feat(teams): reserved-name screening, auto-hide, and the admin-approval gate

The one place untrusted game data becomes a public page (docs/website/TEAMS.md
§2.8), and the gate on releasing it (§2.9).

A Team's name is written by a player, in the game, with no review, and this
platform turns it into a public page, a URL and eventually a Discord channel
name. Someone naming their guild "Admin" or "<Brand> Staff" gets an
official-looking page on the operator's own site for free.

Hide, never reject. Core cannot refuse a name -- the guild already exists in the
game and core is a mirror of it, not an authority over it. A match hides the Team
from public surfaces and files it in a review queue, and it keeps working
completely for its own members: their forum, their grants, their notifications.
The people in it are not being punished for a name their leader chose.

That asymmetry -- a false positive costs a human glance, a false negative costs
an impersonated staff page -- is what lets the matcher be conservative. It is not
licence to be sloppy the other way: a check that fires on "Badminton" gets
switched off, and then the real cost is paid in full. So matching is whole WORDS
after normalisation, never substrings, following the precedent
scripts/checkModuleIdentifiers.js set for exactly this reason.

Three matcher gaps found by writing the tests, all real impersonation vectors:

  - "Guild of Moderators" did not match `moderator`. Only a trailing s off the
    WHOLE term is stripped, so "Nomads" still does not match `mod`.
  - "G.M." normalises to two single-letter words and matched nothing. A run of
    two or more single-letter words is now also offered joined. Deliberately not
    a whole-name condensation, which would re-admit substring matching.
  - The multi-word condensed form was already handled and is what makes
    "RunicGateway" match the two-word term -- the form an impersonator would
    reach for, since it is what the Gitea org and every URL use.

Terms resolve at CHECK time, never baked in, so renaming a deployment protects
the new name without a redeploy. A failed settings read falls back to the static
role and project terms rather than to an empty list: screening fewer terms is
bad, screening none is the whole hole.

Re-screening runs on every reconcile, over names no human has ruled on. Names are
immutable per row, so it only ever changes an outcome when the TERM LIST changed
-- an operator adding one, or a rename -- which is exactly what a create-time-only
check would miss forever. `name_reviewed_at` is what makes a staff decision
sticky; without it an override would be undone every fifteen minutes.

The gate is scoped to three actions because they publish untrusted game-sourced
strings, and to nothing else. Ordinary forum grants, leadership overrides,
archives and forum moderation still apply immediately and are audited. A
moderator initiating one files a pending request; an admin applies at once.
Never four-eyes on admins: users.role defaults to admin and `npm run seed`
creates exactly one, so most deployments have precisely one and a second-approver
rule would wedge them with no way out.

Hiding is deliberately NOT gated. Publishing untrusted data needs a second pair
of eyes; withdrawing it needs to be possible at once, by whoever is on duty.

Two concurrency details worth the review: a decision moves the row out of
`pending` under a guard and applies its effect only if the row actually moved,
so two admins clicking approve cannot double-apply or overwrite each other's
record; and a JSON payload is parsed defensively, because the driver returns
JSON columns already parsed on some versions and as a string on others.

Screening is stubbed in the reconciler's own tests -- it is a separate unit, and
the real call reads settings, which this suite must never do against a live
database. That was caught the hard way: the suite went from 11s to hanging, and
the cause was the reconciler reaching a dead pool through the new call.

44 tests in the reconciler file (up from 39), 19 for the matcher, 25 for the
gate. Full suite 877 passed, 0 failed.

Refs docs/website/TEAMS.md §2.8, §2.9, Part 12 phase 2

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
2026-08-17 15:08:58 -05:00
parent bfd844e8fb
commit 8fe2e01466
7 changed files with 1147 additions and 8 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
// ── Impersonation controls, and the approval gate on them ──────────────────
//
// TEAMS.md §2.8§2.9. Two things live here:
//
// 1. **Auto-hide**, which turns a reserved-name match into a suppressed Team
// and a review queue entry rather than into a refusal. Core cannot refuse a
// name — the guild exists in the game and core is a mirror of it.
//
// 2. **The approval gate**, which is scoped to the three actions that RELEASE
// untrusted game-sourced strings onto public surfaces, and to nothing else.
//
// **The gate's scope is the part most likely to be misread.** It is not a general
// staff-approval workflow. Ordinary forum grants, leadership overrides, archives
// and forum moderation all still apply immediately and are audited, exactly as
// before. Three actions are gated, and the question that admits a fourth is
// always the same one: *does this publish untrusted game data?*
//
// - clearing a reserved_name hide — publishes a name that tripped the list
// - setting a display_name_override — substitutes free text into the same
// public surfaces
// - un-hiding a staff-hidden Team — reverses a deliberate suppression
//
// **Moderator-initiated, admin-approved — never four-eyes on admins.** `users.role`
// defaults to admin and `npm run seed` creates exactly one, so most deployments
// have precisely one admin. A rule requiring a second would wedge them with no
// way out, which is a worse failure than the one it guards against.
const moderationDb = require('./teamModeration.db')
const teamsDb = require('./teams.db')
const reservedNames = require('../../utils/reservedNames')
const activity = require('../activity/activity.model')
const log = require('../../utils/logger')('teams')
const GATED_ACTIONS = ['unhide', 'display_name_override', 'clear_display_name_override']
const isAdmin = (actor) => Boolean(actor) && actor.role === 'admin'
/**
* Screen a name and return the columns a create should carry.
*
* Never throws: screening reads settings, and a database hiccup during a
* reconcile must not stop a Team being created. It fails OPEN on the create — the
* Team appears — because the re-screen on the next sync will catch it, and a
* reconcile that aborts halfway is worse than a name that is public for one
* interval. That is a deliberate trade and it is the reason re-screening exists
* at all rather than being a create-time-only check.
*/
async function screenForCreate(name) {
try {
const { reserved, term } = await reservedNames.screen(name)
if (!reserved) return { hidden: false }
log.warn('team auto-hidden: its name matched a reserved term', { name, term })
return { hidden: true, hiddenReason: 'reserved_name', hiddenTerm: term }
} catch (err) {
log.error('reserved-name screening failed; the team is created unscreened', {
name, message: err.message,
})
return { hidden: false }
}
}
/**
* Re-screen every active Team whose name no human has ruled on.
*
* Names are immutable per row, so this only ever changes an outcome when the TERM
* LIST changed — an operator adding a term, or the deployment being renamed. That
* is precisely the case a create-time-only check would miss forever.
*
* A Team staff have already decided about is skipped, and that stickiness is the
* point: without it, an override would be undone on the next sweep.
*/
async function rescreen(moduleId) {
let hidden = 0
try {
const rows = await moderationDb.unreviewedActive(moduleId)
for (const row of rows) {
if (row.hidden) continue
// eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop
const { reserved, term } = await reservedNames.screen(row.name)
if (!reserved) continue
// eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop
await moderationDb.setHidden(row.id, { hidden: true, reason: 'reserved_name', term })
hidden += 1
log.warn('team hidden by a re-screen: the reserved terms changed', { id: row.id, name: row.name, term })
}
} catch (err) {
log.error('re-screening failed', { message: err.message })
}
return hidden
}
// ── The three gated actions ────────────────────────────────────────────────
/**
* Apply a gated action, or file it for approval.
*
* The role check is answered LIVE against the database on every request by core's
* admin middleware, so "is this caller an admin" is not read from a token claim
* that a demotion would not have invalidated.
*/
async function requestOrApply({ req, actor, teamId, action, payload, reason }) {
if (!GATED_ACTIONS.includes(action)) throw new Error(`not a gated action: "${action}"`)
const team = await teamsDb.findById(teamId)
if (!team) return { ok: false, status: 404, error: 'team not found' }
if (!isAdmin(actor)) {
const id = await moderationDb.insertRequest({
teamId, action, payload, reason, requestedBy: actor.id, requestedUsername: actor.username,
})
await activity.log({
req,
action: 'team.moderation.request',
detail: `${actor.username} (#${actor.id}) requested "${action}" on team "${team.name}" (#${teamId})`
+ `${reason ? `: "${reason}"` : ''}`,
})
return { ok: true, pending: true, requestId: id }
}
await applyAction({ req, actor, team, action, payload, reason })
return { ok: true, pending: false }
}
/** The effect itself. Reached by an admin directly, or by an approval. */
async function applyAction({ req, actor, team, action, payload, reason }) {
switch (action) {
case 'unhide':
await moderationDb.setHidden(team.id, { hidden: false })
// A human has now ruled on this name, so no later sweep re-hides it.
await moderationDb.markNameReviewed(team.id)
break
case 'display_name_override':
await moderationDb.setDisplayNameOverride(team.id, payload.displayName)
await moderationDb.markNameReviewed(team.id)
break
case 'clear_display_name_override':
await moderationDb.setDisplayNameOverride(team.id, null)
break
default:
throw new Error(`not a gated action: "${action}"`)
}
await activity.log({
req,
action: `team.${action}`,
detail: `${actor.username} (#${actor.id}) applied "${action}" to team "${team.name}" (#${team.id})`
+ `${payload && payload.displayName ? ` as "${payload.displayName}"` : ''}`
+ `${reason ? `: "${reason}"` : ''}`,
})
}
/**
* Hide a Team. NOT gated — suppression is always safe (§2.11).
*
* The asymmetry is the whole design: publishing untrusted data needs a second
* pair of eyes, and withdrawing it needs to be possible at once, by whoever is
* on duty.
*/
async function hide({ req, actor, teamId, reason }) {
const team = await teamsDb.findById(teamId)
if (!team) return { ok: false, status: 404, error: 'team not found' }
await moderationDb.setHidden(teamId, { hidden: true, reason: 'staff' })
await activity.log({
req,
action: 'team.hide',
detail: `${actor.username} (#${actor.id}) hid team "${team.name}" (#${teamId})`
+ `${reason ? `: "${reason}"` : ''}`,
})
return { ok: true }
}
/**
* Decide a pending request. Admin only.
*
* The effect is applied only when the row actually moved out of `pending`, so two
* admins deciding the same request race safely: the second is told it was already
* decided rather than applying the action a second time.
*/
async function decide({ req, actor, requestId, status, note }) {
if (!isAdmin(actor)) return { ok: false, status: 403, error: 'only an admin may decide a request' }
if (!['approved', 'rejected'].includes(status)) {
return { ok: false, status: 400, error: 'status must be approved or rejected' }
}
const request = await moderationDb.findRequest(requestId)
if (!request) return { ok: false, status: 404, error: 'request not found' }
if (request.status !== 'pending') {
return { ok: false, status: 409, error: `request is already ${request.status}` }
}
const moved = await moderationDb.decideRequest(requestId, {
status, decidedBy: actor.id, decidedUsername: actor.username, note,
})
if (!moved) return { ok: false, status: 409, error: 'request was decided by someone else' }
const team = await teamsDb.findById(request.team_id)
if (status === 'approved' && team) {
await applyAction({
req,
actor,
team,
action: request.action,
payload: parsePayload(request.payload),
reason: request.reason,
})
}
await activity.log({
req,
action: `team.moderation.${status}`,
detail: `${actor.username} (#${actor.id}) ${status} request #${requestId} `
+ `("${request.action}" on team #${request.team_id}, asked by ${request.requested_username || 'a deleted user'})`
+ `${note ? `: "${note}"` : ''}`,
})
return { ok: true, applied: status === 'approved' }
}
// The driver returns JSON columns already parsed on some versions and as a string
// on others, so this normalises rather than assuming either.
function parsePayload(payload) {
if (payload == null) return {}
if (typeof payload === 'object') return payload
try {
return JSON.parse(payload)
} catch {
return {}
}
}
module.exports = {
screenForCreate,
rescreen,
requestOrApply,
hide,
decide,
reviewQueue: moderationDb.reviewQueue,
listRequests: moderationDb.listRequests,
pendingForTeam: moderationDb.pendingForTeam,
GATED_ACTIONS,
}