Allow admin to create custom flag which requires an additional message.
I decided to rename the old `custom_flag` into `require_message` as it is more descriptive.
Allow admin to create custom flag which requires an additional message.
I decided to rename the old `custom_flag` into `require_message` as it is more descriptive.
Continued work on moderate flags UI.
In this PR admins are allowed to change the order of flags. The notify user flag is always on top but all other flags can be moved.
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.
When a post is created by an incoming email, we show
an envelope icon on it which then opens a modal with the
raw email contents. Previously this was staff (admin+mod)
only, but now this commit adds the `view_raw_email_allowed_groups`
site setting, so any group can be added to give users permission
to see this.
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 fb087b7ff6
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.
We've changed access settings to be group membership based rather than based on the TL value directly. We kept both conditions here while we updated any plugins and themes. It should now be safe to remove.
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_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.
Using min_trust_to_create_topic and create_topic_allowed_groups together was part of #24740
Now, when plugins specs are fixed, we can safely remove that part of logic.
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.
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
Applies the embed_unlisted site setting consistently across topic embeds, including those created via the WP Discourse plugin. Relatedly, adds a embed exception to can_create_unlisted_topic? check. Users creating embedded topics are not always staff.
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
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.
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>
After this change, in order to join a chat channel, a user needs to be in a group with at least “Reply” permission for the category. If the user only has “See” permission, they are able to preview the channel, but not join it or send messages. The auto-join function also follows this new restriction.
---------
Co-authored-by: Martin Brennan <martin@discourse.org>
Sites with many categories and many of them in muted by default (see
`default_categories_muted`) reported bad performance when requesting
the homepage as an anonymous user. This was the case because of the
long query that iterated over topics and categories trying to remove
those from the muted categories.
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.
