From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:57:34 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2] Introduce separate entity
 object types for entity privileges.
Message-ID: <20180817155734.cdyvqlnttszp5e26@esperanza>
References: <20180802105558.20488-1-sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
 <20180807163842.agnqqk7gyua2vwzv@esperanza>
 <305E5CD8-68DD-4897-9E77-347F290091A6@tarantool.org>
 <20180817091931.r45zifiikkwzuycu@esperanza>
 <93712A9E-2004-4609-8506-4ACB043A627B@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <93712A9E-2004-4609-8506-4ACB043A627B@tarantool.org>
To: Serge Petrenko <sergepetrenko@tarantool.org>
Cc: Konstantin Osipov <kostja@tarantool.org>, tarantool-patches@freelists.org
List-ID: <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:19:29PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote:
> diff --git a/src/box/alter.cc b/src/box/alter.cc
> index 3007a131d..f586a2695 100644
> --- a/src/box/alter.cc
> +++ b/src/box/alter.cc
> @@ -2537,10 +2537,35 @@ priv_def_create_from_tuple(struct priv_def *priv, struct tuple *tuple)
>  {
>  	priv->grantor_id = tuple_field_u32_xc(tuple, BOX_PRIV_FIELD_ID);
>  	priv->grantee_id = tuple_field_u32_xc(tuple, BOX_PRIV_FIELD_UID);
> +
>  	const char *object_type =
>  		tuple_field_cstr_xc(tuple, BOX_PRIV_FIELD_OBJECT_TYPE);
> -	priv->object_id = tuple_field_u32_xc(tuple, BOX_PRIV_FIELD_OBJECT_ID);
>  	priv->object_type = schema_object_type(object_type);
> +
> +	const char *data = tuple_field(tuple, BOX_PRIV_FIELD_OBJECT_ID);
> +	if (data == NULL) {
> +	    tnt_raise(ClientError, ER_NO_SUCH_FIELD,

Bad indentation - should be a tab here. Please fix.

> + *
> + * When adding new types please keep the
> + * same order between objects and corresponding entity types.
> + * schema_entity_type() relies on this convention.
>   */
>  enum schema_object_type {
>  	SC_UNKNOWN = 0,
> @@ -228,9 +232,21 @@ enum schema_object_type {
>  	SC_ROLE = 5,
>  	SC_SEQUENCE = 6,
>  	SC_COLLATION = 7,
> -	schema_object_type_MAX = 8
> +	schema_object_type_MAX = 8,

Please add a comment here that says that below this point only entity
types are supposed to be defined.

> +	SC_ENTITY_SPACE,
> +	SC_ENTITY_FUNCTION,
> +	SC_ENTITY_USER,
> +	SC_ENTITY_ROLE,
> +	SC_ENTITY_SEQUENCE,
> +	SC_ENTITY_COLLATION
>  };

> +enum schema_object_type
> +schema_entity_type(enum schema_object_type type)
> +{
> +	assert((int) type < (int) schema_object_type_MAX);
> +	return type + schema_object_type_MAX - 1;
> +}

No. Too fragile - easy to make a mistake when adding a new type.
And this -1 looks suspicious. Kostja isn't going to like it.

I vote for rewriting this code with a simple switch-case.