#29209 introduced a bug where columns to the directory added via add_directory_column are not being translated properly.
This fixes the issue and adds an integration test.
To test the restricted routing when filling up required fields, we fill up the field and then navigate to the root path and checking that we're not redirected.
This is somewhat flaky, and the screenshot shows we are back at the profile page, without any prompt to fill up fields.
My hypothesis is in cases where the backend is "slow" to respond, we're navigating away from the page before the request finishes (which will redirect back to the profile page.)
This PR adds an expectation after saving, to wait until the unrestricted profile page is rendered, before navigating away.
If a user has a required action, e.g. adding a 2FA method or filling in new required fields, we disable client-side routing except to allowed pages.
This led to a situation where a user might navigate away from e.g. the profile page to look at the new ToS, and then being "stuck" due to not knowing how to get back to accept the new terms.
This PR makes it so that if you click any restricted link, instead of doing nothing we transition the user back to the page where they can take the required action.
When visiting a user profile, and then opening the search, there's an option to filter down by posts made by that user.
When clicking that option, it used to pre-fill the "search bar" with "@<username>" to filter down the search.
This restore this behaviour and add a system spec to ensure it doesn't regress.
Context - https://meta.discourse.org/t/in-posts-by-search-option-does-not-work-when-clicked/312916
We want to allow admins to make new required fields apply to existing users. In order for this to work we need to have a way to make those users fill up the fields on their next page load. This is very similar to how adding a 2FA requirement post-fact works. Users will be redirected to a page where they can fill up the remaining required fields, and until they do that they won't be able to do anything else.
This commit fixes a problem where the user will not be able to reset
their password when they only have security keys and backup codes
configured.
This commit also makes the following changes/fixes:
1. Splits password reset system tests to
`spec/system/forgot_password_spec.rb` instead of missing the system
tests in `spec/system/login_spec.rb` which is mainly used to test
the login flow.
2. Fixes a UX issue where the `Use backup codes` or `Use authenticator
app` text is shown on the reset password form when the user does
not have either backup codes or an authenticator app configured.
We are seeing a weird resolution error on Github actions with the
following backtrace:
```
Failure/Error:
visit File.join(
GlobalSetting.relative_url_root || "",
"/session/#{user.encoded_username}/become.json?redirect=false",
)
Socket::ResolutionError:
getaddrinfo: Temporary failure in name resolution
```
Switch to use `127.0.0.1` instead of forcing a name resolution.
Previously, we had an instant redirect back to the homepage, and clicking avatars would do nothing. This made things feel 'broken' for anon when 'hide_user_profiles_from_public' was enabled.
This commit does a few things to resolve this:
1. Improve our 'exception' system for routes so that developers can deliberately trigger it without an ajax error
2. Improve 'exception' system so that the browser URL bar is updated correctly, and the 'back' button works as expected
3. Replace the redirect-to-home with an 'access denied' error page, with specific copy for 'You must log in to view user profiles'
4. Update user-card logic to display this new page instead of doing nothing on click
When making sensitive changes to an account (adding 2FA or passkeys), we
require users to confirm their password. This is to prevent an attacker
from adding 2FA to an account they have access to.
However, on newly created accounts, we should not require this, it's an
extra step and it doesn't provide extra security (since the account was
just created). This commit makes it so that we don't require session
confirmation for accounts created less than 5 minutes ago.
Checking group permissions on the client does not work,
since not all groups are serialized to the client all
the time. We can check `uploaded_avatars_allowed_groups`
on the server side and serialize to the current user
instead.
This change converts the allow_uploaded_avatars site setting to uploaded_avatars_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
Hides the old setting
Adds the new site setting
Adds 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 allow_uploaded_avatars setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
This PR refactors the following:
* leaving all the CSS applied to the old `modal-body` classes in their respective files
* made new clean styling for `.d-modal` and refactored the template to use the new BEM classes
* `inner-`, `middle-`, `outer-` container classes are gone and replaced with simplified `wrapper` and `container` classes
* use standardised max-sizes with modifiers `-large` and `-max`
* lighter backdrop,
* min-width to prevent puny modals
* other styling changes regarding padding, close button,…
* pulled out all modal overrides into a general `modal-overrides` file + cleanup of outdated CSS
* pulled out login and create account modal styling into their own file, cause it's such a big override
* removed old general login.scss file for mobile & desktop
* only kept some remainders I don't want to touch in `app/assets/stylesheets/common/base/login.scss`
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.
This regressed in b6dc929. A test to ensure this doesn't regress has
been added as well.
This PR also fixes a flakey system spec. The conditional UI gets
triggered automatically, so the system spec shouldn't explicitly call
`find(".passkey-login-button").click`, because sometimes it isn't
present and that causes a test failure.
This reverts commit 5f0bc4557f.
Through extensive internal discussion we have decided to revert
this change, as it significantly impacted moderation flow for
some Discourse site moderators, especially around "something else"
flags. We need to re-approach how flags are counted holistically,
so to that end this change is being reverted.
Adds UI elements for registering a passkey and logging in with it. The feature is still in an early stage, interested parties that want to try it can use the `experimental_passkeys` site setting (via Rails console).
See PR for more details.
---------
Co-authored-by: Joffrey JAFFEUX <j.jaffeux@gmail.com>
This is part 1 of 3, split up of PR #23529. This PR refactors the
webauthn code to support passkey authentication/registration.
Passkeys aren't used yet, that is coming in PRs 2 and 3.
Co-authored-by: Alan Guo Xiang Tan <gxtan1990@gmail.com>
FEATURE: Only approved flags for post counters
* Why was this change necessary?
The counters for flagged posts in the user's profile and user index from
the admin view include flags that were rejected, ignored or pending
review. This introduces unnecessary noise. Also the flagged posts
counter in the user's profile includes custom flags which add further
noise to this signal.
* How does it address the problem?
* Modifying User#flags_received_count to return posts with only approved
standard flags
* Refactoring User#number_of_flagged_posts to alias to
User#flags_received_count
* Updating the flagged post staff counter hyperlink to navigate to a
filtered view of that user's approved flagged posts to maintain
consistency with the counter
* Adding system tests for the profile page to cover the flagged posts
staff counter
* Why was this change necessary?
The current logic in the user.hbs template file does not render the
trust level element for the user's info panel when the user is TL0,
because 0 is treated as falsey in the `if` conditional block.
Ref: https://meta.discourse.org/t/tl0-not-displayed-on-users-profile-pages/271779/10
* How does it address the problem?
This PR adds a predicate helper method local to the user controller that
includes an additional check which returns true if the trust_level of
the user is 0 on top of the existing logic. This allows TL0 users to
have their trust level rendered correctly in their profile's info panel.
