Commit Graph

27 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Ted Johansson 5ee23fc394
DEV: Make all admins TL4 in tests (#25435)
Make admins TL4 by default in tests, foregoing the need to call refresh_auto_groups on them.
2024-03-26 11:41:12 +08:00
Martin Brennan 61bd7d5d11
FIX: Anon users could not edit their own posts (#26283)
Followup 3094f32ff5,
this fixes an issue with the logic in this commit where
we were returning false if any of the conditionals here
were false, regardless of the type of `obj`, where we should
have only done this if `obj` was a `PostAction`, which lead
us to return false in cases where we were checking if the
user could edit their own post as anon.
2024-03-22 08:12:12 +10:00
Martin Brennan a57280cb17
DEV: Change min_trust_level_to_allow_profile_background to trust level setting (#25721)
New setting name is profile_background_allowed_groups

c.f. https://meta.discourse.org/t/changes-coming-to-settings-for-giving-access-to-features-from-trust-levels-to-groups/283408
2024-02-19 10:47:47 +10:00
Arpit Jalan badc390ebe
FEATURE: allow disabling user activity tab for non admin users (#25540)
* FEATURE: allow disabling user activity tab for non admin users

* add another test case
2024-02-05 14:30:36 +05:30
Ted Johansson f0a46f8b6f
DEV: Automatically update groups for test users with explicit TL (#25415)
For performance reasons we don't automatically add fabricated users to trust level auto-groups. However, when explicitly passing a trust level to the fabricator, in 99% of cases it means that trust level is relevant for the test, and we need the groups.

This change makes it so that when a trust level is explicitly passed to the fabricator, the auto-groups are refreshed. There's no longer a need to also pass refresh_auto_groups: true, which means clearer tests, fewer mistakes, and less confusion.
2024-01-29 17:52:02 +08:00
Ted Johansson 57ea56ee05
DEV: Remove full group refreshes from tests (#25414)
We have all these calls to Group.refresh_automatic_groups! littered throughout the tests. Including tests that are seemingly unrelated to groups. This is because automatic group memberships aren't fabricated when making a vanilla user. There are two places where you'd want to use this:

You have fabricated a user that needs a certain trust level (which is now based on group membership.)
You need the system user to have a certain trust level.
In the first case, we can pass refresh_auto_groups: true to the fabricator instead. This is a more lightweight operation that only considers a single user, instead of all users in all groups.

The second case is no longer a thing after #25400.
2024-01-25 14:28:26 +08:00
Ted Johansson 53d40672a7
DEV: Convert min_trust_level_to_allow_user_card_background to groups (#24891)
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_allow_user_card_background site setting to user_card_background_allowed_groups.

Nothing of note here. This is used in exactly one place, and there's no fallout.
2023-12-14 10:57:58 +08:00
Ted Johansson 48116186af
DEV: Convert tl4_delete_posts_and_topics to groups (#24866)
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the tl4_delete_posts_and_topics  site setting to delete_all_posts_and_topics_allowed_groups.

This one is a bit different from previous ones, as it's a boolean flag, and the default should be no group. Pay special attention to the migration during review.
2023-12-14 09:56:42 +08:00
Daniel Waterworth 6e161d3e75
DEV: Allow fab! without block (#24314)
The most common thing that we do with fab! is:

    fab!(:thing) { Fabricate(:thing) }

This commit adds a shorthand for this which is just simply:

    fab!(:thing)

i.e. If you omit the block, then, by default, you'll get a `Fabricate`d object using the fabricator of the same name.
2023-11-09 16:47:59 -06:00
Martin Brennan b90b7ac705
DEV: Move shared_drafts_min_trust_level to group setting (#24257)
No plugins or themes rely on shared_drafts_min_trust_level so we
can just switch straight over to shared_drafts_allowed_groups

c.f. https://meta.discourse.org/t/changes-coming-to-settings-for-giving-access-to-features-from-trust-levels-to-groups/283408
2023-11-07 14:03:25 +10:00
Sam f21a4a6cb3
Revert "FIX: Allow category moderators to move topics to their categories" (#23810)
This reverts commit 70be873b9c.
2023-10-06 09:00:22 +08:00
Natalie Tay 70be873b9c
FIX: Allow category moderators to move topics to their categories (#20896) 2023-10-03 17:59:16 +08:00
Guhyoun Nam b70bd4366b
FEATURE: Separated 'trusted users can edit others' setting for trust level 3 & 4 (#21493) 2023-07-07 10:48:14 -05:00
锦心 96a2893284
FEATURE: Allow expanding hidden posts for groups in SiteSetting.can_see_hidden_post (#21853)
Allow expanding hidden posts for groups in SiteSetting.can_see_hidden_post
2023-06-01 11:32:05 +08:00
Ted Johansson 02625d1edd
DEV: Only allow expanding hidden posts for author and staff (#21052) 2023-04-25 13:37:29 +08:00
Ted Johansson b50b63808c
DEV: Make Guardian#can_see? default to false for unwatched objects (#20412)
When invoking e.g. `can_see?(Foo.new)`, the guardian checks if there's a method `#can_see_foo?` defined and if so uses that to determine whether the user can see it or not.

When such a method is not defined, the guardian currently returns `true`, but it is probably a better call (pun intended) to make it "safe by default" and return `false` instead. I.e. if you can't explicitly see it, you can't see it at all.

This change makes the change to `Guardian#can_see?` to fall back to `false` if no visibility check method is defined.

For `#can_see_user?` and `#can_see_tag?` we don't have any particular logic that prevents viewing. We previously relied on the implicit `true` value, but since that's now change to `false`, I have explicitly implemented these two methods in `UserGuardian` and `TagGuardian` modules. If in the future we want to add some logic for it, this would be the place.

To be clear, **the behaviour remains the same**, but the `true` value is now explicit rather than implicit.
2023-02-24 15:57:01 +08:00
Krzysztof Kotlarek 010370f8b1
FIX: error anonymous when tl4_delete_posts_and_topics setting (#20257)
Bug introduced in this PR: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/19946

When the setting is enabled, an error is triggered for anonymous users.
2023-02-13 15:34:04 +11:00
Krzysztof Kotlarek ae20ce8654
FIX: TL4 user can see deleted topics (#19946)
New feature that TL4 users can delete/recover topics and post was introduced https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/19766

One guardian was missed to ensure that can see deleted topics
2023-01-23 12:02:47 +11:00
Ted Johansson 9cdeb93375
FEATURE: Allow TL4 users to see unlisted topics (#19890)
TL4 users can already list and unlist topics, but they can't see
the unlisted topics. This change brings this to par by allowing
TL4 users to also see unlisted topics.
2023-01-17 16:50:15 +08:00
David Taylor cb932d6ee1
DEV: Apply syntax_tree formatting to `spec/*` 2023-01-09 11:49:28 +00:00
Selase Krakani 0ce38bd7bc
SECURITY: Restrict unlisted topic creation (#19259) 2022-12-01 10:26:35 +00:00
Sam 4f63bc8ed2
FEATURE: hidden site setting to suppress unsecured categories from admins (#19098)
The hidden site setting `suppress_secured_categories_from_admin` will
suppress visibility of categories without explicit access from admins
in a few key areas (category drop downs and topic lists)

It is not intended to be a security wall since admins can amend any site
setting. Instead it is feature that allows hiding the categories from the
UI.

Admins will still be able to see topics in categories without explicit
access using direct URLs or flags.

Co-authored-by: Alan Guo Xiang Tan <gxtan1990@gmail.com>
2022-11-18 14:37:36 +11:00
Alan Guo Xiang Tan a473e352de
DEV: Introduce TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids method (#18692)
Before this commit, there was no way for us to efficiently check an
array of topics for which a user can see. Therefore, this commit
introduces the `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` method which accepts an
array of `Topic#id`s and filters out the ids which the user is not
allowed to see. The `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` method is meant to
maintain feature parity with `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic?` at all
times so a consistency check has been added in our tests to ensure that
`TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` returns the same result as
`TopicGuardian#can_see_topic?`. In the near future, the plan is for us
to switch to `TopicGuardian#can_see_topic_ids` completely but I'm not
doing that in this commit as we have to be careful with the performance
impact of such a change.

This method is currently not being used in the current commit but will
be relied on in a subsequent commit.
2022-10-27 06:13:21 +08:00
Loïc Guitaut 3eaac56797 DEV: Use proper wording for contexts in specs 2022-08-04 11:05:02 +02:00
Phil Pirozhkov 493d437e79
Add RSpec 4 compatibility (#17652)
* Remove outdated option

04078317ba

* Use the non-globally exposed RSpec syntax

https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/pull/2803

* Use the non-globally exposed RSpec syntax, cont

https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/pull/2803

* Comply to strict predicate matchers

See:
 - https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/pull/1195
 - https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/pull/1196
 - https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/pull/1277
2022-07-28 10:27:38 +08:00
David Taylor c9dab6fd08
DEV: Automatically require 'rails_helper' in all specs (#16077)
It's very easy to forget to add `require 'rails_helper'` at the top of every core/plugin spec file, and omissions can cause some very confusing/sporadic errors.

By setting this flag in `.rspec`, we can remove the need for `require 'rails_helper'` entirely.
2022-03-01 17:50:50 +00:00
Jarek Radosz 45cc16098d
DEV: Move spec/components to spec/lib (#15987)
Lib specs were inexplicably split into two directories (`lib` and `components`)

This moves them all into `lib`.
2022-02-18 19:41:54 +01:00