Find Roles for Authority using the RoleHierarchy?

[Niels Basjes]

My current understanding (and please correct me if this incorrect) is that

• an Authority is essentially an externally managed 'flag' that indicates what the user is. In the cases I have seen this is usually a list of groups/teams/... of which the user is a member.
• a Role is essentially a grouping of permissions inside the application. Users in a specific Role can access certain endpoints and do certain operations.

At the technical level these 2 concepts are the same, the only notable difference is that the Role has a prefix (default = "ROLE_") in the string that represents it.

Now recently the RoleHierarchyImpl has a Builder that supports a much easier way of defining the roles and this way hiding these prefixes has become much cleaner.

This code looks something like this:

@Bean
static RoleHierarchy roleHierarchy() {
    return RoleHierarchyImpl.withDefaultRolePrefix()
        .role("ADMIN").implies("STAFF", "TEAMS")
        .role("TEAMS").implies("OPERATORS")
        .role("STAFF").implies("USER")
        .role("USER").implies("GUEST")
        .build();
}

Since the Authorities and Roles are technically the same I have the suggestion to extend this builder to allow for something like this snippet.
Here the role() and authority() have 1 difference: The prefix is used or not.

@Bean
static RoleHierarchy roleHierarchy() {
    return RoleHierarchyImpl.withDefaultRolePrefix()
        .role("ADMIN").implies("STAFF", "TEAMS")
        .role("TEAMS").implies("OPERATORS")
        .role("STAFF").implies("USER")
        .role("USER").implies("GUEST")

        .authority("TEAM_ABC").implies("TEAMS")
        .build();
}

If you like this idea then I'll put up a pull request.

If you think this is a totally wrong approach (which is actually quite likely) then please tell me what the right way of mapping an external Authority to a Role is?

[Marcus Hert Da Coregio]

Hi @nielsbasjes, thanks for the suggestion.

Yes, I think it makes sense since the RoleHierarchy is applied when hasAuthority/hasAnyAuthority is used.
Feel free to provide a PR and we can go from there.

[Niels Basjes]

Working on it.
In the text format you can specify

   ROLE_A > ROLE_B
   ROLE_A > ROLE_C

which gives 'A' both 'B' and 'C'

In the builder this is broken.

This example gives 'A' only 'C' (the last one)

RoleHierarchyImpl.withDefaultRolePrefix()
    .role("A").implies("B")
    .role("A").implies("C")
    .build();

Fixing this in a separate commit.