QRunIO/qqq
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Kingsrook/qqq.git synced 2025-07-18 05:01:07 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

CE-1654 - Just log, don't throw, if missing a security key value (should this be a setting??)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
darin.kelkhoff
2024-09-10 09:34:46 -05:00
parent f457fd0860
commit 3cc0cfd86c
2 changed files with 55 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
qqq-backend-core/src/main/java/com/kingsrook/qqq/backend/core/actions/audits/AuditAction.java
View File

@ -225,7 +225,13 @@ public class AuditAction extends AbstractQActionFunction<AuditInput, AuditOutput
{
if(auditSingleInput.getSecurityKeyValues() == null || !auditSingleInput.getSecurityKeyValues().containsKey(recordSecurityLock.getSecurityKeyType()))
{
throw (new QException("Missing securityKeyValue [" + recordSecurityLock.getSecurityKeyType() + "] in audit request for table " + auditSingleInput.getAuditTableName()));
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// originally, this case threw... //
// but i think it's better to record the audit, just //
// missing its security key value, then to fail... //
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// throw (new QException("Missing securityKeyValue [" + recordSecurityLock.getSecurityKeyType() + "] in audit request for table " + auditSingleInput.getAuditTableName()));
LOG.info("Missing securityKeyValue in audit request", logPair("table", auditSingleInput.getAuditTableName()), logPair("securityKey", recordSecurityLock.getSecurityKeyType()));
}
}

48
qqq-backend-core/src/test/java/com/kingsrook/qqq/backend/core/actions/audits/AuditActionTest.java
View File

@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ import java.util.Optional;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.BaseTest;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.context.QContext;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.exceptions.QException;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.logging.QCollectingLogger;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.logging.QLogger;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.model.actions.audits.AuditInput;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.model.actions.audits.AuditSingleInput;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.model.audits.AuditsMetaDataProvider;
@ -40,6 +42,7 @@ import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.model.session.QUser;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.processes.utils.GeneralProcessUtils;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.utils.TestUtils;
import com.kingsrook.qqq.backend.core.utils.collections.MapBuilder;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Disabled;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals;
@ -83,6 +86,7 @@ class AuditActionTest extends BaseTest
**
*******************************************************************************/
@Test
@Disabled("this behavior has been changed to just log... should this be a setting?")
void testFailWithoutSecurityKey() throws QException
{
QInstance qInstance = TestUtils.defineInstance();
@ -117,6 +121,50 @@ class AuditActionTest extends BaseTest
/*******************************************************************************
**
*******************************************************************************/
@Test
void testLogWithoutSecurityKey() throws QException
{
int recordId = 1701;
QInstance qInstance = TestUtils.defineInstance();
new AuditsMetaDataProvider().defineAll(qInstance, TestUtils.MEMORY_BACKEND_NAME, null);
String userName = "John Doe";
QContext.init(qInstance, new QSession().withUser(new QUser().withFullName(userName)));
QCollectingLogger collectingLogger = QLogger.activateCollectingLoggerForClass(AuditAction.class);
AuditAction.execute(TestUtils.TABLE_NAME_ORDER, recordId, Map.of(), "Test Audit");
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// it should not throw, but it should also not insert the audit. //
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Optional<QRecord> auditRecord = GeneralProcessUtils.getRecordByField("audit", "recordId", recordId);
assertTrue(auditRecord.isPresent());
assertThat(collectingLogger.getCollectedMessages()).anyMatch(m -> m.getMessage().contains("Missing securityKeyValue in audit request"));
collectingLogger.clear();
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// try again with a null value in the key - that should be ok - as at least you were thinking //
// about the key and put in SOME value (null has its own semantics in security keys) //
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Map<String, Serializable> securityKeys = new HashMap<>();
securityKeys.put(TestUtils.SECURITY_KEY_TYPE_STORE, null);
AuditAction.execute(TestUtils.TABLE_NAME_ORDER, recordId, securityKeys, "Test Audit");
/////////////////////////////////////
// now the audit should be stored. //
/////////////////////////////////////
auditRecord = GeneralProcessUtils.getRecordByField("audit", "recordId", recordId);
assertTrue(auditRecord.isPresent());
assertThat(collectingLogger.getCollectedMessages()).noneMatch(m -> m.getMessage().contains("Missing securityKeyValue in audit request"));
}
/*******************************************************************************
**
*******************************************************************************/