Skip to content

[Security] Update description for Access decision strategies #15074

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 15, 2021
Merged

[Security] Update description for Access decision strategies #15074

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 8 additions & 4 deletions security/voters.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -278,12 +278,16 @@ There are three strategies available:
This grants access as soon as there is *one* voter granting access;

``consensus``
This grants access if there are more voters granting access than denying;
This grants access if there are more voters granting access than
denying. If case of a tie the decision is based on the
``allow_if_equal_granted_denied`` config option (defaulting to ``true``);

``unanimous``
This only grants access if there is no voter denying access. If all voters
abstained from voting, the decision is based on the ``allow_if_all_abstain``
config option (which defaults to ``false``).
This only grants access if there is no voter denying access.

Regardless the chosen strategy, if all voters abstained from voting, the
decision is based on the ``allow_if_all_abstain`` config option (which
defaults to ``false``).

In the above scenario, both voters should grant access in order to grant access
to the user to read the post. In this case, the default strategy is no longer
Expand Down