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

change to model group access for batch job task APIs #3098

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 12, 2024

Conversation

rbhavna
Copy link
Collaborator

@rbhavna rbhavna commented Oct 11, 2024

Description

change access control for batch job task APIs from connector to model group's access control

Related Issues

Resolves #[Issue number to be closed when this PR is merged]

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing.
  • New functionality has been documented.
  • API changes companion pull request created.
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff.
  • Public documentation issue/PR created.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

Signed-off-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
@rbhavna rbhavna temporarily deployed to ml-commons-cicd-env October 11, 2024 20:38 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@rbhavna rbhavna temporarily deployed to ml-commons-cicd-env October 11, 2024 20:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@rbhavna rbhavna had a problem deploying to ml-commons-cicd-env October 11, 2024 21:40 — with GitHub Actions Failure
actionListener.onFailure(e);
});
try (ThreadContext.StoredContext threadContext = client.threadPool().getThreadContext().stashContext()) {
connectorAccessControlHelper
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to check connector access control again here? Are model/connector all access controlled through the model group so ideally any role would have the same permission to access both models and connectors?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think its fine. batch_predict also only checks for only model access for now. Since predict API is controlled by model access, it makes sense to have it for batch job APIs too. If we are planning to have connector access too, then we should also include it into predict APIs for consistency.

And yes, I don't think connector access is controlled by model group access control. They were designed separately. I think we have to either unify them or remove one of them for remote models. Does not make sense to have both at connector and model level.

@rbhavna rbhavna merged commit 6277410 into opensearch-project:main Oct 12, 2024
7 of 8 checks passed
opensearch-trigger-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2024
* change to model group access for batch job task APIs

Signed-off-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 6277410)
opensearch-trigger-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2024
* change to model group access for batch job task APIs

Signed-off-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 6277410)
b4sjoo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2024
* change to model group access for batch job task APIs

Signed-off-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 6277410)

Co-authored-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
b4sjoo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2024
* change to model group access for batch job task APIs

Signed-off-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 6277410)

Co-authored-by: Bhavana Ramaram <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants