-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
feat(admin): add backend role management api #4487
Conversation
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.
.../molgenis-emx2-graphql/src/main/java/org/molgenis/emx2/graphql/GraphqlAdminFieldFactory.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.field( | ||
GraphQLFieldDefinition.newFieldDefinition() | ||
.name(USERS) | ||
.argument(GraphQLArgument.newArgument().name(EMAIL).type(Scalars.GraphQLString)) |
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.
I would prefer a 'search' argument so we can search in any field. I would for example like to search on role names. That might also be a future enhancement (I think we should first convert emx2 metadata schema to be a 'normal' schema).
...nd/molgenis-emx2-graphql/src/test/java/org/molgenis/emx2/graphql/TestGraphqlAdminFields.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...nd/molgenis-emx2-graphql/src/test/java/org/molgenis/emx2/graphql/TestGraphqlAdminFields.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
assertEquals(TEST_PERSOON, anotherSchemaMember.getUser()); | ||
|
||
// clean up | ||
testDatabase.removeUser(TEST_PERSOON); |
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.
I would keep the schema, generally we don't cleanup schemas because it helps debugging.
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.
Changed it, but shouldn't unit test run in a vacuum? I kind of dislike that running the tests clogs up my database with schemas.
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
What are the main changes you did:
how to test:
mutation updateUser($updateUser:InputUpdateUser) {updateUser(updateUser:$updateUser){status, message}}
and an updated user as variable (see unit test for field you can update).todo: