2 May
2018
2 May
'18
7:02 p.m.
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 <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
--
Thomas Mortagne
On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> 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 it).
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 was:
* 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 security 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 of
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 is
by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure
having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit
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 (but
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 Contrib
extensions which will probably never get configured properly because
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 and
EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for
basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK.
Thanks,
--
Thomas Mortagne