Refactor subjects to always have namespaces
zepatrik opened this issue · comments
Preflight checklist
- I could not find a solution in the existing issues, docs, nor discussions.
- I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct.
- I have read and am following this repository's Contribution Guidelines.
- This issue affects my Ory Network project.
- I have joined the Ory Community Slack.
- I am signed up to the Ory Security Patch Newsletter.
Describe your problem
We currently distinguish subject IDs and subject sets. This is confusing on the API side for consumers, and annoying in the code.
Describe your ideal solution
Subjects and objects should actually be treated the same way, requiring a namespace and ID. For subjects there should just be the optional relation available, making the tuple a "subject set tuple".
Workarounds or alternatives
Keep as is or drop subject sets completely. With OPL the use-cases for subject sets are quite reduced, so it might be a valid option.
Version
v0
Additional Context
No response
@zepatrik, WDYT, should we also put this behaviour behind the experimental_strict_mode flag?
Hello contributors!
I am marking this issue as stale as it has not received any engagement from the community or maintainers for a year. That does not imply that the issue has no merit! If you feel strongly about this issue
- open a PR referencing and resolving the issue;
- leave a comment on it and discuss ideas on how you could contribute towards resolving it;
- leave a comment and describe in detail why this issue is critical for your use case;
- open a new issue with updated details and a plan for resolving the issue.
Throughout its lifetime, Ory has received over 10.000 issues and PRs. To sustain that growth, we need to prioritize and focus on issues that are important to the community. A good indication of importance, and thus priority, is activity on a topic.
Unfortunately, burnout has become a topic of concern amongst open-source projects.
It can lead to severe personal and health issues as well as opening catastrophic attack vectors.
The motivation for this automation is to help prioritize issues in the backlog and not ignore, reject, or belittle anyone.
If this issue was marked as stale erroneously you can exempt it by adding the backlog label, assigning someone, or setting a milestone for it.
Thank you for your understanding and to anyone who participated in the conversation! And as written above, please do participate in the conversation if this topic is important to you!
Thank you 🙏✌️