[PAY-2842][PAY-2780][PAY-3069] Fix authorized endpoints not supporting manager mode

[schottra]

Description

This updates the auth_middleware to encapsulate some of the logic we had previously been doing outside of it and adds the ability to check authorization for a request against a user or any of their managers.

I removed all instances of abort_forbidden() in favor of using auth_middleware() with require_auth=True and then following up with the check_authorized() utility. Also fixed a few instances of using the authed_user_id for a request instead of the value passed in the URL. This results in the request returning the wrong results when called as a managed user.

Also added support to audius-cmd for creating a manager relationship, as this allowed me to test against local stack using purely cURL.

How Has This Been Tested?

Used audius-cmd against local stack to create two users and a management relationship. Then used cURL to verify that I can make requests to all endpoints which were using the abort_forbidden() pattern to ensure that:

• Request is allowed when user_id matches authed_user_id (auth headers decode into the same user as the one passed in URL params)
• Request is allowed when authed_user_id matches an active manager for the user_id in question
• Request is denied with a 401 if no auth headers are passed
• Request is denied with a 403 if auth headers correspond to a different user than user_id and said user is not a manager of user_id.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: b57f985

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 6 secrets following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secrets in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
11080650	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	4d204fb	packages/embed/.env.stage	View secret
11080650	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	4d204fb	packages/embed/.env.stage	View secret
11080650	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	4d204fb	packages/embed/.env.dev	View secret
11080650	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	4d204fb	packages/embed/.env.dev	View secret
11080651	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	4d204fb	packages/embed/.env.prod	View secret
11080651	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	4d204fb	packages/embed/.env.prod	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secrets safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate these secrets.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}

[raymondjacobson]

seems reasonable to me !
comments on the owner/all/authenticated enum would be super useful. not sure what they had meant at face value

[rickyrombo]

Left a bunch of (non-blocking) thoughts! Let me know what you think

[rickyrombo]

Nice! I like this a lot better!

[schottra]

@rickyrombo @raymondjacobson I tried to write some tests for the access checker and ran into a bunch of issues with circular imports. I think our import structure is such that it only works if you're importing the whole flask app :-(.
I'm going to punt on those for now as I think it would require a more elaborate setup to get a handful of tests written.