- The helper registration code is "framework" code and very specific
- At the moment the "theme engine" is full of lots of disparate theme related stuff
- I'm trying to make the frontend framework code clearer and also expand it to make it more useful
- The helper system now also exposes 3 methods allowing you to register a directory, a helper or an alias
- I've updated the codebase to use these both for our core helpers and for "apps"
refs https://linear.app/tryghost/issue/CORE-86/fix-failing-site-instance-when-redirects-file-is-invalid
refs 260a47da83
- Added validation logic to catch redirects files having invalid RegEx expressions when they are introduced into the system (on upload)
- This way the error happening in the refed commit would have not happened as the validator would not have passed it through
- Moved up the "Router" declaration in custom-redirects as it needs to happen before any other bit of logic has a chance to throw
refs: #13380
- This is part of the ongoing push to get rid of the deprecated i18n.t calls
- In this case, it highlights just how little work we've done on API errors - we should have a full list of action messages, but there's just 1 :(
- This is initial ground work to enable us to do a full error audit
- We want to prevent Ghost admin from ever showing any unhandled errors
- Additionally we want to ensure all handled errors are well worded & have context+help
refs https://linear.app/tryghost/issue/CORE-35/refactor-route-and-redirect-settings
refs 7528ec8c3b
- The way the custom redirects middleware was organized made it extremely hard to unit test it (had to stub the redirects service methods etc). With a new organization it's possible to provide needed redirects configs to the method which makes the actual redirects Router logic testable and the code less coupled with redirects services
- This was meant to be an attempt to extract more of the slow redirects regression tests, which failed. Instead found this weak spot that could be improved and gained:
- shaved 4s of time as two slow regression test cases are now gone
- there's now a base to build upon when getting more coverage for the custom redirects middleware
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/1070
- bumped `@tryghost/custom-theme-settings-service` for access to `.updateSettings()`
- added `PUT /custom_theme_settings` route that delegates to `customThemeSettingsService.updateSettings()` to perform the db and cache updates
- invalidates the cache in Ghost because a theme setting change will mean the front-end output will change
refs https://linear.app/tryghost/issue/CORE-35/refactor-route-and-redirect-settings
- Frontend is not meant to know about the underlying source of the "routes" configuration, so any reads/edits/validations are being moved into a backend service. This should also simplify the coupling of the backend with the frontend where the latter will get a JSON blob with all needed configuration during the boot
- Nother problem the "get" method had was hiding an underlying function it was doing - reading the file from the filesystem SYNCRONOUSLY. It might be a thing we need to do during the "web" app initialization, but there's no clear need to do this in a sync fassion during the bootup for example. Also having a more explicit name should help :)
refs https://linear.app/tryghost/issue/CORE-35/refactor-route-and-redirect-settings
- 'knowSettings' was based on a "configurable" array of settings that might be configured in Ghost. The multitude never happened! The only setting the frontend takes care of is routes.yaml file (redirects is also kind of a setting but is a separate concept for now).
- Having just one type of file to deal with allows to simplify implementation significantly, which helps before a big refactor
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/1070
- bumped `@tryghost/custom-theme-settings-service` to get access to `.listSettings()` method
- added GET `/api/canary/admin/theme_settings/` route behind `'customThemeSettings'` feature flag that uses the custom theme settings service to return settings resources that are a combination of the theme-provided definition and the saved value
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Ghost/security/advisories/GHSA-65p7-pjj8-ggmr
This updates the signup/signin flow for members to no longer support the
email address change flow - which had missing authentication. It has
been replaced with a dedicated email change flow, and Portal has been
updated to use it.
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/946
This adds the initial bulk actions endpoint used for the members
filtering feature. The idea is to eventually move bulk destroy into this
endpoint to and provide a consistent interface for applying bulk actions
to members.
The @tryghost/members-api package has been bumped to include the new
bulkEdit method.
The sinon.restore in tests was moved to an afterEach so that stubs did
not effect other tests.
refs 9e2b21578a
Since the ref'd commit the labs middleware was moved to the shared labs module
and this require path no longer exists. This does not break anything as any module
still using this would error when reading the labs property
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/907
The theme middleware makes several calls to the content api in order to
populate global theme data for use in templates. By adding this
middleware after the static theme files, we remove redundant calls.
issue https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/614
- The feature flag was called `oauthLogin` instead of simply `oauth` to avoid clashes in the frontend `feature` service as it is merging the config and labs properties.
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/664
The new WellKnownController and middleware handles exposing a JSON Web
Key Set for us.
In order to serve the keys on /members/.well-known/jwks.json without a
trailing slash, we must mount the wellKnown middleware before the
frontend.
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/696
The userAuth spam prevention logic is reused, but a new piece of
middleware has to be created so that we can use a custom lookup key to
conatin the member email.
We must also add json parsing middleware to the route so that the brute
middleware can read the email.
The express body-parser middleware handles multiple instances on the
same route, so this doesn't cause problems upstream.
https://github.com/expressjs/body-parser/blob/1.19.0/lib/types/json.js#L99-L103
- This isn't really a "service" - it's a set of utilities for working with labs flags
- It's also required all over the place, and doesn't require anything that isn't shared
- Therefore, it should live in shared
- This isn't really a "service" - it's a set of utilities for working with labs flags
- It's also required all over the place, and doesn't require anything that isn't shared
- Therefore, it should live in shared
- This stops the mounting of the admin and frontend from being buried deep in express initialisation
- Instead it's explicit, which makes two things almost possible:
1. we can potentially boot the frontend or backend independently
2. we can pass services and settings loaded during boot into the frontend
- This needs more work, but we can start to group all the frontend code together
- Meanwhile we also need to rip apart the routing and url services to decouple the frontend from the backend fully
- BABY STEPS!
closes https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/819
- adds guard for an empty buffer when reading file from storage for resizing, if a blank image is loaded then redirect to the original file
- This is a precursor to trying to split apart into:
- model events + webhooks system which makes sense
- frontend events which should be independent or removed
- maybe some concept of a settings manager that we can use in various places to bind logic 🤔
- other usages of events that should be refactored to not use events
refs https://github.com/TryGhost/Team/issues/856
- There were two problems with routes.js files defining API routes:
- First, the module requires wen too deep into the "api" module and used specific api modules directly. We have an "index.js" file which defines an API for whole API, it should be used as an entry point to anything to do with the API.
- Second, The naming was inconsistent between the routes.js files for "api", "apiV2", "apiCanary" - it is an extra maintenance burden to go on and change each "api" name when the new version is introduced. The only thing that should be changed within these files is a single line on very top that "requires" a specific API version like so: "const api = require('../../../../api').canary;" - way less maintenance to change that canary to v5 instead of doing an extra rename for all "apiCanary" to "apiV5"
