| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
Fix missing Note access checks in by moving Note#search to updated NoteFinder
Split from !2024 to partially solve https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23867
## Which fixes are in this MR?
:warning: - Potentially untested
:bomb: - No test coverage
:traffic_light: - Test coverage of some sort exists (a test failed when error raised)
:vertical_traffic_light: - Test coverage of return value (a test failed when nil used)
:white_check_mark: - Permissions check tested
### Note lookup without access check
- [x] :white_check_mark: app/finders/notes_finder.rb:13 :download_code check
- [x] :white_check_mark: app/finders/notes_finder.rb:19 `SnippetsFinder`
- [x] :white_check_mark: app/models/note.rb:121 [`Issue#visible_to_user`]
- [x] :white_check_mark: lib/gitlab/project_search_results.rb:113
- This is the only use of `app/models/note.rb:121` above, but importantly has no access checks at all. This means it leaks MR comments and snippets when those features are `team-only` in addition to the issue comments which would be fixed by `app/models/note.rb:121`.
- It is only called from SearchController where `can?(current_user, :download_code, @project)` is checked, so commit comments are not leaked.
### Previous discussions
- [x] https://dev.gitlab.org/gitlab/gitlabhq/merge_requests/2024/diffs#b915c5267a63628b0bafd23d37792ae73ceae272_13_13 `: download_code` check on commit
- [x] https://dev.gitlab.org/gitlab/gitlabhq/merge_requests/2024/diffs#b915c5267a63628b0bafd23d37792ae73ceae272_19_19 `SnippetsFinder` should be used
- `SnippetsFinder` should check if the snippets feature is enabled -> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25223
### Acceptance criteria met?
- [x] Tests added for new code
- [x] TODO comments removed
- [x] Squashed and removed skipped tests
- [x] Changelog entry
- [ ] State Gitlab versions affected and issue severity in description
- [ ] Create technical debt issue for NotesFinder.
- Either split into `NotesFinder::ForTarget` and `NotesFinder::Search` or consider object per notable type such as `NotesFinder::OnIssue`. For the first option could create `NotesFinder::Base` which is either inherited from or which can be included in the other two.
- Avoid case statement anti-pattern in this finder with use of `NotesFinder::OnCommit` etc. Consider something on the finder for this? `Model.finder(user, project)`
- Move `inc_author` to the controller, and implement `related_notes` to replace `non_diff_notes`/`mr_and_commit_notes`
See merge request !2035
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See #19985
|
|
have been fully redacted and contain cross-project references.
The previous implementation relied on Note#cross_reference_not_visible_for?,
which essentially tries to render all the Markdown references in a system note
and only displays the note if the user can see the referring project. But this
duplicated the work that Banzai::NotesRenderer was doing already. Instead, for
each note we render, we memoize the number of visible user references and
use it later if it is available.
Improves #19273
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Separate reference gathering from rendering
This is a required step to allow batch processing when gathering references. This in turn would allow grabbing (for example) all mentioned users of an issue/merge request using a single query.
cc @rspeicher @DouweM
See merge request !3969
|
|
There are several changes to this module:
1. The use of an explicit stack in Participable#participants
2. Proc behaviour has been changed
3. Batch permissions checking
== Explicit Stack
Participable#participants no longer uses recursion to process "self" and
all child objects, instead it uses an Array and processes objects in
breadth-first order. This allows us to for example create a single
Gitlab::ReferenceExtractor instance and pass this to any Procs. Re-using
a ReferenceExtractor removes the need for running potentially many SQL
queries every time a Proc is called on a new object.
== Proc Behaviour Changed
Previously a Proc in Participable was expected to return an Array of
User instances. This has been changed and instead it's now expected that
a Proc modifies the Gitlab::ReferenceExtractor passed to it. The return
value of the Proc is ignored.
== Permissions Checking
The method Participable#participants uses
Ability.users_that_can_read_project to check if the returned users have
access to the project of "self" _without_ running multiple SQL queries
for every user.
|
|
Confidential notes data leak
Fixes part of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/575
See merge request !1967
|
|
|
|
|
|
:heart:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Conflicts:
# app/controllers/projects/merge_requests_controller.rb
# app/models/note.rb
# db/schema.rb
# spec/models/note_spec.rb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 8278b763d96ef10c6494409b18b7eb541463af29 the default behaviour of annotation
has changes, which was causing a lot of noise in diffs. We decided in #17382
that it is better to get rid of the whole annotate gem, and instead let people
look at schema.rb for the columns in a table.
Fixes: #17382
|
|
|
|
Add unit specs for `Note#active?`
See merge request !3133
|
|
|
|
It's unclear how these blank values got added, but GitLab.com had a few:
```
irb(main):002:0> Note.where("line_code IS NOT NULL AND line_code = ''").count
=> 439
```
We've added a migration to convert any existing records to use a NULL
value when blank, and updated Note to set blank values to nil before
validation.
|
|
|
|
These three tests were essentially checking that adding a note to
something updated its `noteable`'s `updated_at` attribute.
This is well-tested Rails behavior and we shouldn't feel the need to
write an integration test to verify it. At most we should be ensuring
that the association definition adds the `touch: true` option, which we
now do in Note's unit test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
