* web: Add InvalidationFlow to Radius Provider dialogues
## What
- Bugfix: adds the InvalidationFlow to the Radius Provider dialogues
- Repairs: `{"invalidation_flow":["This field is required."]}` message, which was *not* propagated
to the Notification.
- Nitpick: Pretties `?foo=${true}` expressions: `s/\?([^=]+)=\$\{true\}/\1/`
## Note
Yes, I know I'm going to have to do more magic when we harmonize the forms, and no, I didn't add the
Property Mappings to the wizard, and yes, I know I'm going to have pain with the *new* version of
the wizard. But this is a serious bug; you can't make Radius servers with *either* of the current
dialogues at the moment.
* Start of dual select revision process.
* Progress.
* Made the RuleFormHelper's dualselect conform.
* Providers and Selectors harmonized for sources.
* web/bugfix/dual-select-full-options
# What
- Replaces the dual-select "selected" list mechanism with a more comprehensive (if computationally
expensive) version that is correct.
# How
In the previous iteration, each dual select controller gets a *provider* and a *selector*; the
latter keeps the keys of all the objects a specific instance may have, and marks those objects as
"selected" when they appear in the dual-selects "selected" panel.
In order to distinguish between "selected on the existing instance" and "selected by the user," the
*selector* only runs at construction time, creating a unified "selected" list; this is standard and
allows for a uniform experience of adding and deleting items. Unfortunately, this means that the
"selected" items, because their displays are crafted bespoke, are only chosen from those available
at construction. If there are selected items later in the paginated collection, they will not be
marked as selected.
This defeats the purpose of having a paginated multi-select!
The correct way to do this is to retrieve every item pased to the *selector* and use the same
algorithm to craft the views in both windows.
For every instance of Dual Select with dynamic selection, the *provider* and *selector* have been
put in a separate file (usually suffixed as a `*FormHelper.ts` file); the algorithm by which an item is
crafted for use by DualSelect has been broken out into a small function (usually named
`*toSelect()`). The *provider* works as before. The *selector* takes every instance key passed to it
and runs a `Promise.allSettled(...*Retrieve({ uuid: instanceId }))` on them, mapping them onto the
`selected` collection using the same `*toSelect()`, so they resemble the possibilities in every way.
# Lessons
This exercise emphasizes just how much sheer *repetition* the Django REST API creates on the client
side. Every Helper file is a copy-pasta of a sibling, with only a few minor changes:
- How the objects are turned into displays for DualSelect
- The type and calls being used;
- The field on which retrival is defined
- The defaulting rule.
There are 19 `*FormHelper` files, and each one is 50 lines long. That's 950 lines of code.
Of those 950 lines of code, 874 of those lines are *complete duplicates* of those in the other
FormHelper files. Only 76 lines are unique.
This language really needs macros. That, or I need to seriously level up my Typescript and figure
out how to make this whole thing a lot smarter.
* order fields by field_key and order
Signed-off-by: Jens Langhammer <jens@goauthentik.io>
---------
Signed-off-by: Jens Langhammer <jens@goauthentik.io>
Co-authored-by: Jens Langhammer <jens@goauthentik.io>
* web: Add InvalidationFlow to Radius Provider dialogues
## What
- Bugfix: adds the InvalidationFlow to the Radius Provider dialogues
- Repairs: `{"invalidation_flow":["This field is required."]}` message, which was *not* propagated
to the Notification.
- Nitpick: Pretties `?foo=${true}` expressions: `s/\?([^=]+)=\$\{true\}/\1/`
## Note
Yes, I know I'm going to have to do more magic when we harmonize the forms, and no, I didn't add the
Property Mappings to the wizard, and yes, I know I'm going to have pain with the *new* version of
the wizard. But this is a serious bug; you can't make Radius servers with *either* of the current
dialogues at the moment.
* web: fix selector warnings in WebdriverIO
Despite the [promises made](https://webdriver.io/docs/selectors#deep-selectors) by the WebdriverIO
team, we are still getting a lot of warnings and "falling back to pre-BIDI behavior" messages
when we attempt to access ShadowDOM contexts without the "pierce" (`>>>`) syntax. So I've put
it back wherever it occurred and the system now uses the BIDI controllers correctly.
* web: update to Chromedriver 131 breaks a lot of stuff
This annoying bit of janitorial work cleans up the failure messages and resolution bugs
that arose when updating to the latest version of Chrome. Keeping track of all the
weakness and breakage while the in-browser testing teams figure out how to live with
the ShadowDOM is just really time-consuming.
This change adds an admonition to document the fact that every role can only ever be assigned to a single group at the same time. Since this is surprising based on a traditional understanding of role-based models, I've decided to make this a `:::warning`.
I'm undecided on the best place for this information, but for now, decided on putting it into the context of the action that can fail: assigning a role to a group.
While this does not close the issue, it documents this behavior to at least address the "needs documentation" aspect of #10983 .
Signed-off-by: Zuri Klaschka <pklaschka@users.noreply.github.com>
While for role memberships, it is true that they are only applied for _direct_ memberships, this does not appear to be the case for attributes (which is good as this also follows the "Hierarchy" system documented in the same file).
In terms of the implementation, this is the case due to the call to `all_groups()` in 3d5a189fa7/authentik/core/models.py (L312-L313), introduced in https://github.com/goauthentik/authentik/pull/6017. Looking through the files in there, it is clear that this line in the documentation is from before that point: 95e60a035d/website/docs/user-group/group.md (L15).
tl;dr: the documentation was correct before #6017, but is now out of date. This change fixes that.
Signed-off-by: Zuri Klaschka <pklaschka@users.noreply.github.com>
* web: Add InvalidationFlow to Radius Provider dialogues
## What
- Bugfix: adds the InvalidationFlow to the Radius Provider dialogues
- Repairs: `{"invalidation_flow":["This field is required."]}` message, which was *not* propagated
to the Notification.
- Nitpick: Pretties `?foo=${true}` expressions: `s/\?([^=]+)=\$\{true\}/\1/`
## Note
Yes, I know I'm going to have to do more magic when we harmonize the forms, and no, I didn't add the
Property Mappings to the wizard, and yes, I know I'm going to have pain with the *new* version of
the wizard. But this is a serious bug; you can't make Radius servers with *either* of the current
dialogues at the moment.
* docs: fix link from project root to the Contributing documentation in our product.
