Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Please implement update operation for /sys/auth/:path #3149

Closed
CVTJNII opened this issue Aug 11, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Please implement update operation for /sys/auth/:path #3149

CVTJNII opened this issue Aug 11, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@CVTJNII
Copy link

CVTJNII commented Aug 11, 2017

Please create a update operation for /sys/auth/:path. Currently to update the settings of an auth backend a library must delete and recreate the backend. Implementing an update method on the same path will allow client libraries which implement the CRUD model against different backends to be consistent between the different backends. Thanks.

@jefferai
Copy link
Member

What settings?

@CVTJNII
Copy link
Author

CVTJNII commented Aug 14, 2017

The description is really the only practical thing, as changing type on the fly isn't really a logical thing to do. There is also local, but as a open source user I'm not sure what the semantics are of that.

The spirit of this request was to allow a common update method to work across all backends, so that a vault configuration management tool doesn't need to know which endpoints can be updated with an update, or which need a delete and recreation. However that hope has been dashed with #3151 being closed. As I think about it not supporting update isn't that big a deal as it won't be too hard to detect a 405 and fall back to delete/create. After thinking about this over the weekend I'm much more interested in the reads (#3148, #3150) than updates with a goal of making a configuration management tool that isn't tightly coupled to the nuances of the API.

@jefferai
Copy link
Member

Local can't be changed after create, and updating the description would be a duplicate of #2645 so accordingly I'm closing this.

@CVTJNII
Copy link
Author

CVTJNII commented Aug 14, 2017

Makes sense, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants