Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix Connection update over-writing Connection settings. #582

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 9, 2018

Conversation

joshcanhelp
Copy link
Contributor

@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp commented Nov 7, 2018

Changes

This fixes a bug that can cause unintended changes to database connection settings when saving a new password policy. Specific changes:

  • Add object property checking to WP_Auth0_Api_Client::update_connection() to avoid unnecessary payload errors from the server.
  • Remove duplicate connection cleanup from WP_Auth0_Api_Operations::update_wordpress_connection()
  • Return old password policy setting if an API call fails during validation
  • Pass entire connection object to the update API call to avoid unintended settings changes in password policy validation and new connection creation
  • Add a large number of tests to confirm behavior
  • Docblocks to help investigation and refactoring in the future

References

Testing

  • This change adds unit test coverage
  • I included manual testing steps above, if applicable
  • This change has been tested on the latest version of the platform/language or why not

Scenario 1: Updates to the password policy in wp-admin

  1. Start with a working WP-Auth0 install with a DB connection active
  2. In the Auth0 dashboard, make sure the connection has a non-default setting (username required turned ON or custom DB migration)
  3. In wp-admin, change the password policy and save

Expected behavior:

Password policy is changed, other settings are not affected.

Scenario 2: Connection creation during the setup wizard

  1. Start with a WP install without WP-Auth0 installed
  2. Activate the plugin and walk through the setup wizard (any option)

Expected behavior:

Install completes without errors in WordPress; New client created associated to new DB connection in Auth0.

Checklist

  • All existing and new tests complete without errors
  • All code quality tools/guidelines in the Contribution guide have been run/followed
  • All active GitHub CI checks have passed

@@ -30,10 +30,6 @@ public function update_wordpress_connection( $app_token, $connection_id, $passwo
$connection->options->customScripts->login = $login_script;
$connection->options->customScripts->get_user = $get_user_script;

unset( $connection->name );
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Moved to WP_Auth0_Api_Client::update_connection()

@@ -107,26 +103,21 @@ public function create_wordpress_connection( $app_token, $migration_enabled, $pa
$connections = WP_Auth0_Api_Client::search_connection( $domain, $app_token, 'auth0' );
$db_connection = null;

$migration_connection_id = $response->id;
$created_connection_id = $response->id;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Confusing var name

@@ -741,10 +741,6 @@ public function migration_ws_validation( $old_options, $input ) {
$connection->options->enabledDatabaseCustomization = false;
$connection->options->import_mode = false;

unset( $connection->name );
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Moved to WP_Auth0_Api_Client::update_connection()

@@ -427,8 +427,8 @@ public function security_validation( $old_options, $input ) {

foreach ( $connections as $connection ) {
if ( in_array( $input['client_id'], $connection->enabled_clients ) ) {
$patch = array( 'options' => array( 'passwordPolicy' => $input['password_policy'] ) );
$update_resp = WP_Auth0_Api_Client::update_connection( $domain, $app_token, $connection->id, $patch );
$connection['options']['passwordPolicy'] = $input['password_policy'];
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here's the bug ... $patch did not include existing Connection settings

@@ -128,19 +144,21 @@ public function consent_callback( $name ) {
$connection_exists = false;
$connection_pwd_policy = null;

$connections = WP_Auth0_Api_Client::search_connection( $domain, $app_token );
$connections = WP_Auth0_Api_Client::search_connection( $domain, $app_token, 'auth0' );
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added strategy filter here to reduce the number of Connections returned.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If possible, can this be renamed to searchConnections (plural)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Public static method so no, not currently. WP_Auth0_Api_Client is getting refactored one method at a time so it will go away soon.

@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp force-pushed the fix-password-policy-validation branch from e482fec to aff92b2 Compare November 8, 2018 00:52
@@ -619,6 +630,14 @@ public static function update_connection( $domain, $app_token, $id, $payload ) {
$headers['Authorization'] = "Bearer $app_token";
$headers['content-type'] = 'application/json';

unset( $payload->name );
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These must not be set or the API endpoint returns a payload error.

unset( $payload->strategy );
unset( $payload->id );

if ( ! empty( $payload->enabled_clients ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the array is not consecutive then json_encode converts this to an object rather than an array.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consecutive as in following an ascending/descending order? 🤔 I don't understand why you're doing this. Can you rephrase please?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If $payload->enabled_clients is anything other than an array with consecutive keys (like, if one of the keys in the middle is removed) then json_encode() turns it into an object which is rejected by the server.


$migration_connection_id = $response->id;

foreach ( $connections as $connection ) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This method is only called in one place and the calling method already does this check.


foreach ( $connections as $connection ) {
if ( $should_create_and_update_connection && ! empty( $connections ) && is_array( $connections ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Logic here is still not great but did not want to completely refactor this in a patch release. Main thing here is checking whether we have an array and avoiding the loop if we're not using the values later.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds like the main check (the is $should_create_and_update_connection) is repeated right below this one. What about wrapping those like this... ?

if (!$should_create_and_update_connection){
   return;
   //early exit, no need to nest another if in that case 👍 
}

if (! empty( $connections ) && is_array( $connections )){
      //continue with this logic

     return; //return here if you don't want to keep going down the code
}

if ( $connection_exists === false ) {
     // the remaining stuff
}

I don't agree that doing this in a patch release is wrong in anyway. On the contrary, you're improving code readability and that's a plus for any PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I understand but looking for the minimum number of changes here. This is just one of many things that should be addressed in this method.

$connection_exists = $connection->id;
$connection_pwd_policy = ( isset( $connection->options ) && isset( $connection->options->passwordPolicy ) ) ? $connection->options->passwordPolicy : null;
$connection_exists = $connection->id;
if ( isset( $connection->options ) && isset( $connection->options->passwordPolicy ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ternary was too long and confusing to read.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In those cases what I recommend is extracting the boolean to a variable.

e.g.

$flag = isset( $connection->options ) && isset( $connection->options->passwordPolicy );
if ($flag){
  //do flag thing
}

Or even better, have a private method somewhere on the file that given a connection would return the password policy value, if any.

That a side, couldn't you get this connection id and pwd policy when you created it? Or you want to consider the case where the user would have changed it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lots of better ways to do this, yes :)

} else {
$enabled_clients = array_diff( $connection->enabled_clients, array( $client_id ) );
WP_Auth0_Api_Client::update_connection( $domain, $app_token, $connection->id, array( 'enabled_clients' => array_values( $enabled_clients ) ) );
$connection->enabled_clients = array_diff( $connection->enabled_clients, array( $client_id ) );
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Avoiding the same settings override as reported in the original bug.

@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp changed the title Fix Connection update over-writing Connection settings. [WIP] Fix Connection update over-writing Connection settings. Nov 8, 2018
@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp force-pushed the fix-password-policy-validation branch from aff92b2 to cdb75ce Compare November 8, 2018 18:02
@auth0 auth0 deleted a comment from codecov-io Nov 8, 2018
@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp force-pushed the fix-password-policy-validation branch from cdb75ce to f60951e Compare November 8, 2018 18:21
@auth0 auth0 deleted a comment from codecov-io Nov 8, 2018
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 8, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #582 into master will increase coverage by 6.4%.
The diff coverage is 95.65%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             master    #582     +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage     21.29%   27.7%   +6.4%     
+ Complexity     1308    1307      -1     
==========================================
  Files            51      51             
  Lines          4263    4198     -65     
==========================================
+ Hits            908    1163    +255     
+ Misses         3355    3035    -320
Impacted Files Coverage Δ Complexity Δ
lib/admin/WP_Auth0_Admin_Advanced.php 19.48% <ø> (+0.16%) 64 <0> (ø) ⬇️
lib/WP_Auth0_Api_Client.php 31.37% <100%> (+29.56%) 85 <0> (+1) ⬆️
lib/admin/WP_Auth0_Admin_Features.php 13.1% <100%> (+13.1%) 39 <0> (ø) ⬇️
lib/WP_Auth0_Api_Operations.php 51.72% <100%> (+51.72%) 15 <0> (-3) ⬇️
...ib/initial-setup/WP_Auth0_InitialSetup_Consent.php 63.63% <90.9%> (+63.63%) 26 <0> (+1) ⬆️
WP_Auth0.php 24.18% <0%> (+2.45%) 64% <0%> (ø) ⬇️
lib/WP_Auth0_Options.php 85.14% <0%> (+12.87%) 28% <0%> (ø) ⬇️
... and 1 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1ea429c...510335a. Read the comment docs.

@@ -423,19 +423,24 @@ public function security_validation( $old_options, $input ) {
__( 'No database connections found for this application. ', 'wp-auth0' ) .
$this->get_dashboard_link( 'connections/database', __( 'See all database connections', 'wp-auth0' ) )
);
$input['password_policy'] = $old_options['password_policy'];
return $input;
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Exit here to skip anything else that might process (foreach will throw an error if it's given anything other than an array)

@@ -423,19 +423,24 @@ public function security_validation( $old_options, $input ) {
__( 'No database connections found for this application. ', 'wp-auth0' ) .
$this->get_dashboard_link( 'connections/database', __( 'See all database connections', 'wp-auth0' ) )
);
$input['password_policy'] = $old_options['password_policy'];
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nothing changed at Auth0 so we should not change the setting in WordPress either.


if ( false === $update_resp ) {
$this->add_validation_error(
__( 'There was a problem updating the password policy. ', 'wp-auth0' ) .
__( 'Please manually review and update the policy. ', 'wp-auth0' ) .
$this->get_dashboard_link( 'connections/database', __( 'See all database connections', 'wp-auth0' ) )
);
$input['password_policy'] = $old_options['password_policy'];
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nothing changed at Auth0 so we should not change the setting in WordPress either.

@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp changed the title [WIP] Fix Connection update over-writing Connection settings. Fix Connection update over-writing Connection settings. Nov 8, 2018
@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp added this to the 3.8.1 milestone Nov 8, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@lbalmaceda lbalmaceda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if the user is giving you the API2 token make sure they know which scopes they must request

unset( $payload->strategy );
unset( $payload->id );

if ( ! empty( $payload->enabled_clients ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consecutive as in following an ascending/descending order? 🤔 I don't understand why you're doing this. Can you rephrase please?

* @param string $domain - Auth0 domain for the Application.
* @param string $access_token - Management API access token.
* @param string $type - Installation type, "social" (AKA standard) or "enterprise".
* @param bool $hasInternetConnection - True if the installing site be reached by Auth0, false if not.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what is this last param used for? Seems it's being set as part of a migration step, but depending on when that's read it might be out of context. Shouldn't this be checked in that other place and time instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just documenting, not refactoring


foreach ( $connections as $connection ) {
if ( $should_create_and_update_connection && ! empty( $connections ) && is_array( $connections ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds like the main check (the is $should_create_and_update_connection) is repeated right below this one. What about wrapping those like this... ?

if (!$should_create_and_update_connection){
   return;
   //early exit, no need to nest another if in that case 👍 
}

if (! empty( $connections ) && is_array( $connections )){
      //continue with this logic

     return; //return here if you don't want to keep going down the code
}

if ( $connection_exists === false ) {
     // the remaining stuff
}

I don't agree that doing this in a patch release is wrong in anyway. On the contrary, you're improving code readability and that's a plus for any PR.


if ( in_array( $client_id, $connection->enabled_clients ) ) {
if ( $connection->strategy === 'auth0' && $should_create_and_update_connection ) {
if ( in_array( $client_id, $connection->enabled_clients ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would be nice if you could provide in-line comments (in the code) to help anyone follow the logic.

$connection_exists = $connection->id;
$connection_pwd_policy = ( isset( $connection->options ) && isset( $connection->options->passwordPolicy ) ) ? $connection->options->passwordPolicy : null;
$connection_exists = $connection->id;
if ( isset( $connection->options ) && isset( $connection->options->passwordPolicy ) ) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In those cases what I recommend is extracting the boolean to a variable.

e.g.

$flag = isset( $connection->options ) && isset( $connection->options->passwordPolicy );
if ($flag){
  //do flag thing
}

Or even better, have a private method somewhere on the file that given a connection would return the password policy value, if any.

That a side, couldn't you get this connection id and pwd policy when you created it? Or you want to consider the case where the user would have changed it?

);

$this->assertContains(
'form:{username:email, access_token:"TEST_MIGRATION_TOKEN',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is this intentionally not having a } at the end of the string in test?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, next character is a newline


$caught_redirect = [];
try {
$setup_consent->callback_with_token( $test_domain, $test_token, 'invalid_state' );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what's the previous context? how can you ensure that invalid_state is an invalid state? normally, you'd manually set that state before this call.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are only two values that callback_with_token accept here ... not actually state but that's the name used in the method.


$caught_http = [];
try {
$setup_consent->callback_with_token( 'test-wp.auth0.com', $test_token, 'social' );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

how is this test logic different from the "test invalid state redirects"? Sounds like whatever caused the above test to fail should do the same here. What's changing? and if nothing is, why would an invalid_state scenario still make the create client request?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"social" is one of two valid "state" values here so this proceeds to the API call

'success_update_connection',
// Connection created successfully.
'success_create_connection',
// Client grant failed.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why would this happen? Seems like this should belong in a different test case than "create new connection succeeds"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe the token doesn't have the right scopes or HTTP error or any number of things.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In that case, that could be moved to a different test other than the "happy path" of creating the connection when missing

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ public function stopHttpHalting() {
* Use this at the top of tests that should test behavior for different HTTP responses.
*/
public function startHttpMocking() {
add_filter( 'pre_http_request', [ $this, 'httpMock' ], 1 );
add_filter( 'pre_http_request', [ $this, 'httpMock' ], 1, 3 );
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what changed here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Technically nothing but that last arg is the number of params that the hooked function receives.

@auth0 auth0 deleted a comment from lbalmaceda Nov 8, 2018
@auth0 auth0 deleted a comment from lbalmaceda Nov 8, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@lbalmaceda lbalmaceda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 🎉

@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp merged commit c9d09ac into master Nov 9, 2018
@joshcanhelp joshcanhelp deleted the fix-password-policy-validation branch November 9, 2018 16:57
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 19, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants