Skip to content
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

feat: Add support for JSON request parsing in Enforcer #461

Closed

Conversation

Shiva953
Copy link

@Shiva953 Shiva953 commented Nov 5, 2023

Addresses #460

This PR adds support for JSON request parsing in the Enforcer module. The new method enableAcceptJsonRequest has been implemented to facilitate parsing request properties as JSON strings which enhances the capability of the Enforcer to handle object ownership, improving the overall functionality and versatility of the system.

@casbin-bot
Copy link
Member

@nodece @Shivansh-yadav13 please review

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Nov 5, 2023

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@Shiva953 Shiva953 changed the title [feature]Add support for JSON request parsing in Enforcer feat: Add support for JSON request parsing in Enforcer Nov 5, 2023
@hsluoyz
Copy link
Member

hsluoyz commented Nov 6, 2023

@Shiva953 fix CI:

image

@geoffreygarrett
Copy link

hmm lol

@hsluoyz hsluoyz closed this Apr 10, 2024
@hsluoyz hsluoyz reopened this Apr 10, 2024
@hsluoyz hsluoyz closed this Apr 10, 2024
@hsluoyz hsluoyz reopened this Apr 10, 2024
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ import { FieldIndex } from './constants';
* Enforcer = ManagementEnforcer + RBAC API.
*/
export class Enforcer extends ManagementEnforcer {
private acceptJsonRequest = false;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks like you only add a variable, no logic checks.

Is it correct?

@hsluoyz hsluoyz closed this Oct 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants