On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:05:56AM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 02:21:58PM -0500, Ade Lee wrote:
> This patch needs to be rebased.
>
> Tt was possible, however, to review the contents. In general,
> everything looks good. It would be be useful though, to be able to
> distinguish the many failure cases. For instance --
>
> try {
> ca.modifyAuthority(data.getEnabled(), data.getDescription());
> + audit(ILogger.SUCCESS, OpDef.OP_MODIFY, ca.getAuthorityID().toString(),
auditParams);
> return createOKResponse(readAuthorityData(ca));
> } catch (CATypeException e) {
> + audit(ILogger.FAILURE, OpDef.OP_MODIFY, ca.getAuthorityID().toString(),
auditParams);
> throw new ForbiddenException(e.toString());
> } catch (IssuerUnavailableException e) {
> + audit(ILogger.FAILURE, OpDef.OP_MODIFY, ca.getAuthorityID().toString(),
auditParams);
> throw new ConflictingOperationException(e.toString());
> } catch (EBaseException e) {
> CMS.debug(e);
> + audit(ILogger.FAILURE, OpDef.OP_MODIFY, ca.getAuthorityID().toString(),
auditParams);
> throw new PKIException("Error modifying authority: " +
e.toString());
> }
>
> It would be nice to be able to determine if the modify failed because of permissions
or otherwise.
> Can we add the exception error message to the auditParams?
>
> Ade
>
Updated patch attached. The "exception" key is added to the
auditParams map to indicate the exception (if any), rather than
adding a whole new audit message parameter.
Cheers,
Fraser
FRACKed by Ade (Fix, retest -> ACK).
Pushed to master (2d7722f2c9b8230e79d258ad7aa1be1e87804518)