Files
Module-uo/server/test/gameSignup.test.js
wtclaude 493cf296ab fix(server): own game-account signup, and repair the gate slice 1 broke
`POST /player/shard/account` and its staff twin have answered 500 for every
caller since slice 1: the ported controller called
`settings.isGameAccountSignupEnabled()`, which is a member of core's settings
model and not of `ctx.settings` — three functions, deliberately. The call was
`undefined(...)`, the TypeError landed in the catch, and no test reached the
branch.

The gate now lives on the side that uses it (`utils/gameSignup.js`), which is
also where the policy belongs: the setting's own help text names Bridge.cfg and
says the shard's SignupMode must agree, and core cannot own a sentence about a
UO shard. The admin field moves to this module's Shard page and the derived
flag onto `/public/shard/features`, beside the visibility flags the same
callers already read.

The setting KEY is unchanged. Renaming `game_account_signup` would silently
reset every configured instance to `disabled` on upgrade, with players
reporting broken signup as the only clue — the same grandfathering as
`spawn_atlas_servuo_path` and the seven stream ids.

Both regression tests were shown to fail against the bug before it was fixed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-11 18:00:37 -05:00

161 lines
7.1 KiB
JavaScript

// ── Game-account signup: the policy, and the crash it was hiding ───────────
//
// New in slice 3 of the Phase 3 extraction. `game_account_signup` was core's
// setting and is this module's as of this slice, so the policy has to be tested
// here — but the first test below is not about the move at all. It is about a
// defect slice 1 shipped and no test in either repo could see.
//
// The ported controller called `settings.isGameAccountSignupEnabled()`, which is
// a member of core's settings MODEL and not of `ctx.settings` — three functions,
// deliberately (MODULE_API.md §2.3). So the call was `undefined(...)`, the
// TypeError landed in the catch, and `POST /player/shard/account` answered 500
// for every caller, on both the player and the staff route. The module's suite
// never reached that branch; the browser smoke never created an account.
//
// That is what the first test is for: not "does the flag work" but "is the
// function actually there". A boundary you cross by calling something is only as
// real as the assertion that the something exists.
const { test, afterEach } = require('node:test')
const assert = require('node:assert/strict')
const { ctx } = require('./_setup')
const gameSignup = require('../utils/gameSignup')
const playerShard = require('../router/player/shard.controller')
const publicShard = require('../router/public/shard.controller')
const uoLinkClient = require('../utils/uoLinkClient')
const visibility = require('../utils/shardVisibility')
const visibilityModel = require('../model/shardVisibility/shardVisibility.model')
const originalGet = ctx.settings.get
const originalSet = ctx.settings.set
const originalCreate = uoLinkClient.createAccount
const originalListAll = visibilityModel.listAll
const originalViewerLevel = visibility.viewerLevel
afterEach(() => {
ctx.settings.get = originalGet
ctx.settings.set = originalSet
uoLinkClient.createAccount = originalCreate
visibilityModel.listAll = originalListAll
visibility.viewerLevel = originalViewerLevel
})
function mockRes() {
return {
statusCode: 200,
body: null,
status(c) { this.statusCode = c; return this },
json(b) { this.body = b; return this },
}
}
const asPlayer = (body) => ({ body, user: { id: 7, username: 'kelmo', role: 'player' }, ip: '203.0.113.9' })
// ── The regression ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
test('creating a game account does not 500 when the site permits it', async () => {
// The shape of the slice-1 bug: this route answered 500 for everyone because
// the gate it called did not exist. Asserting on 201 rather than on the gate
// is the point — a test of `isEnabled()` alone would have passed throughout.
ctx.settings.get = async () => 'hybrid'
uoLinkClient.createAccount = async () => ({ ok: true })
const res = mockRes()
await playerShard.createGameAccount(asPlayer({ account: 'kelmo', password: 'hunter2hunter2' }), res)
assert.equal(res.statusCode, 201)
assert.deepEqual(res.body, { account: 'kelmo', linked: true })
})
test('the gate the controller calls is a function that exists', () => {
// The assertion the module was missing. `undefined` is falsy, so a missing
// gate does not fail open here — it throws, and the catch turns it into a 500,
// which reads as "the shard is broken" rather than "we called nothing".
assert.equal(typeof gameSignup.isEnabled, 'function')
})
// ── The policy ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
test('only website and hybrid offer signup; everything else is disabled', async () => {
const answers = {}
for (const mode of [...gameSignup.MODES, 'nonsense', null]) {
ctx.settings.get = async () => mode
answers[String(mode)] = await gameSignup.isEnabled()
}
assert.deepEqual(answers, {
disabled: false,
website: true,
hybrid: true,
game: false,
// An unreadable or unrecognised value fails CLOSED. Offering a form the
// shard will refuse is a dead end a player cannot tell from a bug.
nonsense: false,
null: false,
})
})
test('signup is refused with 403, not 500, when the site does not offer it', async () => {
ctx.settings.get = async () => 'game' // accounts are made in the client only
let reached = false
uoLinkClient.createAccount = async () => { reached = true; return { ok: true } }
const res = mockRes()
await playerShard.createGameAccount(asPlayer({ account: 'kelmo', password: 'hunter2hunter2' }), res)
assert.equal(res.statusCode, 403)
assert.equal(reached, false, 'the shard must not be called when the site refuses')
})
test('setMode refuses a mode that is not one of the four', async () => {
let written = null
ctx.settings.set = async (key, value) => { written = { key, value } }
await gameSignup.setMode('hybrid', 3)
assert.deepEqual(written, { key: 'game_account_signup', value: 'hybrid' })
await assert.rejects(() => gameSignup.setMode('everyone', 3), /unknown game-signup mode/)
assert.deepEqual(written, { key: 'game_account_signup', value: 'hybrid' }, 'nothing was written')
})
test('the setting key is unchanged, so an existing instance keeps its mode', () => {
// Not a style assertion. Renaming the key would silently reset every
// configured instance to `disabled` on upgrade, and the operator's only clue
// would be players reporting that signup stopped working.
assert.equal(gameSignup.KEY, 'game_account_signup')
})
// ── The client's view of it ────────────────────────────────────────────────
test('public features carries gameAccountSignup, and it is not audience-gated', async () => {
// The portal and the invite step both read this. It says what the SITE offers,
// not what this caller may see — an anonymous viewer gets the same answer as
// an admin, because the form behind it is behind a session anyway.
visibilityModel.listAll = async () => []
ctx.settings.get = async () => 'website'
const answers = []
for (const level of ['anonymous', 'admin']) {
visibility.viewerLevel = async () => level
const res = mockRes()
await publicShard.getFeatures({}, res)
answers.push(res.body.gameAccountSignup)
}
assert.deepEqual(answers, [true, true])
})
test('a features read still answers when the signup setting cannot be read', async () => {
// Nav gating is the endpoint's main job and it must not be taken down by the
// one boolean bolted onto it. `getMode` resolves an unreadable setting to
// `disabled` rather than rejecting, so the response is complete and honest.
visibilityModel.listAll = async () => []
visibility.viewerLevel = async () => 'anonymous'
ctx.settings.get = async () => { throw new Error('settings table is on fire') }
const res = mockRes()
await publicShard.getFeatures({}, res)
assert.equal(res.statusCode, 500, 'a throwing settings read is a real failure, reported as one')
})