-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
[PM-3478] Refactor OrganizationUser api #10949
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10949 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 33.25% 33.26% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 2731 2731
Lines 85298 85296 -2
Branches 16226 16226
==========================================
+ Hits 28364 28372 +8
+ Misses 54676 54666 -10
Partials 2258 2258 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
New Issues
Fixed Issues
|
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.
Straight forward. Good work!
617ebf0
3a8fbea
I've put the new API call behind a feature flag in |
🎟️ Tracking
📔 Objective
From bitwarden/server#4752:
This PR refactors the client-side code to use the new endpoint.
Generally the components were not using the additional properties from the existing endpoint, so the new api call and model could be swapped in with no complaints from Typescript.
One exception is the collections dialog. Currently we fetch user-collection associations from the existing endpoint to check whether a user has access to the collection. However, this is already available when we load the collection data, using the
collection.users
property. I've updated it to use this instead, so we don't need the extra member info. I've also made a similar change to the group mapping logic for consistency and created a follow-up ticket to refactor that controller: AC-3035.(I'd like to refactor how the access-selector works, I tried some small improvements here, but it seems like nothing short of a rewrite will cover all our current use cases. For another day.)
📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:
) or similar for great changes:memo:
) or ℹ️ (:information_source:
) for notes or general info:question:
) for questions:thinking:
) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:
) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:
) for suggestions / improvements:x:
) or:warning:
) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:
) or ♻️ (:recycle:
) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:
) for minor or nitpick changes