As Steven's and Ian's work to honour structural subscriptions is completing, the focus on subscribing roles will soon be mute. I do not want to abandon your work though. The removal of test_transition_to_private_grants_subscribers_access demonstrates that there is still a problem with Lp's behaviour that your branch fixes. We do not want random direct bug subscribers to be granted access.
1. I think the preservation of existing driver subscriptions is good.
Maybe the code can be DRY if `required_subscribers.add(pillar.driver)`
was in the ` if information_type in PRIVATE_INFORMATION_TYPES` block
2. Is the bug reporter and person making the information type change
also subscribed and given an access grant?
3. Is there a test that shows that the reporter, changer, and driver
have access?
Hi Jon.
As Steven's and Ian's work to honour structural subscriptions is completing, the focus on subscribing roles will soon be mute. I do not want to abandon your work though. The removal of test_transition _to_private_ grants_ subscribers_ access demonstrates that there is still a problem with Lp's behaviour that your branch fixes. We do not want random direct bug subscribers to be granted access.
1. I think the preservation of existing driver subscriptions is good. subscribers. add(pillar. driver) ` INFORMATION_ TYPES` block
Maybe the code can be DRY if `required_
was in the ` if information_type in PRIVATE_
2. Is the bug reporter and person making the information type change
also subscribed and given an access grant?
3. Is there a test that shows that the reporter, changer, and driver
have access?