...
CREATE TABLE `NODE_ACCESS_REQUIREMENT` (
`SUBJECT_ID` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
`SUBJECT_TYPE` enum('ENTITY','EVALUATION','TEAM') NOT NULL,
`REQUIREMENT_ID` bigint(20) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`SUBJECT_ID`,`SUBJECT_TYPE`,`REQUIREMENT_ID`),
KEY `SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUIREMENT_REQUIREMENT_ID_FK` (`REQUIREMENT_ID`),
CONSTRAINT `SUBJECT_ACCESS_REQUIREMENT_REQUIREMENT_ID_FK` FOREIGN KEY (`REQUIREMENT_ID`) REFERENCES `ACCESS_REQUIREMENT` (`ID`) ON DELETE CASCADE
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
Current Workflow
Will only discuss Web client workflow since we are deprecating scripts that are using these services.ACT member used to create AccessRequirements via a script. We are deprecating the script and encouraging users to use the web client implementation.
Creating an AccessRequirement and applying it to an entity works as following:
- An ACT member navigates to a subject A (entity or team) that they want to apply new AccessRequirement to.
- S/he creates an AccessRequirement B for the subject, setting up the terms, and specifying all requirements.
- Later new data C is added to Synapse.
- An ACT member determines that the new data should have the same AccessRequirement with A. S/he navigates to A and list A's AccessRequirement to find the one they are looking for.
- S/he changes the existing AccessRequirement, extends it to also apply to C.
Problems
- Currently, each AccessRequirement can be applied to multiple subjects. Every time a subject is added or removed from the AccessRequirement, the AccessRequirement is updated.
- Since applying an AccessRequirement to a subject is a relationship between AccessRequirement and subject, adding or removing subjects from AccessRequirement should only change the relationship between the subjects and the AccessRequirement, and do not update the AccessRequirement.
- Entity's creator needs to contact ACT to apply an existing AccessRequirement to their entity.
- Also, changing this relationship may make the subject more or less accessible to users. The change should trigger a change message on the subject itself so that we can correctly authorize users' actions on the subject.
Proposed Solution
This section is open for discussion.
...
- Add an API to change the relationship between an AccessRequirement and a list of RestrictableObjects. This action will trigger a change message for each subjects.
- Create will work the same.
- Update AccessRequirement APIs will only populate ACCESS_REQUIREMENT and ACCESS_REQUIREMENT_VERSION table.
- This option will keep the list of RestrictableObjectDescriptor in AccessRequirement DTO.
Pros:
- Friendly to users since their workflow will stay the same.
Cons:
- It is not clear that the association between a subject and an AccessRequirement is not a part of the AccessRequirement.
Option 2 - Allow
...
AccessRequirement to be created
...
without specifying Subjects
- Remove the list of RestrictableObjectDescriptor from AccessRequirement DTO.
- Create & Update AccessRequirement will not associate the AccessRequirement to any subjects.
- Add new set of APIs to associate a subject to an AccessRequirement and to remove the association.
- Add new APIs to list AccessRequirement one creates and have access to.
Pros:
- The API make it clear that the association between a subject and an AccessRequirement doesn't change the AccessRequirement itself.
Cons:
- AccessRequirement itself can have similar terms. AccessRequirements do not have name. Without the context of which subject it applies too, it is hard for user to identify which AccessRequirement they wants.
New Services
These are new APIs for option 2.
| Action | Intended Users | Method | URI | Request Params | RequestBody | ResponseBody | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Apply an AccessRequirement to a subject | ACT | PUT | /accessRequirement/{id}/subject | subjectId, subjectType | ||
| 2 | Remove an AccessRequirement from a subject | ACT | DELETE | /accessRequirement/{id}/subject | subjectId, subjectType | ||
| 3 | Listing a page of subjects that an AccessRequirement directly applies to | All users | GET | /accessRequirement/{id}/subjects | nextPageToken | RestrictableObjectDescriptorResponse | |
| 4 | Listing a page of AccessRequirements that applies to a subject | All users | POST | /accessRequirement/batch | BatchAccessRequirementRequest | BatchAccessRequirementResponse |
| RestrictableObjectDescriptorResponse |
|---|
| List<RestrictableObjectDescriptor> subjects |
| String nextPageToken |
| BatchAccessRequirementRequest |
|---|
| RestrictableObjectDescriptor subject |
| String nextPageToken |
| BatchAccessRequirementResponse |
|---|
| List<AccessRequirement> results |
| String nextPageToken |
Related JIRA tickets:
Jira Legacy server JIRA (sagebionetworks.jira.com) columns key,summary,type,created,updated,due,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution serverId ba6fb084-9827-3160-8067-8ac7470f78b2 key PLFM-4476 Jira Legacy server JIRA (sagebionetworks.jira.com) columns key,summary,type,created,updated,due,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution serverId ba6fb084-9827-3160-8067-8ac7470f78b2 key PLFM-4512 Jira Legacy server JIRA (sagebionetworks.jira.com) columns key,summary,type,created,updated,due,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution serverId ba6fb084-9827-3160-8067-8ac7470f78b2 key SWC-3709 Jira Legacy server JIRA (sagebionetworks.jira.com) columns key,summary,type,created,updated,due,assignee,reporter,priority,status,resolution serverId ba6fb084-9827-3160-8067-8ac7470f78b2 key PLFM-4518