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>
When opening the invite acceptance page when the user
was already logged in, we were still showing the Accept
Invitation prompt even if the user had already redeemed
the invitation and was present in the `InvitedUser` table.
This would lead to errors when the user clicked on the button.
This commit fixes the issue by hiding the Accept Invitation
button and showing an error message instead indicating that
the user had already redeemed the invitation. This only applies
to multi-use invite links.
The problem was reported as a problem with changing theme in user preferences, after saving a new theme the previously set user status was disappearing (https://meta.discourse.org/t/user-status/240335/42). Turned out though that the problem was more wide, changing pretty much any setting in user preferences apart from user status itself led to clearing the status.
* FEATURE: Default Composer Category Site Setting
- Create the default_composer_category site setting
- Replace general_category_id logic for auto selecting the composer
category
- Prevent Uncategorized from being selected if not allowed
- Add default_composer_category option to seeded categories
- Create a migration to populate the default_composer_category site
setting if there is a general_category_id populated
- Added some tests
* Add missing translation for the new site setting
* fix some js tests
* Just check that the header value is null
This commit adds some protections in InviteRedeemer to ensure that email
can never be nil, which could cause issues with inviting the invited
person to private topics since there was an incorrect inner join.
If the email is nil and the invite is scoped to an email, we just use
that invite.email unconditionally. If a redeeming_user (an existing
user) is passed in when redeeming an email, we use their email to
override the passed in email. Otherwise we just use the passed in
email. We now raise an error after all this if the email is still nil.
This commit also adds some tests to catch the private topic fix, and
some general improvements and comments around the invite code.
This commit also includes a migration to delete TopicAllowedUser records
for users who were mistakenly added to topics as part of the invite
redemption process.
Currently, moderators are able to set primary group for users
irrespective of the of the `moderators_manage_categories_and_groups` site
setting value.
This change updates Guardian implementation to honour it.
Currently, we have available three 2fa methods:
- Token-Based Authenticators
- Physical Security Keys
- Two-Factor Backup Codes
If the first two are deleted, user lose visibility of their backup codes, which suggests that 2fa is disabled.
However, when they try to authenticate, the account is locked, and they have to ask admin to fix that problem.
This PR is fixing the issue. User still sees backup codes in their panel and can use them to authenticate.
In next PR, I will improve UI to clearly notify the user when 2fa is fully disabled and when it is still active.
* Remove old bookmark column ignores to follow up b22450c7a8
* Change some group site setting checks to use the _map helper
* Remove old secure_media helper stub for chat
* Change attr_accessor to attr_reader for preloaded_custom_fields to follow up 70af45055a
It is likely that a new admin user was created as just a regular user
before being promoted to admin so this change will update the sidebar
link records for any users that are promoted to admin. This way if any
of the default side bar categories or tags are restricted to admins
these new admins will have those added to their sidebar as well.
You can easily replicate this issue locally (prior to this fix) by using
`rails admin:create` where it creates a user first, then it is promoted
to admin. This means it would receive the default categories of regular
user, but never receive the ones they should have access to as an admin.
As part of this change I did drop the `!` from
`SidebarSectionLink.insert_all` so that it would add any new records
that were missing, but not throw a unique constraint error trying to add
any existing records.
Follow up to: 1b56a55f50
And: e320bbe513
Previously the stylesheet cachebusting hash was based on the maximum mtime of files. This works well in development and during in-container updates (e.g. via docker_manager). However, when a fresh docker image is created for each deploy, the file mtimes will change even if the contents has not.
This commit changes the production logic to calculate the cachebuster from the filenames and contents of the relevant assets. This should be consistent across deploys, thereby improving cache hits and improving page load times.
Meta topic: https://meta.discourse.org/t/meta-theme-color-is-not-respecting-current-color-scheme/239815
Currently, the dark mode theme-color `<meta>` tag doesn't apply because the light mode tag has `media="all"`. This means that the dark mode `<meta>` tag with `media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)"` won't override it. This PR updates the light mode tag to `media="(prefers-color-scheme: light)"` if `dark_scheme_id` is defined and leaves it as `media="all"` otherwise.
Since the system user is a regular user, it can have its
`allow_private_messages` user option turned off, which
with our current `can_send_private_message?(Discourse.system_user)`
check inside the CurrentUserSerializer, will prevent any
user from sending messages in the UI if the system user is not
accepting PMs.
This commit adds a new `can_send_private_messages?` method to
the Guardian, which can be used in serializers and not depend
on the system user. When the user actually sends a message
we still rely on the old `can_send_private_message?(target)`
call to see if they are allowed to send the message to the target.
The new method is just to say they can "generally" send
private messages.
Previously, we didn't have a site-wide setting to set the default behavior for user profile visibility and user presence features. But we already have a user preference for that.
Depends on: #18806
We have a banner that prompts to edit the welcome topic, so let's not
show it in the topic list until it has been edited. Previously this
banner covered the welcome topic, now the banner will be above the topic
list, so we need to hide the welcome topic.
* DEV: Add a dedicated Admin::StaffController base controller
The current parent(Admin:AdminController) for all admin-related controllers
uses a filter that allows only staff(admin, moderator) users.
This refactor makes Admin::AdminController filter for only admins as the name suggests and
introduces a base controller dedicated for staff-related endpoints.
* DEV: Set staff-only controllers parent to Admin::StaffController
Refactor staff-only controllers to inherit newly introduced
Admin::StaffController abstract controller. This conveys the
purpose of the parent controller better unlike the previously used parent
controller.
* FIX: Follow up fixes for password-reset error page
Pass in `base_url` to the template
Use `.html_safe` since the message now contains html
Follow up to: 9b1536fb83
* Update specs to pass in the base_url
This commit fixes a regression introduced in 8979adc where under certain conditions the groups syncing logic in Discourse Connect would try to add users to groups they're already members of and cause errors when users try to sign in using Discourse Connect.
Before this commit, we did not have guardian checks in place to determine if a
topic's title associated with a user badge should be displayed or not.
This means that the topic title of topics with restricted access
could be leaked to anon and users without access if certain conditions
are met. While we will not specify the conditions required, we have internally
assessed that the odds of meeting such conditions are low.
With this commit, we will now apply a guardian check to ensure that the
current user is able to see a topic before the topic's title is included
in the serialized object of a `UserBadge`.
The previous sidebar default tags and categories implementation did not
allow for a user to configure their sidebar to have no categories or
tags. This commit changes how the defaults are applied. When a user is being created,
we create the SidebarSectionLink records based on the `default_sidebar_categories` and
`default_sidebar_tags` site settings. SidebarSectionLink records are
only created for categories and tags which the user has visibility on at
the point of user creation.
With this change, we're also adding the ability for admins to apply
changes to the `default_sidebar_categories` and `default_sidebar_tags`
site settings historically when changing their site setting. When a new
category/tag has been added to the default, the new category/tag will be
added to the sidebar for all users if the admin elects to apply the changes historically.
Like wise when a tag/category is removed, the tag/category will be
removed from the sidebar for all users if the admin elects to apply the
changes historically.
Internal Ref: /t/73500
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.
Meta topic: https://meta.discourse.org/t/meta-theme-color-is-not-respecting-current-color-scheme/239815/7?u=osama.
This commit renders an additional `theme-color` `<meta>` tag for the dark scheme if the current user/request has a scheme selected for dark mode. We currently only render one `theme-color` tag which is always based on the user's selected scheme for light mode, but if the user also selects a scheme for dark mode and uses a device that's configured to use/prefer dark mode, the Discourse UI will be in dark mode, but any parts of the browser/OS UI that's colored based on the `theme-color` tag, would use a color from the user's selected light scheme and look inconsistent with the Discourse UI because the `theme-color` tag is based on the user's selected light scheme.
The additional `theme-color` tag has `media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)"` and is based on the user's selected dark scheme which means any browser UI that's colored based on `theme-color` tags should be able to pick the right tag based on the user's preference for light/dark mode.
Sam
Meghna
Martin Brennan
Andrei Prigorshnev
Jarek Radosz
Du Jiajun
Krzysztof Kotlarek
Daniel Waterworth
Blake Erickson
Selase Krakani
Osama Sayegh
Natalie Tay
Bianca Nenciu
David Taylor
kaden-stytch
Vinoth Kannan
Alan Guo Xiang Tan