Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add acceptance tests for permissions logic - #3781
Merged
Merged
Conversation
denik
requested review from
andrewnester, anton-107, pietern and shreyas-goenka
as code ownersOctober 17, 2025 14:52
Collaborator
18 failing tests:
|
denikforce-pushed
the
denik/permissions-tests
branch
from
October 17, 2025 15:07
7413947 to
7603391Comparedenikforce-pushed
the
denik/permissions-tests
branch
from
October 17, 2025 15:11
7603391 to
796e21aCompareandrewnester
approved these changes
Oct 20, 2025
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
denik added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 20, 2025
## Changes Instead of removing current user from permissions and relying on terraform to add it back, we'll instead add IS_OWNER/CAN_MANAGE ourselves. Previous attempt to remove this mutator completely #3688 failed because backend complains about "ambiguous" permissions when both CAN_MANAGE and IS_OWNER are present. Thus we do additional transformation here: we upgrade CAN_MANAGE to IS_OWNER if we can. Don't apply this logic to secret scopes resource as it's not implemented via databricks_permissions resource in terraform and does not have IS_OWNER/CAN_MANAGE insertion logic. This means we no longer filter out current user permissions from secret scopes resources. ## Why - Enables direct implementation which will not do any transformations, just use whatever in the config. With this PR, the request payload will match terraform's. - Final permissions visible in 'bundle validate -o json'. ## Tests #3781
denik added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2026
## Why Going to make some changes there, want to record how requests look like and how they will change. #3780
denik added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2026
## Changes Instead of removing current user from permissions and relying on terraform to add it back, we'll instead add IS_OWNER/CAN_MANAGE ourselves. Previous attempt to remove this mutator completely #3688 failed because backend complains about "ambiguous" permissions when both CAN_MANAGE and IS_OWNER are present. Thus we do additional transformation here: we upgrade CAN_MANAGE to IS_OWNER if we can. Don't apply this logic to secret scopes resource as it's not implemented via databricks_permissions resource in terraform and does not have IS_OWNER/CAN_MANAGE insertion logic. This means we no longer filter out current user permissions from secret scopes resources. ## Why - Enables direct implementation which will not do any transformations, just use whatever in the config. With this PR, the request payload will match terraform's. - Final permissions visible in 'bundle validate -o json'. ## Tests #3781
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
Going to make some changes there, want to record how requests look like and how they will change.
#3780