[SERVER-11963] rename field "indirectRoles" in output of rolesInfo command Created: 04/Dec/13 Updated: 10/Dec/14 Resolved: 12/Dec/13 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Security, Usability |
| Affects Version/s: | 2.5.4 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Minor - P4 |
| Reporter: | Kay Kim (Inactive) | Assignee: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Minor Change | ||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||
| Description |
|
"indirectRoles" is a bit unclear, I think "inheritedRoles" is easier to understand. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 12/Dec/13 ] |
|
While inheritedRoles may be a clearer name in the rolesInfo output, it'd be nice to use the same name as the equivalent field in the usersInfo command output, and there I think indirectRoles makes more sense, so I think it's clearer all around to just leave things as-is. |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 05/Dec/13 ] |
|
Changing from "backwards breaking": rarely to "backwards breaking": yes. If this is changed before 2.6 is released it's rarely backwards breaking as it only breaks users of 2.5.4. If we wait until after 2.6, however, we'll probably never be able to change this as it will break any scripts users have written to parse the output of rolesInfo. |