The purpose is to provide a way for (non-webapp) clients,
like the mobile and terminal apps, to tell whether the
server it's talking to is new enough to support a given
API feature -- in particular a way that
* is finer-grained than release numbers, so that for
features developed after e.g. 2.1.0 we can use them
immediately on servers deployed from master (like
chat.zulip.org and zulipchat.com) without waiting the
months until a 2.2 release;
* is reliable, unlike e.g. looking at the number of
commits since a release;
* doesn't lead to a growing bag of named feature flags
which the server has to go on sending forever.
Tweaked by tabbott to extend the documentation.
Closes#14618.
If SAML_REQUIRE_LIMIT_TO_SUBDOMAINS is enabled, the configured IdPs will
be validated and cleaned up when the saml backend is initialized.
settings.py would be a tempting and more natural place to do this
perhaps, but in settings.py we don't do logging and we wouldn't be able
to write a test for it.
Through the limit_to_subdomains setting on IdP dicts it's now possible
to limit the IdP to only allow authenticating to the specified realms.
Fixes#13340.
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 used to show a blank page. Considering that the links remain valid
only for 15 seconds it's important to show something more informative to
the user.
The function `prepare_login_url_and_headers` returns a register
link for any value of `is_signup` unless it's not none.
This commit changes it to a boolean for that function and other
functions using it so that it becomes much clearer when a
register link will be returned.
Also, all occurrences of `is_signup='1'` are changed to
`is_signup=True` to make the code consistent with the above change.
When a user in login flow using github auth chooses a email that is
not associated with an existing account, it leads to a "continue to
registration" choice. This cannot be tested with the earlier version
of `stage_two_of_registration`.
Also added the test.
Thanks to Mateusz Mandera for the solution.
Co-authored-by: Mateusz Mandera <mateusz.mandera@protonmail.com>
The previous model for GitHub authentication was as follows:
* If the user has only one verified email address, we'll generally just log them in to that account
* If the user has multiple verified email addresses, we will always
prompt them to pick which one to use, with the one registered as
"primary" in GitHub listed at the top.
This change fixes the situation for users going through a "login" flow
(not registration) where exactly one of the emails has an account in
the Zulip oragnization -- they should just be logged in.
Fixes part of #12638.
URLs for config errors were configured seperately for each error
which is better handled by having error name as argument in URL.
A new view `config_error_view` is added containing context for
each error that returns `config_error` page with the relevant
context.
Also fixed tests and some views in `auth.py` to be consistent with
changes.
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 specifically give the existing user different
delivery_email and email addresses, to prevent false
positives during the test that checks that users
signing up with an already-existing email get
an error message.
(We also rename the test.)
We had a bunch of ugly hacks to monkey patch things due to upstream
being temporarily unmaintained and not merging PRs. Now the project is
active again and the fixes have been merged and included in the latest
version - so we clean up all that code.
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.
We were using `code` to pass around messages.
The `code` field is designed to be a code, not
a human-readable message.
It's possible that we don't actually need two
flavors of messages for these type of validations,
but I didn't want to change that yet.
We **definitely** don't need to put two types of
message in the exception, so I fix that. Instead,
I just have the caller ask what level of detail
it needs.
I added a non-verbose message for the case of
system bots.
I removed the non-translated version of the message
for deactivated accounts, which didn't have test
coverage and is slightly more prone to leaking
email info that we don't want to leak.
We are trying to kill off `validate_email`, so
we no longer call it from these tests.
These tests are already kind of low-level in
nature, so testing the more specific helpers
here should be fine.
Note that we also make the third parameter
to `validate_email` non-optional in this commit,
to preserve 100% coverage. This is really just
refactoring noise--we will soon eliminate the
entire function, but I didn't want to do everything
in a huge commit.
This has two goals:
- sets up a future commit to bulk-validate
emails
- the extracted function is more simple,
since it just has errors, and no codes
or deactivated flags
This commit leaves us in a somewhat funny
intermediate state where we have
`action.validate_email` being a glorified
two-line function with strange parameters,
but subsequent commits will clean this up:
- we will eliminate validate_email
- we will move most of the guts of its
other callee to lib/email_validation.py
To be clear, the code is correct here, just
kinda in an ugly, temporarily-disorganized
intermediate state.
There was some duplicated code to test config error pages for
different auths which could be handled with less duplicated code
by adding those functions to `SocialAuthBase`.
Also moving the other tests makes it easier to access tests related
to a backend auth when they are in the same file.
Original idea was that KeyError was only going to happen there in case
of user passing bad input params to the endpoint, so logging a generic
message seemed sufficient. But this can also happen in case of
misconfiguration, so it's worth logging more info as it may help in
debugging the configuration.
Create a new page for desktop auth flow, in which
users can select one from going to the app or
continue the flow in the browser.
Co-authored-by: Mateusz Mandera <mateusz.mandera@protonmail.com>
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.
This applies rate limiting (through a decorator) of authenticate()
functions in the Email and LDAP backends - because those are the ones
where we check user's password.
The limiting is based on the username that the authentication is
attempted for - more than X attempts in Y minutes to a username is not
permitted.
If the limit is exceeded, RateLimited exception will be raised - this
can be either handled in a custom way by the code that calls
authenticate(), or it will be handled by RateLimitMiddleware and return
a json_error as the response.
The desktop otp flow (to be added in next commits) will want to generate
one-time tokens for the app that will allow it to obtain an
authenticated session. log_into_subdomain will be the endpoint to pass
the one-time token to. Currently it uses signed data as its input
"tokens", which is not compatible with the otp flow, which requires
simpler (and fixed-length) token. Thus the correct scheme to use is to
store the authenticated data in redis and return a token tied to the
data, which should be passed to the log_into_subdomain endpoint.
In this commit, we replace the "pass signed data around" scheme with the
redis scheme, because there's no point having both.
authenticate_remote_user already takes care of calling the authenticate
with the dummy backend. Also, return_data is not used and catching
DoesNotExist exception is not needed, as the dummy backend just returns
None if user isn't found.
responses is an module analogous to httpretty for mocking external
URLs, with a very similar interface (potentially cleaner in that it
makes use of context managers).
The most important (in the moment) problem with httpretty is that it
breaks the ability to use redis in parts of code where httpretty is
enabled. From more research, the module in general has tendency to
have various troublesome bugs with breaking URLs that it shouldn't be
affecting, caused by it working at the socket interface layer. While
those issues could be fixed, responses seems to be less buggy (based
on both third-party reports like ckan/ckan#4755 and our own experience
in removing workarounds for bugs in httpretty) and is more actively
maintained.
Previously, if you tried to invite a user whose account had been
deactivated, we didn't provide a clear path forward for reactivating
the users, which was confusing.
We fix this by plumbing through to the frontend the information that
there is an existing user account with that email address in this
organization, but that it's deactivated. For administrators, we
provide a link for how to reactivate the user.
Fixes#8144.
Our ldap integration is quite sensitive to misconfigurations, so more
logging is better than less to help debug those issues.
Despite the following docstring on ZulipLDAPException:
"Since this inherits from _LDAPUser.AuthenticationFailed, these will
be caught and logged at debug level inside django-auth-ldap's
authenticate()"
We weren't actually logging anything, because debug level messages were
ignored due to our general logging settings. It is however desirable to
log these errors, as they can prove useful in debugging configuration
problems. The django_auth_ldap logger can get fairly spammy on debug
level, so we delegate ldap logging to a separate file
/var/log/zulip/ldap.log to avoid spamming server.log too much.
A block of LDAP integration code related to data synchronization did
not correctly handle EMAIL_ADDRESS_VISIBILITY_ADMINS, as it was
accessing .email, not .delivery_email, both for logging and doing the
mapping between email addresses and LDAP users.
Fixes#13539.
We register ZulipRemoteUserBackend as an external_authentication_method
to make it show up in the corresponding field in the /server_settings
endpoint.
This also allows rendering its login button together with
Google/Github/etc. leading to us being able to get rid of some of the
code that was handling it as a special case - the js code for plumbing
the "next" value and the special {% if only_sso %} block in login.html.
An additional consequence of the login.html change is that now the
backend will have it button rendered even if it isn't the only backend
enabled on the server.
Mateusz Mandera
Hashir Sarwar
Anders Kaseorg
Stefan Weil
Dinesh
Dinesh
Steve Howell
vsvipul
Tim Abbott
Tlazypanda