Ash.Domain requires that authorization is run impact `create_new_version/1` about ash_paper_trail

[zachdaniel]

Regardless of why it's happening now but not before, it is correct behavior that it is failing right now (or at least the currently intended behavior).

We have some options:

1. Fx it "locally" here by having AshPaperTrail check to see if the domain requires authorization and if it does, we can not set authorize?: false.
2. Make it such that if you say authorize?: false when a domain is set to authorize :always that instead of making that an error, it just silently ignores it and sets authorize?: true instead.
3. add another option, which tells it to adopt the behavior of number 2 above.
4. make the change and release a major version change to AshPaperTrail that removes the authorize?: false.

[zachdaniel]

It must have been a bug in Ash 2 that was fixed in Ash 3 then, as that is how it was supposed to work (although clearly not ideal for this scenario).

[zachdaniel]

👍 you can use Ash.Domain.Info.authorize(changeset.domain) == :always to know if the domain requires authorization always.

[zachdaniel]

Ah, interesting. 🤔 perhaps what ought to happen in that case is that we should just force authorization to happen instead of raising an error on authorize?: false. That allows extensions to say authorize?: false and just be more gracefully ignored. What do you think?

[tunchamroeun]

How come errors are raining down in ash3? The previous version was running smoothly, do you have any idea why this is happening?

[zachdaniel]

Did you update your app as part of the upgrade to have authorize :always?

[tunchamroeun]

No, it is previous code from ash 2

[zachdaniel]

In fact, it certainly was. Certain system use cases were unable to determine whether or not authorization was required because we didn't always have to know the domain when building a changeset. Now we do, and therefore we're properly producing the error here.

[zachdaniel]

Probably what we should do is the first option, for now, and then open an issue to do the 4th option on the next major version release of ash_paper_trail.

[tunchamroeun]

I've noticed in ash_paper_trail that setting 'authorize?: false' seems alright since there's no policy applied. However, it might be inherited from the domain configuration, in my opinion.

[tunchamroeun]

I've got you. I'm working on this issue.