Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] So which protection to we want by default for extensions pages

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Thomas Mortagne <

wrote: It would be ideal if we could just say it's just basic or advanced. I

more from a purpose point of view. "Devs" can be defined as advanced users or advanced admins, but the main differentiator is their clear intention to modify and create apps.

> > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) > &lt;valicac(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > How I see this problem for extension technical pages: > > - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button,

> > they are not tempted to edit. > > - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their

> > expense. > > - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be

> > of the risks. > > > > From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is

> > should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced > users, > > which in practice it usually happens. > > > > Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY)

> > W=(Warning): > > > > | Users | Admins | > > |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| > > 0 | W | W | W | W | > > 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | > > 1b| -ED | W | W | W | > > 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | > > 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | > > 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W | > > > > Thanks, > > Caty > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne < > thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > >> Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail: > >> > >> 0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3) > >> > >> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; > wrote: > >> > Hi Thomas, > >> > > >> >> On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <

> > > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi xwikiers, > >> >> > >> >> In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing > >> >> extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit

> >> >> > >> >> This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial > >> >> (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions

> >> >> > >> >> * EDIT right forced false for basic users > >> >> * still a warning for advanced users > >> >> * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for > >> >> everyone, warning for everyone, etc.) > >> > > >> > Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)). > >> > > >> > From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are: > >> > > >> > * The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default > >> > * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company > provide > >> xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for > >> superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can > perform > >> xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts. > >> > > >> > Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. > >> forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but > less > >> important IMO. > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > -Vincent > >> > > >> >> That was before I actually look at what we can do with our

> >> system :) > >> >> > >> >> Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like > >> >> "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big

> >> >> work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a > >> >> protected document would not exactly be straightforward. > >> >> > >> >> Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details > what > >> >> we want in the end. > >> >> > >> >> In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can > talk > >> >> about which options we need to provide in another one: > >> >> > >> >> Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit > >> >> everything (with a warning). > >> >> > >> >> 1) Basic/advanced based > >> >> > >> >> 1.a) > >> >> > >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. > >> >> Edit warning for advanced users. > >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN > >> >> implied rights logic) > >> >> > >> >> 1.b) > >> >> > >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. > >> >> Edit warning for advanced users. > >> >> Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). > >> >> > >> >> 2) Admin right based > >> >> > >> >> 2.a) > >> >> > >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone > >> >> Even admins > >> >> > >> >> 2.b) > >> >> > >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone > >> >> Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). > >> >> > >> >> 3) Both > >> >> > >> >> Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right > >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else > >> >> > >> >> WDYT ? > >> >> > >> >> The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b

> >> >> by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not

> >> >> having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force

> >> >> of protected pages since it's not about security and more about > >> >> knowledge. > >> >> > >> >> I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product

> >> >> I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). > >> >> It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that > >> >> some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is

> >> >> extensions which will probably never get configured properly

> >> >> not really maintained anymore but still used. > >> >> > >> >> In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most > >> >> dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN

> >> >> EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for > >> >> basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> -- > >> >> Thomas Mortagne > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thomas Mortagne > >> > > > > -- > Thomas Mortagne >