authz should support group of groups

[kris@…]

authz suggests it is possible to write:

[groups]
admin = one, two
users = three, four
everybody = @admin, @users

But this does not work the the standard version, here's a patch

*** authz_policy.py.orig	2009-08-13 00:51:26.000000000 +0000
--- authz_policy.py	2009-08-13 05:06:28.000000000 +0000
***************
*** 174,184 ****
--- 174,189 ----
                             self.get_authz_file())
          self.authz = ConfigObj(self.get_authz_file())
          self.groups_by_user = {}
+         groups = {}
          for group, users in self.authz.get('groups', {}).iteritems():
              if isinstance(users, basestring):
                  users = [users]
              for user in users:
+                 if user[0] == '@':
+                     users.extend (groups[user])
+                     continue
                  self.groups_by_user.setdefault(user, set()).add('@' + group)
+                 groups.setdefault('@'+group, []).append (user)
          self.authz_mtime = os.path.getmtime(self.get_authz_file())
  
      def normalise_resource(self, resource):

[Christian Boos]

Patch looks good (well, the content of the patch looks good, for the form of it, see TracDev/SubmittingPatches ;-) ).

Remy, I'll take it if you don't mind, as I'm working on the authz stuff now.

[Remy Blank]

Replying to cboos:

Remy, I'll take it if you don't mind, as I'm working on the authz stuff now.

Sure, go ahead.

[Remy Blank]

Mutating the users list while iterating over it is not a good programming practice. I have taken a different (but equivalent) approach in [9401].

[Remy Blank]

Then again, relying on the order of items in a dict is not a good idea either. I'll come up with something better.

[Remy Blank]

Order of items is not an issue anymore with [9405].