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

Replace non-inclusive term "whitelist" in LDAP configuration #2059

Closed
cwperks opened this issue Aug 30, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2099
Closed

Replace non-inclusive term "whitelist" in LDAP configuration #2059

cwperks opened this issue Aug 30, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2099
Labels
refactoring code/test refactoring

Comments

@cwperks
Copy link
Member

cwperks commented Aug 30, 2022

A recently filed issue (#2032) revealed a discrepancy between the documentation website and the actual config parameter when configuring LDAP for an authentication backend. The documentation website was displaying a parameter custom_attr_allowlist, while the security plugin looks for custom_attr_whitelist. The documentation website has been reverted temporarily to show the actual parameter (opensearch-project/documentation-website#912).

This change is part of the broader initiative in opensearch to remove non-inclusive language: opensearch-project/OpenSearch#1483

@cwperks cwperks added bug Something isn't working untriaged Require the attention of the repository maintainers and may need to be prioritized labels Aug 30, 2022
@cwperks cwperks added refactoring code/test refactoring and removed bug Something isn't working labels Aug 30, 2022
@peternied peternied removed the untriaged Require the attention of the repository maintainers and may need to be prioritized label Sep 6, 2022
@peternied
Copy link
Member

Lets make sure we deprecate this config value in the 2.X line, and make sure that this has been replaced for the 3.0 release.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants