There are two more API integration tests that explicitly add the
"Authorization" header right now:
- `Flarum\Tests\integration\api\authentication\WithApiKeyTest`
- `Flarum\Tests\integration\api\csrf_protection\RequireCsrfTokenTest`
These two specifically test authentication, so in those cases the
explicitness seems desirable.
I feel this makes the parameters a bit more clear, does not rely on
inheritance (you can only inherit from one class, but we might want more
of these helpers in the future), and has less side effects (e.g. no
creation and, more importantly, deletion of users in the database).
Refs #2052.
Test the request, not a controller (implementation detail). This also
focuses on the observable behavior instead of hacking our way into the
middleware pipeline in order to observe internal behavior.
The authenticated user is now determined by looking at the API response
to compare permissions and (non-)existing JSON keys.
We decided it is better to have a less intelligent search (that does not
match search terms in titles) for some people than a bad-performing
search for everyone.
We will revisit the search performance topic in the next release cycle,
possibly with larger changes around indexing.
Refs #1738, #1741, #1764.
- Extract a method for email address generation
- Consistent types
- No docblocks for types where superfluous
- Tweak console output
- Don't inherit from integration test's base class in unit test
- Fix base url when is appended with a script filename
- Add default base url http://flarum.local when CLI wizard used
- Remove some code duplication
- Add minor improvement to the UX when CLI wizard used
- Add tests
- Extract base url normalisation into its own value object
In flarum/core#1854, I changed the implementation of `assertCan()` to be
more aware of the user's log-in status. I came across this when unifying
our API's response status code when actors are not authenticated or not
authorized to do something.
@luceos rightfully had to tweak this again in 8e3eb59, because the
behavior changed for one of the few API endpoints that checked for a
permission that even guests can have.
It turns out having this complex behavior in `assertCan()` is quite
misleading, because the name suggests a simple permission check and
nothing more.
Where we actually want to differ between HTTP 401 and 403, we can do
this using two method calls, and enforce it with our tests.
If this turns out to be problematic or extremely common, we can revisit
this and introduce a method with a different, better name in the future.
This commit restores the method's behavior in the last release, so we
also avoid another breaking change for extensions.
This test would have failed without commit 8e3eb59. Next, I will revert
that commit and most of my PR #1854, so we need this test to ensure the
API continues to behave as desired.
This fixes a regression from #1843 and #1854. Now, the frontend again
shows the proper "Incorrect login details" message instead of "You
do not have permission to do that".
HTTP 401 should be used when logging in (i.e. authenticating) would make
a difference; HTTP 403 is reserved for requests that fail because the
already authenticated user is not authorized (i.e. lacking permissions)
to do something.
