Simple forum software for building great communities.
Go to file
Toby Zerner b5eab781f1 Overhaul model visibility scoping (#1342)
* Overhaul the way model visibility scoping works

- Previously post visibility scoping required concrete knowledge of the
  parent discussion, ie. you needed a Discussion model on which you
  would call `postsVisibleTo($actor)`. This meant that to fetch posts
  from different discussions (eg. when listing user posts), it was a
  convoluted process, ultimately causing #1333.

  Now posts behave like any other model in terms of visibility scoping,
  and you simply call `whereVisibleTo($actor)` on a Post query. This
  scope will automatically apply a WHERE EXISTS clause that scopes the
  query to only include posts whose discussions are visible too. Thus,
  fetching posts from multiple discussions can now be done in a single
  query, simplifying things greatly and fixing #1333.

- As such, the ScopePostVisibility event has been removed. Also, the
  rest of the "Scope" events have been consolidated into a single event,
  ScopeModelVisibility. This event is called whenever a user must have
  a certain $ability in order to see a set of discussions. Typically
  this ability is just "view". But in the case of discussions which have
  been marked as `is_private`, it is "viewPrivate". And in the case of
  discussions which have been hidden, it is "hide". etc.

  The relevant API on AbstractPolicy has been refined, now providing
  `find`, `findPrivate`, `findEmpty`, and `findWithPermission` methods.
  This could probably do with further refinement and we can re-address
  it once we get around to implementing more Extenders.

- An additional change is that Discussion::comments() (the relation
  used to calculate the cached number of replies) now yields "comments
  that are not private", where before it meant "comments that are
  visible to Guests". This was flawed because eg. comments in non-public
  tags are technically not visible to Guests.

  Consequently, the Approval extension must adopt usage of `is_private`,
  so that posts which are not approved are not included in the replies
  count. Fundamentally, `is_private` now indicates that a discussion/
  post should be hidden by default and should only be visible if it
  meets certain criteria. This is in comparison to non-is_private
  entities, which are visible by default and may be hidden if they don't
  meet certain criteria.

Note that these changes have not been extensively tested, but I have
been over the logic multiple times and it seems to check out.

* Add event to determine whether a discussion `is_private`

See https://github.com/flarum/core/pull/1153#issuecomment-292693624

* Don't include hidden posts in the comments count

* Apply fixes from StyleCI (#1350)
2018-01-27 09:57:16 +10:30
framework/core Overhaul model visibility scoping (#1342) 2018-01-27 09:57:16 +10:30