Remove custom access control

[timleslie]

See #5025

Now that #5145 (remove keystone.extendGraphQLSchema) is complete, we no longer need to custom access control parsers and checkers.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: a0fcdc3

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 13 packages

Name	Type
@keystone-next/keystone-legacy	Major
@keystone-next/access-control-legacy	Major
@keystone-next/adapter-knex-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/adapter-mongoose-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/adapter-prisma-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/test-utils-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/cypress-project-access-control-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/cypress-project-basic-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/cypress-project-client-validation-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/cypress-project-login-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/benchmarks-legacy	Patch
@keystone-next/keystone	Patch
@keystone-next/fields-legacy	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/keystonejs/keystone-next-docs/9sZE3iNLsYU2UHPhKLJcHfyQhtC6
✅ Preview: https://keystone-next-docs-git-remove-custom-access-control-keystonejs.vercel.app

[codesandbox-ci]

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit a0fcdc3:

Sandbox	Source
@keystone-next/example-sandbox	Configuration

[gautamsi]

Do we not need this with config.extendGraphQLSchema ? I am sure with extend we also want to restrict access to those query and mutation.

[timleslie]

Since the user is writing the resolver directly in config.extendGraphQLSchema they can implement any access control they need inline in their resolver, there's not need for system level support.

[gautamsi]

That access was easy and inline with the other access control config.

Anyways, I guess the internal list api (if not using sudo context) would still restrict access using access control, right?