This commit adds support to add subgroups to a group while
creating it.
User can add the subgroups to group irrespective of permissions
like user can add members during creating it.
This commit updates code to allow users with permission
to add members to add subgroups as well. And only users
with permission to manage the group can remove subgroups.
Also updated tests to check permissions in separate tests
and removed them from the existing test.
The comment about non-admins and non-moderators who are not
member of the group cannot update subgroups of that group
is not correct since there is no such restriction now after
c9d527603. The test passes because the member user is not
part of can_manage_group or can_manage_all_groups.
We want to allow the user, who can add others to group, to
join the group as well irrespective of can_join_group setting.
Previously, the permission to add others (or say anyone) was
controlled by can_manage_group setting, but now it is controlled
by can_add_members_group setting. This commit fixes the code to
use can_add_members_group setting to check permission for joining
the group.
This commit also improves the tests for checking permission to
join the group such that different settings are tested in isolation.
The main change is redefining ALLOW_GROUP_VALUED_SETTINGS to not
control code, but instead to instead control the configuration for
whether settings that have not been converted to use our modern UI
patterns should require system groups.
Fundamentally, it's the same for the realm/stream group-valued
settings, which don't have the new UI patterns yet.
We remove the visual hiding of the "can manage group" setting, which
was hidden only due to transitions being incomplete.
Earlier we use to restrict admins, moderators or members of a group to
manage that group if they were part of the realm wide
`can_manage_all_groups`. We will not do that anymore and even
non-members of a group regardless of role can manage a group if they are
part of `can_manage_all_groups`.
See
https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/101-design/topic/Group.20add.20members.20dropdown/near/1952902
to check more about the migration plan for which this is the last step.
Fixes#25942.
Users with permission to manage the group (either on the group level or
realm level) should be able to add members to the group without being
present in can_add_members_group.
Removing members will be controlled by `can_manage_group` until we add
`can_remove_members_group` in the future.
Users with permission to manage a group can add members to that group by
default without being present in `can_add_members_group`.
This commit updates backend code to not allow adding deactivated
users to groups including when creating groups and also to not
allow removing deactivated users from groups.
This commit updates code to not include deactivated users in
members list in the user groups object sent in "/register"
and "GET /user_groups" response and also in the response
returned by endpoint like "GET /user_groups/{group_id}/members".
The events code is also update to handle this -
- We expect clients to update the members list on receiving
"realm_user/update" event on deactivation. But for guests
who cannot access the user, "user_group/remove_members"
event is sent to update the group members list on deactivation.
- "user_group/add_members" event is sent to all the users on
reactivating the user.
We create an unnamed user group with just the group creator as it's
member when trying to set the default. The pattern I've followed across
most of the acting_user additions is to just put the user declared
somewhere before the check_add_user_group and see if the test passes.
If it does not, then I'll look at what kind of user it needs to be set
to `acting_user`.
We will not remove `user_group_edit_policy` yet. That will be removed
once we have introduced a user group setting to manage edit permissions
to groups.
The error response when a user group cannot be deactivated due
to it being used as a subgroup or for a setting includes details
about the supergroups, streams, user groups as well the settings
for which it is used.
Previously, if the user_group_edit_policy was set to allow
members or full members to manage the group, the user had
to be the direct member of the group being managed.
This commit updates the code to allow members of the subgroups
as well to manage the group as technically members of the
subgroups are member of the group.
This also improves the code to not fetch all the group members
to check this, and instead directly call is_user_in_group
which uses "exists" to check it.
This commit renames has_user_group_access function to
has_user_group_access_for_subgroup, since the function
is only used to check access for using a group as subgroup.
This commit refactors the code to check permission for
accessing user group in such a way that we can avoid
duplicate code in future when we will have different
settings controlling the permissions for editing group
details and settings, joining the group, adding others
to group, etc.
This commit renames "allow_deactivated" parameter in
"GET /user_groups" endpoint to "include_deactivated_groups", so
that we can have consistent naming here and for client capability
used for deciding whether to send deactivated groups in register
response and how to handle the related events.
This commit introduced 'creator' and 'date_created'
fields in user groups, allowing users to view who
created the groups and when.
Both fields can be null for groups without creator data.
We only allow updating name of a deactivated group, and not
allow updating description, members, subgroups and any setting
of a deactivated user group.
Deactivated user groups cannot be a a subgroup of any group
or used as a setting for a group.
This commit make changes in code to include can_manage_group
field to UserGroup objects passed with response of various endpoints
including "/register" endpoint and also in the group object
send with user group creation event.
Earlier there was only a realm level setting for configuring
who can edit user groups. A new group level setting is also added
for configuring who can manage that particular group.
Now, a user group can be edited by a user if it is allowed from
realm level setting or group level setting.
This commit make changes to also use group level setting
in determining whether a group can be edited by user or not.
Also, updated tests to use api_post and api_delete helpers instead
of using client_post and client_delete helpers with different users
being logged in.
This commit adds a new group level setting can_manage_group
for configuring who can manage a group. This commit only adds
the field in database and make changes to automatically create
single user groups corresponsing to acting user
which will be the default value for this setting.
Fixes part of #25928.
Earlier there was a single backend test for testing group edit policy
for creating and deleting user group.This commit make changes in the test
and now there are two separate tests for testing group edit policy for
creating and deleting user groups.
This was done because in future commits we will be adding a
realm level setting for configuring who can create user groups.
Also, updated tests to use api_post and api_delete helpers instead
of using client_post and client_delete helpers with different users
being logged in.
This commit refactors code in user_groups_in_realm_serialized
such that we do not prefetch "can_mention_group__direct_members"
and "can_mention_group__direct_subgroups" using prefetch_related
and instead fetch members and subgroups for all groups in separate
queries and then use that data to find the members and subgroups
of the group used for that setting.
This change helps us in avoiding two prefetch queries for each
setting when we add more group settings.
We use the already existing server level setting to only allow
settings to be set to system groups, not a named user defined
group as well, in production. But we allow to settings to be set
to any named or anonymous user group in tests and development server.
"can_mention_group" setting can be set to user defined groups
because some of the realms already do that in production.
The existing server level setting is also renamed to make it clear
that both user defined groups and anonymous groups are not allowed
if that setting is set to False.
This commit also changes the error message to be consistent for the
case when a setting cannot be set to user defined groups as per
server level and setting and when a particular setting cannot be set
to user defined groups due to the configuration of that particular
setting. For this we add a new class SystemGroupRequiredError in
exceptions.py so that we need not re-write the error message in
multiple places.
This commit adds a server level setting which controls whether the setting
can be set to anonymous user groups. We only allow it in the tests for
now because the UI can only handle named user groups.
This commit adds a new helper function to create or update
a UserGroup object for a setting. We could have used existing
update_or_create_user_group_for_setting but that also validates
user IDs and subgroup IDs which we can skip in tests.
This commit updates code, majorly in tests, to use
setting values from enums instead of directly using
the constants defined in Realm.
We still have those constants defined Realm as they
are used in a couple of places where the same code
is used for different settings. These will be
handled later.
This commit adds support to pass object containing both old and new
values of the can_mention_group setting, as well as detailed API
documentation for this part of the API system.
Co-authored-by: Tim Abbott <tabbott@zulip.com>
Co-authored-by: Greg PRice <greg@zulip.com>
Sahil Batra
Tim Abbott
Shubham Padia
Lauryn Menard
sujal shah
Ujjawal Modi
Anders Kaseorg
Vector73