Folder specific access rights

[SofteqDG]

Hello,
This PR adds an item specific access rights for folders. Everything works fine for me, but i'm not sure that code is good. @oleg-nenashev, please take a look on it.

[oleg-nenashev]

Is there a real need to create a new 'FolderSpecificSecurity' class? Folders are subtype of Item in Jenkins, so the original class should do its job. From what I see you mostly copied the class, so probably it could be replaced by the original one

[oleg-nenashev]

I am not though it is largely a copy-paste from what I see

[oleg-nenashev]

If you lend a significant part of the code, please use 2013-2018 Oleg Nenashev, Synopsys Inc, Dmitry Gruzd or so

[SofteqDG]

Hi @oleg-nenashev,
Thanks for review.

I'm not sure that i should add myself as author, cos FolderSpecificSecurity is almost a full copy of the ItemSpecificSecurity. The only difference between these classes is a class of the permissionsMatrix property. ItemSpecificSecurity uses an hudson.security.AuthorizationMatrixProperty class while FolderSpecificSecurity uses com.cloudbees.hudson.plugins.folder.properties.AuthorizationMatrixProperty class.

AuthorizationMatrixProperty from both packages has a common base class AuthorizationProperty and i was thinking to create a base class for both ItemSpecificSecurity and FolderSpecificSecurity. But AuthorizationProperty is annotated as @Restricted(NoExternalUse.class) and isn't publicy available. This is the real reason i need the FolderSpecificSecurity. Maybe you have ideas how to implement this logic in a better way?

PS: I just started to learn API of Jenkins and could miss some things.

[oleg-nenashev]

OK, I will try to suggest an approach

[oleg-nenashev]

We could work with @daniel-beck to lift the @Restricted(NoExternalUse.class) restriction in the AuthorizationProperty class, but it would require dependency bump and also a bump of Jenkins core to 2.60.3.

We could do such bump, but firstly I need to fix regressions in the last version of the plugin

[oleg-nenashev]

I am happy to bump the dependency after #73 is integrated.
@SofteqDG WDYT?

[ssbarnea]

@SofteqDG can you please solve the conflict or close the PR if you don't want it anymore?

[oleg-nenashev]

Updating & resolving merge conflicts is fine.
No need to close that if you have no time. There request is reasonable, I can mark it as "help-wanted" or so

[SofteqDG]

@ssbarnea, @oleg-nenashev,
Sorry for a long delay. I will resolve conflicts in a day or two and we can go further with this PR.

[yx33]

Is there a chance that this functionality will appear in one of the next releases?