Skip to content

branch-4.0: [fix](regression) Add auth regression tests for Iceberg/Paimon system tables #58298 #58400

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 27, 2025
Merged

branch-4.0: [fix](regression) Add auth regression tests for Iceberg/Paimon system tables #58298 #58400

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 27, 2025
+367 −0

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Nov 26, 2025

Cherry-picked from #58298

@suxiaogang223
[fix](regression) Add auth regression tests for Iceberg/Paimon system…
9db3239 
… tables (#58298)

### What problem does this PR solve?

Added test_iceberg_sys_table_auth.groovy to validate Iceberg system
tables require SELECT privilege: new user is denied for
snapshots/files/entries/history (TVF + direct), then succeeds after
GRANT.
Added test_paimon_system_table_auth.groovy using fixed
flink_paimon.ts_scale_orc: same deny/allow coverage for
snapshots/files/schemas/partitions via both access paths.
Restored the original system-table suites to focus on functional
coverage; auth logic now lives in the dedicated regression cases
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner November 26, 2025 07:49
@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Nov 26, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@dataroaring dataroaring reopened this Nov 26, 2025
@Thearas
Copy link
Contributor

Thearas commented Nov 26, 2025

run buildall

@yiguolei yiguolei merged commit 2849d72 into branch-4.0 Nov 27, 2025
26 of 27 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot deleted the auto-pick-58298-branch-4.0 branch November 27, 2025 01:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@yiguolei yiguolei yiguolei approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@Thearas @yiguolei @dataroaring @suxiaogang223