docs: define the static authorization schema by mariajgrimaldi · Pull Request #421 · openedx/openedx-authz

mariajgrimaldi · 2026-08-27T19:06:48Z

Description

Static roles, permissions, and their display information are currently spread across Python, Casbin policy files, and frontend code. As a result, an application that adds a role or permission must update several representations and may also need changes in openedx-authz and the frontend.

This ADR defines one versioned YAML schema for static authorization definitions. Applications can declare permissions, categories, roles, role extensions, scopes, and UI metadata with stable identifiers, while deployment compiles those definitions into the rows Casbin needs.

Merge checklist:
Check off if complete or not applicable:

Version bumped
Changelog record added
Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
Fixup commits are squashed away
Unit tests added/updated
Manual testing instructions provided
Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets

openedx-webhooks · 2026-08-27T19:06:54Z

Thanks for the pull request, @mariajgrimaldi!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-openedx-authz.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
- This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

Dependencies

This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...
Blockers

This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.
Timeline information

This PR must be merged by XX date because ...
Partner information

This is for a course on edx.org.
Supporting documentation
Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

Details

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
The need for product review
Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

rodmgwgu

Looking good, just added a couple of points for discussion. Thanks!

BryanttV

Thanks for this @mariajgrimaldi!

BryanttV · 2026-08-31T15:03:39Z

+=============================
+
+A permission contains:
+


Should the permissions schema also have a version and priority?

I'd have to look into this in more detail to weigh between the two options. Here's a brain dump:

Versioning I think should be the entire file, I don't think we should individually version each permission since I don't think they would change much. Also the configuration marks the current status of the authorization system, so I think they belong to the file itself

Priority would be mainly for extension patches so we know how to resolve between them. For example, if two extension patches modify the same role and one adds a permission while another removes it, priority would determine which change takes effect.

What kind of use cases can we solve by adding priority to permissions themselves?

BryanttV · 2026-08-31T15:05:07Z

+* ``namespace`` and ``name``, which form the stable identifier used by application checks, such as ``courses.view_course``;
+* the scope namespaces where it can apply;
+* a normalized permission category; and
+* ``display_name``, ``description``, and an optional Paragon icon name.


If the Paragon icon is optional, what would be shown by default? Is there currently an easy way to validate if a Paragon icon exists? Since it is mentioned as part of the initial validation.

I think we can make some kind of request to render it (not sure how easy or out-of-the-box). I was thinking we could do a simple check for the name following paragon conventions. What do you think?

BryanttV · 2026-08-31T15:05:34Z

+#. Roles and role extensions
+============================
+
+A role contains a stable identifier, display name, description, supported scope namespaces, and a list of complete permission identifiers. When an application needs to change an existing role, it uses ``role_extensions``. An extension may add or remove permissions and may replace the role's display name or description.


Can we clearly define the properties that role_extensions accepts?

I opened a different ADR for this: #430

Excellent! Could we include a reference to that ADR here?

BryanttV · 2026-08-31T15:07:49Z

+
+   schema_version: "1.0"
+   priority: 100
+


Is it possible to explain a bit about how priority would work? Would there be a convention or something similar? What should happen if two plugins define the same priority?

I think I do it in the validation and conflicts section, let me know if it's not clear enough: https://github.com/openedx/openedx-authz/pull/421/changes#diff-323a833929851b16109620a7eee56dfe642c78e8c26d00a06cc6c08f321182ceR115

BryanttV · 2026-08-31T15:08:20Z

+         - courses.view_course
+
+   role_extensions:
+     - role: course_admin


Can an extension be added to a role that doesn't exist? Or is this included in the initial validation?

Should be included in the validation

Here: https://github.com/openedx/openedx-authz/pull/421/changes#diff-323a833929851b16109620a7eee56dfe642c78e8c26d00a06cc6c08f321182ceR113

BryanttV · 2026-08-31T15:09:12Z

+Python constants and role mappings
+==================================
+
+Definitions would remain split across backend and frontend code. Applications would also need to change ``openedx-authz`` to add definitions they own.


What happens to the current role and permission definitions in the Python modules? Will we keep using them? If I want to create a new permission, do I have to add it to the YAML and the Python constants file? Or will we do something different?

We'd need to entirely migrate to a configuration file to avoid having definitions scattered across multiple places

I made some changes: 917b782

openedx-webhooks added open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U core contributor PR author is a Core Contributor (who may or may not have write access to this repo). labels Aug 27, 2026

openedx-webhooks added this to Contributions Aug 27, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Needs Triage in Contributions Aug 27, 2026

mariajgrimaldi linked an issue Aug 27, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Role and permission definition ADR #409

Open

mphilbrick211 moved this from Needs Triage to Waiting on Author in Contributions Aug 27, 2026

rodmgwgu reviewed Aug 28, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread docs/decisions/0017-static-authorization-schema.rst

Comment thread docs/decisions/0017-static-authorization-schema.rst

Comment thread docs/decisions/0017-static-authorization-schema.rst Outdated

Comment thread docs/decisions/0017-static-authorization-schema.rst Outdated

BryanttV requested changes Aug 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

mariajgrimaldi force-pushed the MJG/authz-schema/configuration branch from be47fea to ff64cae Compare September 1, 2026 16:03

mariajgrimaldi requested review from BryanttV and rodmgwgu September 1, 2026 17:18

BryanttV mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Core Loader, Compilation, and Definition Validation #410

Open

mariajgrimaldi force-pushed the MJG/authz-schema/configuration branch from 342a6c3 to 2991a56 Compare September 4, 2026 11:18

mariajgrimaldi added 6 commits September 4, 2026 13:26

docs: define the static authorization schema

f3e15f6

docs: move authorization schema reference to its own PR

1eab756

docs: clarify Paragon icon validation

f953ecd

docs: clarify schema migration and extension validation

938791c

docs: render decision section numbers

70a4b1b

docs: clarify schema validation rules

89c313d

mariajgrimaldi force-pushed the MJG/authz-schema/configuration branch from 2991a56 to 89c313d Compare September 4, 2026 12:08

docs: keep reference index in its owning PR

85ff528

Uh oh!

Conversation

mariajgrimaldi commented Aug 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Uh oh!

openedx-webhooks commented Aug 27, 2026

Uh oh!

rodmgwgu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BryanttV left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mariajgrimaldi Sep 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mariajgrimaldi Sep 1, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

mariajgrimaldi commented Aug 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mariajgrimaldi Sep 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mariajgrimaldi Sep 1, 2026 •

edited

Loading