Popular email clients like Gmail will automatically linkify link-like
content present in an HTML email they receive, even if it doesn't have
links in it. This made it possible to include what in Gmail will be a
user-controlled link in invitation emails that Zulip sends, which a
spammer/phisher could try to take advantage of to send really bad spam
(the limitation of having the rest of the invitation email HTML there
makes it hard to do something compelling here).
We close this opportunity by structuring our emails to always show the
user's name inside an existing link, so that Gmail won't do new
linkification, and add a test to help ensure we don't remove this
structure in a future design change.
Co-authored-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
Member of the org can able see list of invitations sent by him/her.
given permission for the member to revoke and resend the invitations
sent by him/her and added tests for test member can revoke and resend
the invitations only sent by him/her.
Fixes#14007.
This new type eliminates a bunch of messy code that previously
involved passing around long lists of mixed positional keyword and
arguments, instead using a consistent data object for communicating
about the state of an external authentication (constructed in
backends.py).
The result is a significantly more readable interface between
zproject/backends.py and zerver/views/auth.py, though likely more
could be done.
This has the side effect of renaming fields for internally passed
structures from name->full_name, next->redirect_to; this results in
most of the test codebase changes.
Modified by tabbott to add comments and collaboratively rewrite the
initialization logic.
Refactored code in actions.py and streams.py to move stream related
functions into streams.py and remove the dependency on actions.py.
validate_sender_can_write_to_stream function in actions.py was renamed
to access_stream_for_send_message in streams.py.
Generated by `pyupgrade --py3-plus --keep-percent-format` on all our
Python code except `zthumbor` and `zulip-ec2-configure-interfaces`,
followed by manual indentation fixes.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
This setting is being overridden by the frontend since the last
commit, and the security model is clearer and more robust if we don't
make it appear as though the markdown processor is handling this
issue.
Co-authored-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@zulipchat.com>
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
We've had a bug for a while that if any ScheduledEmail objects get
created with the wrong email sender address, even after the sysadmin
corrects the problem, they'll still get errors because of the objects
stored with the wrong format.
We solve this by using FromAddress placeholders strings in
send_future_email function, so that ScheduledEmail objects end up
setting the final `from_address` value when mail is actually sent
using the setting in effect at that time.
Fixes#11008.
We try to use the correct variation of `email`
or `delivery_email`, even though in some
databases they are the same.
(To find the differences, I temporarily hacked
populate_db to use different values for email
and delivery_email, and reduced email visibility
in the zulip realm to admins only.)
In places where we want the "normal" realm
behavior of showing emails (and having `email`
be the same as `delivery_email`), we use
the new `reset_emails_in_zulip_realm` helper.
A couple random things:
- I fixed any error messages that were leaking
the wrong email
- a test that claimed to rely on the order
of emails no longer does (we sort user_ids
instead)
- we now use user_ids in some place where we used
to use emails
- for IRC mirrors I just punted and used
`reset_emails_in_zulip_realm` in most places
- for MIT-related tests, I didn't fix email
vs. delivery_email unless it was obvious
I also explicitly reset the realm to a "normal"
realm for a couple tests that I frankly just didn't
have the energy to debug. (Also, we do want some
coverage on the normal case, even though it is
"easier" for tests to pass if you mix up `email`
and `delivery_email`.)
In particular, I just reset data for the analytics
and corporate tests.
We now have this API...
If you really just need to log in
and not do anything with the actual
user:
self.login('hamlet')
If you're gonna use the user in the
rest of the test:
hamlet = self.example_user('hamlet')
self.login_user(hamlet)
If you are specifically testing
email/password logins (used only in 4 places):
self.login_by_email(email, password)
And for failures uses this (used twice):
self.assert_login_failure(email)
The email domain restriction to @zulip.com is annoying in development
environment when trying to test sign up. For consistency, it's best to
have tests use the same default, and the tests that require domain
restriction can be adjusted to set that configuration up for themselves
explicitly.
This commit mostly makes our tests less
noisy, since emails are no longer an important
detail of sending messages (they're not even
really used in the API).
It also sets us up to have more scrutiny
on delivery_email/email in the future
for things that actually matter. (This is
a prep commit for something along those
lines, kind of hard to explain the full
plan.)
In the prep commits leading up to this, we split
out two new helpers:
validate_email_is_valid
get_errors_for_new_emails
Now when we validate invites we use two separate
loops to filter our emails.
Note that the two extracted functions map to two
of the data structures that used to be handled
in a single loop, and now we break them out:
errors = validate_email_is_valid
skipped = get_errors_for_new_emails
The first loop checks that emails are even valid
to begin with.
The second loop finds out whether emails are already
in use.
The second loop takes advantage of this helper:
get_errors_for_new_emails
The second helper can query all potential new emails
with a single round trip to the database.
This reduces our query count.
We now use the `get_realm_email_validator()`
helper to build an email validator outside
the loop of emails in our invite list.
This allows us to perform RealmDomain queries
only once per request, instead of once per
email.
Without the fix here, you will get an exception
similar to below if you try to invite one of the
cross realm bots. (The actual exception is
a bit different due to some rebasing on my branch.)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/request.py", line 368, in _wrapped_view_func
return view_func(request, *args, **kwargs)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/views/invite.py", line 49, in invite_users_backend
do_invite_users(user_profile, invitee_emails, streams, invite_as)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/actions.py", line 5153, in do_invite_users
email_error, email_skipped, deactivated = validate_email(user_profile, email)
File "/home/zulipdev/zulip/zerver/lib/actions.py", line 5069, in validate_email
return None, (error.code), (error.params['deactivated'])
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable
Obviously, you shouldn't try to invite a cross
realm bot to your realm, but we want a reasonable
error message.
RESOLUTION:
Populate the `code` parameter for `ValidationError`.
BACKGROUND:
Most callers to `validate_email_for_realm` simply catch
the `ValidationError` and then report a more generic error.
That's also what `do_invite_users` does, but it has the
somewhat convoluted codepath through `validate_email`
that triggers this code:
try:
validate_email_for_realm(user_profile.realm, email)
except ValidationError as error:
return None, (error.code), (error.params['deactivated'])
The way that we're using the `code` parameter for
`ValidationError` feels hacky to me. The intention
behind `code` is to provide a descriptive error to
calling code, and it's not intended for humans, and
it feels strange that we actually translate this in
other places. Here are the Django docs:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/forms/validation/
And then here's an example of us actually translating
a code (not part of this commit, just providing context):
raise ValidationError(_('%s already has an account') %
(email,), code = _("Already has an account."),
params={'deactivated': False})
Those codes eventually get put into InvitationError, which
inherits from JsonableError, and we do actually display
these errors in the webapp:
if skipped and len(skipped) == len(invitee_emails):
# All e-mails were skipped, so we didn't actually invite anyone.
raise InvitationError(_("We weren't able to invite anyone."),
skipped, sent_invitations=False)
I will try to untangle this somewhat in upcoming commits.
We allow folks to invite emails that are
associated with a mirror_dummy account.
We had a similar test already for registration,
but not invites.
This logic typically affects MIT realms in the
real world, but the logic should apply to any
realm, so I use accounts from the zulip realm
for convenient testing. (For example, we might
run an IRC mirror for a non-MIT account.)
I use a range here because there's some leak
from another test that causes the count to
vary. Once we get this a bit more under control,
we should be able to analyze the leak better.
The substantive improvement here is to use
a strange casing for Hamlet's email, which
will prevent future casing bugs.
I also log in as Cordelia to prevent confusion
that the test has something to do with
inviting yourself. It's more typical for
somebody to invite another person to a realm
(not realizing they're already there).
I also made two readability tweaks.
To avoid some hidden bugs in tests caused by every ldap user having the
same password, we give each user a different password, generated based
on their uids (to avoid some ugly hard-coding in a bunch of places).
This makes it possible to create a Zulip account from the mobile or
desktop apps and have the end result be that the user is logged in on
their mobile device.
We may need small changes in the desktop and/or mobile apps to support
this.
Closes#10859.
Tests require adjusting, because the class-based view has an additional
redirect - through /uid/set-password/ and the token is read from the
session. See Django code of PasswordResetConfirmView.
Adding invited users to the notifications stream unconditionally isn't
a correct behaviour for guest users, where the previous behavior of
including the notifications stream no longer makes sense. Therefore,
while inviting a new user, the notifications stream is listed along
with other streams with a message "recieves notifications for new
streams" in order to distinguish it from other streams.
Fixes#13645.
With the recipient field being denormalized into the UserProfile and
Streams models, all current uses of bulk_get_recipients can be done more
efficient, by simply checking the .recipient_id attribute on the
appropriate objects.
The flow in recipient_for_user_profiles previously worked by doing
validation on UserProfile objects (returning a list of IDs), and then
using that data to look up the appropriate Recipient objects.
For the case of sending a private message to another user, the new
UserProfile.recipient column lets us avoid the query to the Recipient
table if we move the step of reducing down to user IDs to only occur
in the Huddle code path.
This is adds foreign keys to the corresponding Recipient object in the
UserProfile on Stream tables, a denormalization intended to improve
performance as this is a common query.
In the migration for setting the field correctly for existing users,
we do a direct SQL query (because Django 1.11 doesn't provide any good
method for doing it properly in bulk using the ORM.).
A consequence of this change to the model is that a bit of code needs
to be added to the functions responsible for creating new users (to
set the field after the Recipient object gets created). Fortunately,
there's only a few code paths for doing that.
Also an adjustment is needed in the import system - this introduces a
circular relation between Recipient and UserProfile. The field cannot be
set until the Recipient objects have been created, but UserProfiles need
to be created before their corresponding Recipients. We deal with this
by first importing UserProfiles same way as before, but we leave the
personal_recipient field uninitialized. After creating the Recipient
objects, we call a function to set the field for all the imported users
in bulk.
A similar change is made for managing Stream objects.
In configurations with LDAP_APPEND_DOMAIN, we don't want people creating
non-ldap accounts with emails matching the ldap domain.
So in the registration flow, if the email isn't found in LDAP, but
matches LDAP_APPEND_DOMAIN, we stop, rather than proceeding with account
creation. In case of emails not matching LDAP_APPEND_DOMAIN, we will
still continue to make a normal, non-ldap account.
For a long time, we've been only doing the zxcvbn password strength
checks on the browser, which is helpful, but means users could through
hackery (or a bug in the frontend validation code) manage to set a
too-weak password. We fix this by running our password strength
validation on the backend as well, using python-zxcvbn.
In theory, a bug in python-zxcvbn could result in it producing a
different opinion than the frontend version; if so, it'd be a pretty
bad bug in the library, and hopefully we'd hear about it from users,
report upstream, and get it fixed that way. Alternatively, we can
switch to shelling out to node like we do for KaTeX.
Fixes#6880.
When creating realm with the ldap backend, the registration flow didn't
properly handle some things - the user wouldn't be set as realm admin,
initial subscriptions and messages weren't created, and the redirect
wasn't happening properly in the case of subdomains.
By adding some additional plumbing (through PreregistrationUser) of the
full_name and an additional full_name_validated option, we
pre-populate the Full Name field in the registration form when coming
through a social backend (google/github/saml/etc.) and potentially skip
the registration form (if the user would have nothing to do there other
than clicking the Confirm button) and just create the account and log
the user in.
This changes the way django_to_ldap_username works to make sure the ldap
username it returns actually has a corresponding ldap entry and raise an
exception if that's not possible. It seems to be a more sound approach
than just having it return its best guess - which was the case so far.
Now there is a guarantee that what it returns is the username of an
actual ldap user.
This allows communicating to the registration flow when the email being
registered doesn't belong to ldap, which then will proceed to register
it via the normal email backend flow - finally fixing the bug where you
couldn't register a non-ldap email even with the email backend enabled.
These changes to the behavior of django_to_ldap_username require small
refactorings in a couple of other functions that call it, as well as
adapting some tests to these changes. Finally, additional tests are
added for the above-mentioned registration flow behavior and some
related corner-cases.
MigrationsTestCase is intentionally omitted from this, since migrations
tests are different in their nature and so whatever setUp()
ZulipTestCase may do in the future, MigrationsTestCase may not
necessarily want to replicate.
Previously, the logic for determining whether to provide an LDAP
password prompt on the registration page was incorrectly including it
if any LDAP authentication was backend enabled, even if LDAP was
configured with the populate-only backend that is not responsible for
authentication (just for filling in name and custom profile fields).
We fix this by correcting the conditional, and add a test.
There's still follow-up work to do here: We may still end up
presenting a registration form in situations where it's useless
because we got all the data from SAML + LDAP. But that's for a future
issue.
This fixes a bug reported in #13275.
sahil839
Anders Kaseorg
Tim Abbott
jagansivam28
Mateusz Mandera
Anders Kaseorg
Udit107710
Stefan Weil
arpit551
Steve Howell
Hashir Sarwar
Ryan Rehman
Vishnu KS