Proposal for a more flexible RBAC model#7367
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub. 2 Skipped Deployments
|
Greptile OverviewGreptile SummaryRefactored RBAC constraint model from pairwise design to NIST-compliant set-based design. The previous Key Changes:
Issues Found:
Confidence Score: 4/5
Important Files Changed
|
Additional Comments (4)
Context Used: Rule from Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!
Context Used: Rule from
Context Used: Rule from
Context Used: Rule from |
# Conflicts: # tests/api/models/test_rbac.py
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Update down_revision from d304f57aea6d to bf12f05ef8eb to place RBAC migrations at the end of the migration chain instead of creating a parallel branch. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Description Of Changes
A suggestion for a more flexible constraint model.
Pre-Merge Checklist
CHANGELOG.mdupdatedmaindowngrade()migration is correct and works