-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
ui: allow actions for other users of root admin #11319
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #11319 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 16.99% 18.17% +1.17%
- Complexity 14715 16188 +1473
============================================
Files 5832 5886 +54
Lines 517561 559082 +41521
Branches 62982 77610 +14628
============================================
+ Hits 87975 101616 +13641
- Misses 419651 446419 +26768
- Partials 9935 11047 +1112
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
09f8191 to
0a44fec
Compare
|
@shwstppr a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
Fixes apache#10306 Signed-off-by: Abhishek Kumar <[email protected]>
0a44fec to
601b07d
Compare
|
UI build: ✔️ |
|
@shwstppr a Jenkins job has been kicked to build UI QA env. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
|
UI build: ✔️ |
harikrishna-patnala
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
tested with multiple admin accounts and with different admin role types.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
clgtm, but except for record.id !== store.userInfo.id the code is identical in three places. Maybe create a validation method?
EDIT: another difference spotted in the first compared to the other two places, but the remark holds.
Description
Fixes #10306
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?