5fa88baa0a072f026cc8f142de5c5709ec18bb37
3 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 128de0ff2e |
test(teams): phase 5's server surface, and the negative property under it
1008 pass (972 before). The tests worth reading first are the ones that pin a
property no screen would look different without:
* **The edit window is decided on the server, twice.** One test proves the read
path stamps `canEdit` per post per viewer; another proves the WRITE path
re-derives it from `created_at` and refuses a stale edit even though the
client was told it could — because a time-bounded permission must not take its
clock from the party it bounds.
* **A locked thread refuses staff too**, asserted over member, leader and staff
in one loop, at 409 rather than 403: well-formed request, refusing state.
* **delete → restore is reversible for images.** Without the second half of the
pair a restored post returns its words and loses its pictures a retention
window later, silently — the test asserts both calls and that `hide` makes
neither.
* **Post moderation recomputes the thread's counters** rather than nudging them;
the test runs hide → unhide → hide, which is the cycle a delta gets wrong.
* **acceptance: nothing in the report model is reachable by a Team leader.** The
negative property is the whole point of §5.6 and negatives are what nobody
notices going, so it is asserted directly — the module's function surface is
pinned, and `queue`/`handle` are checked not to mention leadership at all. If
a leader-facing queue is ever wanted it is the org lead's decision, and this
test is what makes somebody ask.
* **A report never changes the content it is about**, proved by stubbing every
mutation the forum has to throw. If filing a report touched a status then
"report" would BE moderation, and the first person to work that out would have
found a way to hide anything on the site.
The test suite caught one real defect: `describeTarget` returned `undefined` for a
hard-deleted target, and `undefined` is dropped by JSON.stringify — so the
documented `target: null` would have reached clients as an absent key.
Two phase-4 tests were updated rather than added to, both because phase 5 changed
what they describe: `canPost` split into `canPost` (open a discussion, everyone)
and `canAnnounce` (leaders), and `discussion` is no longer a refused thread type.
Phase 5's four new player routes are added to acceptance criterion 2's list, so
"with the forum off every forum route 404s" keeps covering the whole surface.
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| 5baada08ef |
fix(teams): four defects the live rig found in the forum
None of these could fail a unit test, and three of them break the feature for the operator rather than for the code. **The uploads acknowledgement was a one-way door.** A settings form sends every field it owns, so once `teams_forum_images` was `uploads`, every later save re-sent `uploads` — and the gate fired on the VALUE being present rather than on the mode being SELECTED. The operator could never change a forum setting again, and the thing they would reach for in a hurry, switching the forum off, was exactly what came back 400. The gate now passes when an acknowledgement for the version in force is already on record AND uploads is already the stored mode: there is no new consent to take. A transition INTO uploads still asks, and a reworded notice is still caught by assertSettingsWritable. **An uploaded image could never become a picture.** `uploads` mode hands the composer `/uploads/<name>.png`, the composer puts it in the body as text — the author never writes markup, which is the whole design — and the renderer only rewrites ANCHORS. The linkifier matched absolute http(s) URLs only, so the write path could not produce the anchor the read path looks for, even though `isEmbeddableImageUrl` had accepted those paths since the first commit. The two halves disagreed and only a real upload showed it. **The embed sat beside its link, not beneath it**, because an <img> is inline, and nothing capped a remote image to the column — one post from a host serving a 4000px file would have blown the layout out. Core now emits `class="forum-embed"` and the stylesheet owns both. A class rather than an inline style because the style would then have to survive the client's DOMPurify pass, and its CSS sanitiser is a larger thing to reason about than one class name. **The panel's buttons had no button styling.** `btn-ghost` is a MODIFIER — every other call site in this codebase pairs it with the base `btn` — so alone it contributed colours and no geometry, and the controls rendered as bare boxes. Small inline actions use `pill`, which is what the rest of the admin surface uses for exactly these. Same class of mistake as the Material one in the Android M12 phase: the modifier carries no base. Also: the post body now re-sanitises client-side like every other body-HTML surface on this site, with `ADD_ATTR: ['referrerpolicy']`. That argument is load-bearing — DOMPurify's default allowlist carries `loading` but not `referrerpolicy`, so a plain sanitize() call silently strips the one attribute limiting what a remote embed leaks to the host serving it, which is the privacy property the admin help text promises. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 57286594e7 |
test(teams): the four acceptance criteria, and regenerate the API artifacts
Four tests are named "acceptance" and are Phase 4's criteria verbatim. Each names a property the code around it can lose without any screen looking different: 1. A granted, unlinked account reads the forum, is absent from the member rows, and is still refused external-platform eligibility. The membership projection is asserted byte-identical across a grant, which is what "non-contamination" means in practice. 2. With the switch off every forum route 404s AND nothing is read or written on the way there — a guard that 404s after loading the thread is one that still bumped a counter. 3. The stored HTML is byte-identical between `disabled` and `remote`; only the rendered output differs. That is the property the renderer-owned design exists to give, and it is what makes flipping the policy back a no-op rather than a migration. 4. Selecting `uploads` without a matching acknowledgement is refused server-side, with the admin checkbox bypassed. Plus the ones that are not criteria but are the same kind of claim: an author cannot smuggle an <img> or its attributes through in any mode, http and non-image URLs stay plain links, a leader cannot revoke a staff-issued grant, a demoted account stops protecting the grants it made, moderation records which authority was exercised, and a RIFF container that is not WebP is not accepted as one. Twelve new routes in the manifest, all annotated and in the OpenAPI spec. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> |
