- 07 Mar, 2022 2 commits
-
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Zope only publish objects if they have a docstring. The change in class hierarchy from b7a60478 (ERP5Security,erp5: simplify EncryptedPasswordMixin.setPassword, 2022-02-21) caused that Login and subclasses no longer have a docstring and as a result there were no longer publishable by Zope, so it was not possible to view them in xhtml style. ERP5JS was not affected, because it does not directly rely on Zope publication APIs.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
We don't want to use wildcard in core business template, because when another business template extend these paths with new documents, the new documents are included in erp5_core. This also cause issues for tests creating dummy content in these paths.
-
- 03 Mar, 2022 4 commits
-
-
Arnaud Fontaine authored
This was still working with Zope 2.13 because the default output_encoding for HTML was iso-8859-15 but this is not the case anymore with Zope 4. Moreover this should be explicit rather than implicit anyway...
-
Arnaud Fontaine authored
Revert "testBusinessTemplateTwoFileExport: Make output_encoding explicit as it should have always been." This reverts commit 968991e7 which does not actually work properly with Zope4.
-
Yusei Tahara authored
-
Yusei Tahara authored
SQLCatalog_trimInventoryCacheOnCatalog needs resource category on movement.
-
- 02 Mar, 2022 1 commit
-
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-
- 28 Feb, 2022 2 commits
-
-
Arnaud Fontaine authored
This fixes a failure due to Zope4 now defaulting to utf-8.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Use `portal_alarms/check_consistency` after configuration to make sure that every document created by configurator or part of the dependency business template is valid. For now we have two exceptions (that are some TODO for the future): - Web Sites, because upgrader constraints are not ran by configurator at this point - Business Configuration, because most of the configurator item classes don't fully follow the protocol of constraints, their `fixConsistency` method always return "something needs to be fixed" without actually checking. See merge request nexedi/erp5!1562
-
- 24 Feb, 2022 14 commits
-
-
Xiaowu Zhang authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
Creation date is defined as the oldest date of any workflow history on the considered document. Modification date is defined as the newest date of any workflow history on the considered document. As soon as there is more than one workflow on a given document, these values can differ: they are set with the wall-clock time at the moment the workflow history of each workflow is initially filled, so one can land just before a second change and the other right after. So comparing them is meaningless, catalog or not, and just causes this test to be unstable.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Because we want to check consistency on all documents created by configurator, we also need documents created during the test to be consistent (or deleted)
-
Jérome Perrin authored
We had trade phase duplication: - `trade_phase/default/*` were provided by erp5_simulation_test - `trade_phase/trade/*` are provided by erp5_configurator_standard_categories so the former was only for testing and the later were actually used in instance configured by configurator. But in some paths from configurator_standard_*template, which are also used on configurated instances, were using trade_phase/default (the one from test). Some rules were referencing these categories, but apparenlty not using them. To fix this confusion, use trade_phase/trade/* everywhere, and install erp5_configurator_standard_categories where needed in tests.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
BusinessConfiguration have a resource category, but it's the workflow, it's not really a resource, so some APIs from the base Amount class are not available. Because they have no meaning on BusinessConfiguration anyway, define the broken APIs to return nothing. This fixes errors trying to use check_consistency alarm on Business Configurations.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Tools also contain documents, so it makes sense to check them as well
-
Jérome Perrin authored
These documents were probably edited before they had correct property sheets, because they had local properties as incorrect type, as reported by PropertyTypeValidity: <ERP5Type.ConsistencyMessage for PropertyTypeValidity type_check on portal_gadgets/erp5_persons (message: Attribute gadget_type should be of type lines but is of type <type 'str'>)> <ERP5Type.ConsistencyMessage for PropertyTypeValidity type_check on portal_gadgets/erp5_gadget_new_sale_opportunity (message: Attribute gadget_type should be of type lines but is of type <type 'str'>)> <ERP5Type.ConsistencyMessage for PropertyTypeValidity type_check on portal_gadgets/erp5_gadget_contact_person (message: Attribute gadget_type should be of type lines but is of type <type 'str'>)>
-
Jérome Perrin authored
For historical reasons, EncryptedPasswordMixin.setPassword was public and did its own security checks, this was the case since 7d0882ef ( setPassword have to do explicit security checks…, 2007-11-12), this was because we wanted to support cases where user can edit the login ("Edit portal content" permission), but not changed the password ("Set own password" permission). Also, we wanted to support the case where login is edited through a view form, in that case we have a my_password field that is empty and we don't want to set the password to None in that case. For these two reasons the API to set password was very complex and behaving differently from other accessors: usually setSomething(None) just set something to None, ie. "unset" something, but for passwords it was not the case. Also we had to introduce _forceSetPassword method, which sets the password without security checks, so that it can be called from unrestricted code for cases where user does not have the permission to reset password (like in the reset password scenario). Since d1312cdb ( make edit check the security remove all useless security declaration on private method, 2008-05-23), edit supports restricted properties, so we can simplify all this and make setPassword a more standard accessor, ie: - setPassword has a security declaration, so if it is called from restricted python the security will apply at `__getattr__` time. `edit` method will also check security - setPassword(None) reset the password. - The logic to not change the password when editing in view mode is now `edit` responsability. ie. `login.setPassword(None)` resets, but `login.edit(password=None)` does not reset. This also correct some usage of the lower level API (`pw_encrypt` and `pw_validate`) which were never supposed to use `None`: - `pw_validate` was called with None when a user without password was trying to login, causing a TypeError that was cached by PAS and logged with level debug (and refusing login). Now the error is no longer raised. - `pw_encrypt` was called with None (but apparently only in the tests, when doing `user.newContent(portal_type='ERP5 Login', password=None)`) and this was creating a login with password `'None'` with AccessControl 2. With AccessControl 4 this was an Error.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
reorder methods, make some docstrings a bit more informative and fix several typos
-
Jérome Perrin authored
This disable price lookup on domains, because it errors and because the meaning is not clear. It errors because Domains are MetaResources, so they are subclass of Resource and they inherit the price lookup mechanism, which does not work on domains because of their different `getRelativeUrl` implementation.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
check_consistency alarm checks that every document created satisfy contraints. This is done in order to verify that configurator it self create consistent documents and also that all default documents from a realistic configuration are consistent.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
the API is not to return a list of strings, but a list of ConsistencyMessage
-
- 23 Feb, 2022 2 commits
-
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
Replace it with a method on ERP5Type.Base so these activities get found by CopySupport.unindexObject and flushed, rather than remaining on the interaction workflow's context and failing when run. It seems a lot more likely for a document to be deleted while interactions are being spawned than an interaction workflow itself. So this should be a net benefit in activity stability.
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
This currently only works because CookieCrumbler reacts on *all* urls which contain the magic login & password fields. But the POST request body lacks any value from submit fields, which bypasses the "logged-in" scripts, which is harmless with current code but lack realism.
-
- 22 Feb, 2022 1 commit
-
-
Xiaowu Zhang authored
See merge request !1516
-
- 21 Feb, 2022 13 commits
-
-
Gabriel Monnerat authored
The initial idea was that publishing documents is something really exceptional, the "attach document" normal use case is typically use cases like attaching a PDF invoice to an invoice document in accounting, ie. most of the time it's with sensitive information that we don't want users to be mistakenly publish on the internet just because they selected a wrong value in the field. Now we have a project with use cases where the attached documents needs to be published, we did not change our mind that publishing an attached document is an exceptional case, but we want to make it possible to configure so that in certain contexts, publishing documents is possible. So we reuse the existing configuration by type based method idea and when the getPreferredAttachedDocumentPublicationState returns "published" we make it possible to publish by default.
-
Jérome Perrin authored
Theses methods have always been using user_id, but where written at a time where there was not such disctinction
-
Jérome Perrin authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
This test case tries to provide message helpful for debugging in case of assertion failure for assertUserCanPassWorkflowTransition, but this was not correctly using new workflow API and in case of failure there was an error like this: File ".../custom/test.py" self.assertUserCanPassWorkflowTransition(user, 'stop_action', packing_list) File "product/ERP5Type/tests/SecurityTestCase.py", line 237, in failUnlessUserCanPassWorkflowTransition if wf_transition.trigger_type == TRIGGER_USER_ACTION: AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'trigger_type' The previous implementation was using getGuardSummary, which no longer exist in new workflow, so we implement similar logic here. The new message changes a bit, it now look like this: AssertionError: User X can NOT pass stop_action transition on Internal Packing List at /erp5/internal_packing_list_module/20220218-22A38 (draft on delivery_causality_workflow, draft on internal_packing_list_notification_workflow, started on packing_list_workflow). Roles: [Owner, Member, Authenticated, Associate] Available transitions: deliver_action[packing_list_workflow] Expression: Permissions: Groups: * stop_action[packing_list_workflow] Expression: python: not(state_change['object'].getPortalType() == "Sale Packing List" and state_change['object'].getSimulationState() == "confirmed") Permissions: Groups:
-
Jérome Perrin authored
-
Jérome Perrin authored
1b1dbf60 (tests: also consider python unittest failures in functional tests, 2021-06-16) was not counting properly the cases where we have selenium failures. In that case we only want to count selenium failures, if we add with the python failures from status_dict, we report one extra failures. The correct approach is to count selenium failures if any and otherwise count python failures Co-authored-by: Vincent Pelletier <vincent@nexedi.com>
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
Avoids duplicating items from that list.
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
Both so that changes to the list of core business templates are applied on upgrade, and to avoid uninstalling core business templates, if no other maintained-up-to-date business templates depend on them. Also, improve the documentation of the erp5_upgrader version of this script.
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
But make it non-publishable.
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
The main reason is to use portal type setters, and not set the properties directly: setting the properties directly bypasses interactions which trigger type refresh, which hence prevents such changes from being applied to the types until something else would cause a reload. While at it: - modify the property sheet list once only instead of once per added property sheet - only modify the property sheet list when fixit is true - improve constraint message to actually tell what is being detected - do not report a constraint error when no change is necessary - follow naming conventions: avoid abbreviations, variables holding documents must end in "_value" - avoid single-use local variables
-
Vincent Pelletier authored
This reverts commit 77b3f202. For some obscure reason, this affects unit tests related to inventory unit conversion. There seems to be too much code to cleanup to keep this patch for now, so drop it.
-
- 18 Feb, 2022 1 commit
-
-
Xiaowu Zhang authored
-