Ghost/core/server/api/v2/utils/permissions.js

83 lines
3.3 KiB
JavaScript
Raw Normal View History

Added tiny framework to support multiple API versions (#9933) refs #9326, refs #9866 **ATTENTION: This is the first iteration. Bugs are expected.** Main Goals: - add support for multiple API versions. - do not touch v0.1 implementation - do not break v0.1 ## Problems with the existing v0.1 implementation 1. It tried to be generic and helpful, but it was a mixture of generic and explicit logic living in basically two files: utils.js and index.js. 2. Supporting multiple api versions means, you want to have as less as possible code per API version. With v0.1 it is impossible to reduce the API controller implementation. ---- This commit adds three things: 1. The tiny framework with well-defined API stages. 2. An example implementation of serving static pages via /pages for the content v2 API. 3. Unit tests to prove that the API framework works in general. ## API Stages - validation - input serialization - permissions - query - output serialization Each request should go through these stages. It is possible to disable stages, but it's not recommended. The code for each stage will either live in a shared folder or in the API version itself. It depends how API specific the validation or serialization is. Depends on the use case. We should add a specific API validator or serializer if the use case is API format specific. We should put everything else to shared. The goal is to add as much as possible into the shared API layer to reduce the logic per API version. --- Serializers and validators can be added: - for each request - for specific controllers - for specific actions --- There is room for improvements/extensions: 1. Remove http header configuration from the API controller, because the API controller should not know about http - decouple. 2. Put permissions helpers into shared. I've just extracted and capsulated the permissions helpers into a single file for now. It had no priority. The focus was on the framework itself. etc. --- You can find more information about it in the API README.md (api/README.md) - e.g. find more information about the structure - e.g. example controllers The docs are not perfect. We will improve the docs in the next two weeks. --- Upcoming tasks: - prepare test env to test multiple API versions - copy over the controllers from v0.1 to v2 - adapt the v2 express app to use the v2 controllers
2018-10-05 01:50:45 +03:00
const debug = require('ghost-ignition').debug('api:v2:utils:permissions');
const Promise = require('bluebird');
const _ = require('lodash');
const permissions = require('../../../services/permissions');
const common = require('../../../lib/common');
const nonePublicAuth = (apiConfig, frame) => {
debug('check admin permissions');
const singular = apiConfig.docName.replace(/s$/, '');
let permissionIdentifier = frame.options.id;
2018-10-12 20:44:02 +03:00
if (apiConfig.identifier) {
permissionIdentifier = apiConfig.identifier(frame);
}
const unsafeAttrObject = apiConfig.unsafeAttrs && _.has(frame, `data.[${apiConfig.docName}][0]`) ? _.pick(frame.data[apiConfig.docName][0], apiConfig.unsafeAttrs) : {};
const permsPromise = permissions.canThis(frame.options.context)[apiConfig.method][singular](permissionIdentifier, unsafeAttrObject);
Added tiny framework to support multiple API versions (#9933) refs #9326, refs #9866 **ATTENTION: This is the first iteration. Bugs are expected.** Main Goals: - add support for multiple API versions. - do not touch v0.1 implementation - do not break v0.1 ## Problems with the existing v0.1 implementation 1. It tried to be generic and helpful, but it was a mixture of generic and explicit logic living in basically two files: utils.js and index.js. 2. Supporting multiple api versions means, you want to have as less as possible code per API version. With v0.1 it is impossible to reduce the API controller implementation. ---- This commit adds three things: 1. The tiny framework with well-defined API stages. 2. An example implementation of serving static pages via /pages for the content v2 API. 3. Unit tests to prove that the API framework works in general. ## API Stages - validation - input serialization - permissions - query - output serialization Each request should go through these stages. It is possible to disable stages, but it's not recommended. The code for each stage will either live in a shared folder or in the API version itself. It depends how API specific the validation or serialization is. Depends on the use case. We should add a specific API validator or serializer if the use case is API format specific. We should put everything else to shared. The goal is to add as much as possible into the shared API layer to reduce the logic per API version. --- Serializers and validators can be added: - for each request - for specific controllers - for specific actions --- There is room for improvements/extensions: 1. Remove http header configuration from the API controller, because the API controller should not know about http - decouple. 2. Put permissions helpers into shared. I've just extracted and capsulated the permissions helpers into a single file for now. It had no priority. The focus was on the framework itself. etc. --- You can find more information about it in the API README.md (api/README.md) - e.g. find more information about the structure - e.g. example controllers The docs are not perfect. We will improve the docs in the next two weeks. --- Upcoming tasks: - prepare test env to test multiple API versions - copy over the controllers from v0.1 to v2 - adapt the v2 express app to use the v2 controllers
2018-10-05 01:50:45 +03:00
return permsPromise.then((result) => {
/*
* Allow the permissions function to return a list of excluded attributes.
* If it does, omit those attrs from the data passed through
*
* NOTE: excludedAttrs differ from unsafeAttrs in that they're determined by the model's permissible function,
* and the attributes are simply excluded rather than throwing a NoPermission exception
*
* TODO: This is currently only needed because of the posts model and the contributor role. Once we extend the
* contributor role to be able to edit existing tags, this concept can be removed.
*/
if (result && result.excludedAttrs && _.has(frame, `data.[${apiConfig.docName}][0]`)) {
frame.data[apiConfig.docName][0] = _.omit(frame.data[apiConfig.docName][0], result.excludedAttrs);
}
}).catch((err) => {
if (err instanceof common.errors.NoPermissionError) {
err.message = common.i18n.t('errors.api.utils.noPermissionToCall', {
method: apiConfig.method,
docName: apiConfig.docName
});
return Promise.reject(err);
}
if (common.errors.utils.isIgnitionError(err)) {
return Promise.reject(err);
}
return Promise.reject(new common.errors.GhostError({
err: err
}));
});
};
module.exports = {
handle(apiConfig, frame) {
debug('handle');
frame.options.context = permissions.parseContext(frame.options.context);
if (frame.options.context.public) {
debug('check content permissions');
// @TODO: The permission layer relies on the API format from v0.1. The permission layer should define
// it's own format and should not re-use or rely on the API format. For now we have to simulate the v0.1
// structure. We should raise an issue asap.
return permissions.applyPublicRules(apiConfig.docName, apiConfig.method, {
status: frame.options.status,
id: frame.options.id,
uuid: frame.options.uuid,
slug: frame.options.slug,
data: {
status: frame.data.status,
id: frame.data.id,
uuid: frame.data.uuid,
slug: frame.data.slug
}
});
}
return nonePublicAuth(apiConfig, frame);
}
};