Use set comparison for updating permissions, groups, actions, and object types #1456
Conversation
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
These suboptions of users, user groups, and permissions were previously compared as lists for the purposes of updates, and so would update the object whenever the order would change.
sc68cal
reviewed
Sep 5, 2025
|
Working on a fix to devel that hopefully will fix the sanity failures |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Related Issue
#1455
New Behavior
user.groups,user.permissions,user_group.permissions,permission.actions, andpermission.object_typesare all serialized as lists. When compared as lists, however, any ordering changes means that theuser,user_group, orpermissionare updated unnecessarily.Contrast to Current Behavior
Convert these fields into sets prior to comparison during the update process.
Discussion: Benefits and Drawbacks
Unnecessary updates can be very costly for objects with large numbers of permissions, so avoiding that would be great.
The only drawback I can think of would be a negligible increase in compute, which is offset by fewer required network requests.
I don't think ordering of these fields is a feature so this would be backwards compatible.
Changes to the Documentation
No changes.
Proposed Release Note Entry
user.groups,user.permissions,user_group.permissions,permission.actions, andpermission.object_typesare now treated as unordered sets for update comparison purposes.Double Check
develbranch.