Skip to content

fix: When having read permission for the application, the application settings page can be viewed #4337

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
zhanweizhang7 merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2025
Merged

fix: When having read permission for the application, the application settings page can be viewed #4337

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions ui/src/router/modules/application-detail.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -82,13 +82,13 @@ const ApplicationDetailRouter = {
() => {
const to: any = get_next_route()
if (to.params.from == 'resource-management') { } else {
return PermissionConst.APPLICATION_EDIT.getWorkspacePermissionWorkspaceManageRole()
return PermissionConst.APPLICATION_READ.getWorkspacePermissionWorkspaceManageRole()
}
},
() => {
const to: any = get_next_route()
if (to.params.from == 'resource-management') { } else {
return PermissionConst.APPLICATION_EDIT.getApplicationWorkspaceResourcePermission(
return PermissionConst.APPLICATION_READ.getApplicationWorkspaceResourcePermission(
to ? to.params.id : '',
)
}
Expand All @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ const ApplicationDetailRouter = {
},
() => {
const to: any = get_next_route()
if (to.path.includes('resource-management')) { return PermissionConst.RESOURCE_APPLICATION_EDIT }
if (to.path.includes('resource-management')) { return PermissionConst.RESOURCE_APPLICATION_READ }
},
]
},
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@shaohuzhang1 shaohuzhang1 Nov 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The provided code has several potential issues:

  1. Function get_next_route Usage:

    • The function get_next_route() is not defined in the given snippet. Without its implementation, the logic for determining permissions will not be functional.

  2. String Matching in Conditional Logic:

    • In both cases where to.params.from == 'resource-management', nothing significant is done in either return statement. This could cause unexpected behavior if you intend to conditionally apply different policies within these routes.

  3. Permissions Return Values:

    • While it appears that PermissionConst.APPLICATION_READ should work similarly to PermissionConst.APPLICATION_EDIT, using PermissionConst.RESOURCE_APPLICATION_READ instead of PermissionConst.APPLICATION_READ when handling resource management routes might inadvertently allow more access than intended due to differences between application read and resource edit permissions.

  4. Path Handling:

    • When checking paths with if (to.path.includes('resource-management')), this approach directly checks against partial strings (includes). It’s generally better to compare full URLs or specific path segments to ensure accuracy and prevent false positives.

Suggestions:

  • Ensure that get_next_route() returns an object containing necessary route information if the dependency is needed elsewhere in your application.
  • Evaluate whether conditional logic based on from params is actually required. If all resources fall under "application," perhaps simplifying the check would suffice: if (!to.path.startsWith('/resource-management')). This reduces complexity without changing permissions unnecessarily.
  • Double-check the definitions/assignments of PermissionConst constants to maintain consistency across your project.

To address some of these concerns, here's a revised version of one of the affected sections assuming proper dependencies and correct usage contexts:

const ApplicationDetailRouter = {
  [RouteType.Application]: [
    {
      method: RouteMethod.Get,
      controllerName: 'ApplicationController',
      methodName: 'GetApplicationById',
      authorizationRuleFn: (
        _authInfo: AuthResultInterface | null,
        context: ControllerContext<Request<any>, Response>
      ) => {
        const to: any = context.req.url // Assuming req.url provides enough info
        if (to && to.includes("resource-management")) {
          return PermissionConst.RESOURCE_APPLICATION_READ;
        }
        return PermissionConst.APPLICATION_READ; // Default permission for everything else
      }
    },
    // Repeat similar pattern for other methods/routes as applicable...
  ],
}

Make sure that this revision aligns correctly with your actual architecture and data flow, including how request objects are structured.

Expand Down
Loading