In TopicController, in addition to ensure_can_move_posts!, we also
checked if the topic is private message in this line:
```ruby
raise Discourse::InvalidAccess if params[:archetype] == "private_message" && !guardian.is_staff?
```
However, this was not present in `guardian.can_move_posts?`. As a result,
the frontend topic view got an incorrect serialized result, thinking
that TL4 could move the private message post. In fact, once they tried
to move it, they got the `InvalidAccess` error message.
This commit fixes that TL4 will no longer sees the "move to" option in
the "select post" panel for a private message.
Currently, categories support designating only 1 group as a moderation group on the category. This commit removes the one group limitation and makes it possible to designate multiple groups as mods on a category.
Internal topic: t/124648.
Automatically add `moderators` and `admins` auto groups to specific site settings.
In the new group-based permissions systems, we just want to check the user’s groups since it more accurately reflects reality
Affected settings:
- tag_topic_allowed_groups
- create_tag_allowed_groups
- send_email_messages_allowed_groups
- personal_message_enabled_groups
- here_mention_allowed_groups
- approve_unless_allowed_groups
- approve_new_topics_unless_allowed_groups
- skip_review_media_groups
- email_in_allowed_groups
- create_topic_allowed_groups
- edit_wiki_post_allowed_groups
- edit_post_allowed_groups
- self_wiki_allowed_groups
- flag_post_allowed_groups
- post_links_allowed_groups
- embedded_media_post_allowed_groups
- profile_background_allowed_groups
- user_card_background_allowed_groups
- invite_allowed_groups
- ignore_allowed_groups
- user_api_key_allowed_groups
Followup 3094f32ff5c7dec5be7ff4f01e6a855987f8d778,
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.
Followup to 978d52841af23c0709bb646ba3ca91a5e6e7ce64
It's complicated...we have multiple "anonymous" user concepts
in core, and even two classes called the exact same thing --
AnonymousUser.
The first case is Guardian::AnonymousUser, which is used for
people who are browsing the forum without being authenticated.
The second case is the model AnonymousUser, which is used when
a user is liking or posting anonymously via allow_anonymous_likes
or allow_anonymous_posting site settings.
We will untangle this naming nightmare later on...but for the
time being, only authenticated users who are pretending to be
anonymous should be able to like posts if allow_anonymous_likes
is on.
Removes duplication from LimitedEdit to see who can edit
posts, and also removes the old trust level setting check
since it's no longer necessary.
Also make it so staff can always edit since can_edit_post?
already has a staff escape hatch.
Followup fb087b7ff6d168bbfcaa5f83d53ac122d6a18a1c
post_links_allowed_groups is an odd check tied to
unrestricted_link_posting? in PostGuardian, in that
it doesn't have an escape hatch for staff like most
of the rest of these group based settings.
It doesn't make sense to exclude admins or mods from
posting links, so just always allow them to avoid confusion.
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.
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_tag_topics site setting to tag_topic_allowed_groups.
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.
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_to_post_links site setting to post_links_allowed_groups.
This isn't used by any of our plugins or themes, so very little fallout.
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_tag_topics site setting to tag_topic_allowed_groups.
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_create_tag site setting to create_tag_allowed_groups.
This PR maintains backwards compatibility until we can update plugins and themes using this.
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_to_allow_self_wiki site setting to self_wiki_allowed_groups.
Nothing of note here. This is used in exactly one place, and there's no fallout.
A bug that allowed TL1 to convert other's posts to wiki.
The issue was introduced in this PR: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/24999/files
The wiki can be created if a user is TL3 and it is their own post - default 3 for setting `SiteSetting.min_trust_to_allow_self_wiki`
In addition, a wiki can be created by staff and TL4 users for any post.
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_ignore site setting to ignore_allowed_groups.
This PR maintains backwards compatibility until we can update plugins and themes using this.
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_invite site setting to invite_allowed_groups.
Nothing much of note. This is used in one place and there's no fallout.
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.
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_to_flag_posts site setting to flag_post_allowed_groups.
Note: In the original setting, "posts" is plural. I have changed this to "post" singular in the new setting to match others.
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_to_edit_post site setting to edit_post_allowed_groups.
The old implementation will co-exist for a short period while I update any references in plugins and themes.
This change converts the min_trust_to_create_topic site setting to
create_topic_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
- Hides the old setting
- Adds the new site setting
- Add a deprecation warning
- Updates to use the new setting
- Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was
changed
- Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
- Updates tests to account for the new change
- After a couple of months, we will remove the min_trust_to_create_topicsetting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
This change converts the min_trust_to_edit_wiki_post site setting to edit_wiki_post_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
Hides the old setting
Adds the new site setting
Add a deprecation warning
Updates to use the new setting
Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was changed
Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
Updates tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months, we will remove the email_in_min_trust setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
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.
Admins are always able to send PMs, so it doesn't make
sense that they shouldn't be able to convert topics just
because they aren't in personal_message_enabled_groups.
`ReviewableQueuedPost` got refactored a while back to use the more
appropriate `target_created_by` for the user of the post being queued
instead of `created_by`. The change was not extended to the `DELETE
/review/:id` endpoint leading to error responses for a user attempting
to deleting their own queued post.
This fix extends the `Reviewable` lookup implementation in
`ReviewablesController#destroy` and Guardian implementation to account
for this change.
Allow anonymous users (logged-in, but set to anonymous posting) to like posts
---------
Co-authored-by: Emmett Ling <eling@zendesk.com>
Co-authored-by: Nat <natalie.tay@discourse.org>
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.
* FIX: do not notify admins on suppressed categories
Avoid notifying admins on categories where they are not explicitly members
in cases where SiteSetting.suppress_secured_categories_from_admin is
enabled.
This helps keep notification stream clean and avoids admins mistakenly
being invited to discussions that should be suppressed
If a secure upload's access_control_post was trashed, and an anon user
tried to look at that upload, they would get a 500 error rather than
the correct 403 because of an error inside the PostGuardian logic.
* DEV: Remove enable_whispers site setting
Whispers are enabled as long as there is at least one group allowed to
whisper, see whispers_allowed_groups site setting.
* DEV: Always enable whispers for admins if at least one group is allowed.
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.
