By "users" and "devs" you mean "basic" and advanced, right ?
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) <[email protected]> wrote: > How I see this problem for extension technical pages: > - users -> EDIT right forced false. They don't see the "Edit" button, so > they are not tempted to edit. > - devs -> WARN. They should be able to modify the pages, but on their own > expense. > - admins -> WARN. They should be able to control everything, but be aware > of the risks. > > From what I see the above goes into 1b or 3. The only difference is if we > should force or not the developers to be admins and also be advanced users, > which in practice it usually happens. > > Simpler visualization of the proposal, where -ED=(EDIT right to DENY) and > W=(Warning): > > | Users | Admins | > |Basic|Advanced|Basic|Advanced| > 0 | W | W | W | W | > 1a| -ED | W | -ED | | > 1b| -ED | W | W | W | > 2a| -ED | -ED | -ED | -ED | > 2b| -ED | -ED | W | W | > 3 | -ED | -ED | -ED | W | > > Thanks, > Caty > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Right I actually forgot to list one possibility in the first mail: >> >> 0) Warning for everyone (so what we have in 10.3) >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Thomas, >> > >> >> On 30 Apr 2018, at 14:29, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi xwikiers, >> >> >> >> In 10.3 we introduced a warning to discourage users from editing >> >> extension pages (unless the extension indicate it's OK to edit it). >> >> >> >> This was a first version to have something in 10.3 but the initial >> >> (vague) plan (for 10.4 this time) base on previous discussions was: >> >> >> >> * EDIT right forced false for basic users >> >> * still a warning for advanced users >> >> * various options to change that (EDIT right forced false for >> >> everyone, warning for everyone, etc.) >> > >> > Note: I haven’t read what’s below yet (looks complex ;)). >> > >> > From a functional POV the minimal needs IMO are: >> > >> > * The warning you’ve already implemented is good as the default >> > * We also need to take the hosting use case, where some company provide >> xwiki hosting and they want to prevent users (including admins, for >> superadmin it’s ok) from editing extension pages so that they can perform >> xwiki upgrades automatically with no conflicts. >> > >> > Ofc if we can support Advanced user vs Simple user use cases (i.e. >> forbid simple user from editing extension pages) that’s nice too but less >> important IMO. >> > >> > Thanks >> > -Vincent >> > >> >> That was before I actually look at what we can do with our security >> system :) >> >> >> >> Turns out that it's not a huge fan of dynamic criteria like >> >> "basic/advanced user", it's still possible but will require a big of >> >> work. Also since ADMIN imply EDIT forbidding basic admin to edit a >> >> protected document would not exactly be straightforward. >> >> >> >> Before starting big stuff I would like to discuss in more details what >> >> we want in the end. >> >> >> >> In this mail I would like to focus on default behavior and we can talk >> >> about which options we need to provide in another one: >> >> >> >> Note: in all of theses superdamin still have the right to edit >> >> everything (with a warning). >> >> >> >> 1) Basic/advanced based >> >> >> >> 1.a) >> >> >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. >> >> Edit warning for advanced users. >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic admins (we overwrite the ADMIN >> >> implied rights logic) >> >> >> >> 1.b) >> >> >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for basic users. >> >> Edit warning for advanced users. >> >> Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). >> >> >> >> 2) Admin right based >> >> >> >> 2.a) >> >> >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone >> >> Even admins >> >> >> >> 2.b) >> >> >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone >> >> Edit warning for admins (they get EDIT trough ADMIN right). >> >> >> >> 3) Both >> >> >> >> Warning if you are both advanced user and have ADMIN right >> >> Forced EDIT right to DENY for everyone else >> >> >> >> WDYT ? >> >> >> >> The initial plan was 1.a in my mind but I'm still hesitating. 2.b is >> >> by far the easiest to implement and probably good enough but not sure >> >> having ADMIN right is the right criteria to be allowed to force edit >> >> of protected pages since it's not about security and more about >> >> knowledge. >> >> >> >> I'm -1 for 2.a) as a default. It's way too harsh for the product (but >> >> I can understand it as an option in a cloud offering for example). >> >> It's quite young and we will most probably forget to indicate that >> >> some pages are OK for edit for a little while, plus there is Contrib >> >> extensions which will probably never get configured properly because >> >> not really maintained anymore but still used. >> >> >> >> In term of refactoring/hacking to the current design the most >> >> dangerous option is working around the imply link between ADMIN and >> >> EDIT rights. The right system was not really designed for >> >> basic/advanced criteria use case but it's OK. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> >> Thomas Mortagne >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Mortagne >> -- Thomas Mortagne
