When a site has `SiteSetting.invite_only` enabled, we create a
`ReviewableUser`record when activating a user if the user is not
approved. Therefore, we need to approve the user when redeeming an
invite.
There are some uncertainties surrounding why a `ReviewableRecord` is
created for a user in an invites only site but this commit does not seek
to address that.
Follow-up to 7c4e2d33fa
This security fix affects sites which have `SiteSetting.must_approve_users`
enabled. There are intentional and unintentional cases where invited
users can be auto approved and are deemed to have skipped the staff approval process.
Instead of trying to reason about when auto-approval should happen, we have decided that
enabling the `must_approve_users` setting going forward will just mean that all new users
must be explicitly approved by a staff user in the review queue. The only case where users are auto
approved is when the `auto_approve_email_domains` site setting is used.
Co-authored-by: Alan Guo Xiang Tan <gxtan1990@gmail.com>
When invited by email, users will receive an invite URL which contains
a token. If that token is present when the invite is redeemed, their
account will be automatically activated.
When the invite was being redeemed and the ReviewableUser record status
for the invited user was not pending an error was being raised.
This commit makes sure that we are only looking for ReviewableUser
record with status pending and updates that to approved.
* FEATURE: add setting `auto_approve_email_domains` to auto approve users
This commit adds a new site setting `auto_approve_email_domains` to
auto approve users based on their email address domain.
Note that if a domain already exists in `email_domains_whitelist` then
`auto_approve_email_domains` needs to be duplicated there as well,
since users won’t be able to register with email address that is
not allowed in `email_domains_whitelist`.
* Update config/locales/server.en.yml
Co-Authored-By: Robin Ward <robin.ward@gmail.com>
DEV: deprecate `invite.via_email` in favor of `invite.emailed_status`
This commit adds a new column `emailed_status` in `invites` table for
tracking email sending status.
0 - not required
1 - pending
2 - bulk pending
3 - sending
4 - sent
For normal email invites, invite record is created with emailed_status
set to 'pending'.
When bulk invites are sent invite record is created with emailed_status
set to 'bulk pending'.
For invites that generates link, invite record is created with
emailed_status set to 'not required'.
When invite email is in queue emailed_status is updated to 'sending'
Once the email is sent via `InviteEmail` job the invite emailed_status
is updated to 'sent'.
* Introduced fab!, a helper that creates database state for a group
It's almost identical to let_it_be, except:
1. It creates a new object for each test by default,
2. You can disable it using PREFABRICATION=0
This change both speeds up specs (less strings to allocate) and helps catch
cases where methods in Discourse are mutating inputs.
Overall we will be migrating everything to use #frozen_string_literal: true
it will take a while, but this is the first and safest move in this direction
Do not send an activation email to users invited via email. They
already confirmed their email address by clicking the invite link.
Users invited via link will need to confirm their email address before
they can login.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/bulk-invites-and-trust-level/73535
If the user enters password when accepting invite they were not granted
trust level based on their group privileges. It was because `password_required` was set to true when creating user record and when the user was updated again when granting trust level the password validation was raising error saying that the password is empty. This commit fetches fresh user record after the user is created so that the user record can be updated successfully.
This commit fixes the case where invited users who typed in a password
would not be approved by default. Because we moved the user create logic
for an invited user there was a clash with the `save` in the user model
and the `save` in the invite_redeemer class.
- added approve logic into invite_redeemer class.
- added tests to verify that the user is approved
- added a check to see if must_approve_users is on
- added a check to see if the inviter is staff
- go ahead and approve the user if must_approve_users is off
- keep existing User.approve workflow if user exists
- improve if/else logic to remove duplicate code
- use `Time.zone.now`
Since rspec-rails 3, the default installation creates two helper files:
* `spec_helper.rb`
* `rails_helper.rb`
`spec_helper.rb` is intended as a way of running specs that do not
require Rails, whereas `rails_helper.rb` loads Rails (as Discourse's
current `spec_helper.rb` does).
For more information:
https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/docs/upgrade#default-helper-files
In this commit, I've simply replaced all instances of `spec_helper` with
`rails_helper`, and renamed the original `spec_helper.rb`.
This brings the Discourse project closer to the standard usage of RSpec
in a Rails app.
At present, every spec relies on loading Rails, but there are likely
many that don't need to. In a future pull request, I hope to introduce a
separate, minimal `spec_helper.rb` which can be used in tests which
don't rely on Rails.
update rspec syntax to v3
change syntax to rspec v3
oops. fix typo
mailers classes with rspec3 syntax
helpers with rspec3 syntax
jobs with rspec3 syntax
serializers with rspec3 syntax
views with rspec3 syntax
support to rspec3 syntax
category spec with rspec3 syntax
