fix: remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects inconsistent input#211
Merged
leeqvip merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom Nov 12, 2021
Abingcbc:remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects
Merged
fix: remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects inconsistent input#211leeqvip merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom Abingcbc:remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects
leeqvip merged 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
Abingcbc:remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects
Conversation
…emove_filtered_policy Signed-off-by: abingcbc <abingcbc626@gmail.com>
|
@ffyuanda @Zxilly @techoner @elfisworking please review |
Member
|
@techoner plz review |
Contributor
Author
|
@techoner PTAL ❤️ Another PR depends on this one. |
leeqvip
approved these changes
Nov 12, 2021
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 12, 2021
## [1.9.5](v1.9.4...v1.9.5) (2021-11-12) ### Bug Fixes * remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects inconsistent input with remove_filtered_policy ([#211](#211)) ([e7e6696](e7e6696))
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.9.5 🎉 The release is available on:
Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Chimou0
pushed a commit
to Chimou0/pycasbin
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2025
…emove_filtered_policy (apache#211) Signed-off-by: abingcbc <abingcbc626@gmail.com>
Chimou0
pushed a commit
to Chimou0/pycasbin
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2025
## [1.9.5](apache/casbin-pycasbin@v1.9.4...v1.9.5) (2021-11-12) ### Bug Fixes * remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects inconsistent input with remove_filtered_policy ([apache#211](apache#211)) ([e7e6696](apache@e7e6696))
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed-off-by: abingcbc abingcbc626@gmail.com
What problem does this PR solve?
The input
field_valuesofremove_filtered_policy_returnsis like("alice", "tom"), but the one ofremove_filtered_policy_returns_effectsis like(("alice", "tom"),).What is changed and how it works?
remove_filtered_policy_returns_effects
Just use
field_valuesbut notfield_values[0]. But it cannot pass the unit test, so we have to modify where it is used.remove_filtered_policy_self
The only usage of
remove_filtered_policy_returns_effectsisremove_filtered_policy_self. In this function, the original codes didn't unwrap thefield_valuesand directly pass it toremove_filtered_policy_returns_effects. So we can unwrapfield_valueshere and keep the input consistent withremove_filtered_policy.