annotation.AnnotationManagerImplTest
05:51:43 [INFO] Running org.apache.cloudstack.privategw.AclOnPrivateGwTest
05:51:43 [INFO] Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.616 s - in org.apache.cloudstack.privategw.AclOnPrivateGwTest
05:51:44 [INFO] Running org.apache.cloudstack.user.UserPasswordResetManagerImplTest
05:51:44 [INFO] Tests run: 5, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.415 s - in org.apache.cloudstack.user.UserPasswordResetManagerImplTest
05:51:44 [INFO] Running org.apache.cloudstack.affinity.AffinityApiUnitTest
05:51:44 [INFO] Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.092 s - in org.apache.cloudstack.affinity.AffinityApiUnitTest
05:51:44 [INFO] Running org.apache.cloudstack.affinity.AffinityGroupServiceImplTest
05:51:44 [INFO] Tests run: 12, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.24 s - in org.apache.cloudstack.affinity.AffinityGroupServiceImplTest
05:51:44 [INFO] 
05:51:45 [INFO] Results:
05:51:45 [INFO] 
05:51:45 [ERROR] Failures: 
05:51:45 [ERROR]   RoleManagerImplTest.removeRolesIfNeededTestRoleWithDifferentPermissionsRemoveRoles:272 expected:<1> but was:<2>
05:51:45 [ERROR]   RoleManagerImplTest.removeRolesIfNeededTestRoleWithLessPermissionsRemoveRoles:255 expected:<1> but was:<2>
05:51:45 [ERROR]   RoleManagerImplTest.roleHasPermissionTestRolePermissionsDeniedApiContainRoleToAccessAllowedApiReturnsFalse:306
05:51:45 [ERROR] Errors: 
05:51:45 [ERROR]   AccountManagerImplTest.createApiAndSecretKeyTestWithNonEmptyDates:1363 ? InvalidParameterValue
05:51:45 [ERROR]   AccountManagerImplTest.createApiKeyAndSecretKeyTestAllowedOnAccount:1323 ? InvalidParameterValue

It seems there are some unit test failures.

KlausDornsbach · 2024-10-23T14:07:36Z

Hey guys, I have fixed the tests. Also, answering the first question @rajujith

I could not reproduce the issue of registerUserKeys creating keypairs in the disabled state, could you send the parameters used in the creation?
Also, currently there is no way to update the user keys.
I have fixed the problem when specifying apis with asterisk.

@DaanHoogland,
Analyzing the integration tests, I think the problem could be in the internal structure running the tests for the following reasons:

Latests Marvin logs indicate some problem with all clusters being in avoid set, which I think is not related to this PR:

2024-10-01 07:41:41,367 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) Searching all possible resources under this Zone: 1
2024-10-01 07:41:41,407 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) Listing clusters in order of aggregate capacity, that have (at least one host with) enough CPU and RAM capacity under this Zone: 1
2024-10-01 07:41:41,477 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) Removing from the clusterId list these clusters from avoid set: [1]
2024-10-01 07:41:41,563 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) No clusters found after removing disabled clusters and clusters in avoid list, returning.
2024-10-01 07:41:48,742 DEBUG [c.c.c.CapacityManagerImpl] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) VM instance {"id":435,"instanceName":"r-435-VM","type":"DomainRouter","uuid":"a7eb046b-c2d9-46cd-9220-dae09781535f"} state transited from [Starting] to [Stopped] with event [OperationFailed]. VM's original host: null, new host: null, host before state transition: null
2024-10-01 07:41:51,921 ERROR [c.c.v.VmWorkJobHandlerProxy] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) Invocation exception, caused by: com.cloud.exception.InsufficientServerCapacityException: Unable to create a deployment for VM instance {"id":435,"instanceName":"r-435-VM","type":"DomainRouter","uuid":"a7eb046b-c2d9-46cd-9220-dae09781535f"}Scope=interface com.cloud.dc.DataCenter; id=1
2024-10-01 07:41:52,458 INFO  [c.c.v.VmWorkJobHandlerProxy] (Work-Job-Executor-129:[ctx-39be9a11, job-4383/job-4386, ctx-a2bb1e92]) (logid:919ef11a) Rethrow exception com.cloud.exception.InsufficientServerCapacityException: Unable to create a deployment for VM instance {"id":435,"instanceName":"r-435-VM","type":"DomainRouter","uuid":"a7eb046b-c2d9-46cd-9220-dae09781535f"}Scope=interface com.cloud.dc.DataCenter; id=1

The 2 times the integration tests were run, they failed in different tests (even though no changes in the code were made): Api keypair restructure #9504 (comment) and Api keypair restructure #9504 (comment)

rajujith · 2024-10-24T04:42:04Z

@blueorangutan package

blueorangutan · 2024-10-24T04:44:03Z

@rajujith a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

blueorangutan · 2024-10-24T05:44:02Z

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 11425

klaus.freitas.scclouds added 6 commits July 30, 2024 14:13

initial commit of api keypair restrucure

1257678

making some fixes

2e5de1e

small fixes and deleting apikeys on erasure of user and account

7bfdfb4

fixing NPE on user edition authored-by: hsato03

ac14de2

small tweaks

16fe2f0

fix tests

378fc4f

boring-cyborg bot added the component:api label Aug 8, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into api-keypair-restructure

b5a8972

DaanHoogland closed this Aug 12, 2024

DaanHoogland reopened this Aug 12, 2024

fixing mistake on test

a7057c5

DaanHoogland added the status:needs-testing label Aug 13, 2024

fixing compilation failure

989b4c3

rajujith self-assigned this Aug 19, 2024

fix checkstyles

b0ba748

DaanHoogland reviewed Aug 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

api/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/api/command/admin/user/ListUserKeysCmd.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

engine/schema/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/acl/ApiKeyPairPermissionVO.java Show resolved Hide resolved

github-actions bot added the status:has-conflicts label Aug 20, 2024

klaus.freitas.scclouds and others added 2 commits August 20, 2024 09:32

fix version

83bdb68

Merge branch 'main' into api-keypair-restructure

53ba8e9

github-actions bot removed the status:has-conflicts label Aug 20, 2024

fix lint, ty Dahn

33ae518

apache deleted a comment from blueorangutan Aug 20, 2024

rajujith reviewed Oct 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

fixing asterisk, refactoring apikey permissions check

4817b13

github-actions bot added the status:has-conflicts label Oct 16, 2024

Merge branch 'main' into api-keypair-restructure

5cb0eb9

github-actions bot removed the status:has-conflicts label Oct 16, 2024

klaus.freitas.scclouds added 2 commits October 23, 2024 09:21

fix db migration logic, list permissions with keys

61e0940

fixing tests

b950353

fix noredist

f5efd4e

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Api keypair restructure #9504

Api keypair restructure #9504

KlausDornsbach commented Aug 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

DaanHoogland commented Aug 13, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Aug 14, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Aug 16, 2024

rajujith commented Aug 19, 2024

github-actions bot commented Aug 20, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 25, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 25, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 26, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 26, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 27, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Sep 27, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 30, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 30, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 1, 2024

rajujith left a comment •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Oct 16, 2024

rajujith commented Oct 18, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 18, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 18, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Oct 23, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Oct 23, 2024

rajujith commented Oct 24, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 24, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 24, 2024

Api keypair restructure #9504

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Api keypair restructure #9504

Conversation

KlausDornsbach commented Aug 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Description

Types of changes

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

Bug Severity

How Has This Been Tested?

API Key Creation and Basic Testing

Permissions Validation

Migration to api_keypair Table

General validations

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

DaanHoogland commented Aug 13, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Aug 14, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Aug 16, 2024

rajujith commented Aug 19, 2024

github-actions bot commented Aug 20, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 25, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 25, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 26, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 26, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 27, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Sep 27, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 30, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 30, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Sep 30, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 1, 2024

rajujith left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Oct 16, 2024

rajujith commented Oct 18, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 18, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 18, 2024

DaanHoogland commented Oct 23, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Oct 23, 2024

rajujith commented Oct 24, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 24, 2024

blueorangutan commented Oct 24, 2024

KlausDornsbach commented Aug 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Migration to `api_keypair` Table

codecov bot commented Aug 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

rajujith left a comment •

edited

Loading