Calling Collection.allow() manually to check permissions - permissions

In Meteor JS I want to perform a task before adding an object to my collection. So I created my own method, eg: addObject like so:
Meteor.methods({
...
addObject: function(obj) {
/*
// this is what i'm trying to figure out...
if ( !MyColl.allow('insert', Meteor.userId, obj) )
throw Meteor.Error(403, 'Sorry');
*/
MyColl.update({ ... }}, { 'multi': true });
MyColl.insert(obj);
},
...
});
But I noticed that .allow is no longer being called because it's "trusted" code. The thing is the method is on the server but being called from the client (through ObjectiveDDP) so I still need a way to validate that the client has permissions to call addObject - is there any way to manually call .allow() on a collection from my server code? I tried it but getting an internal server error, and not sure what the syntax should be... couldn't find anything in the Meteor docs.
Edit:
I just found out that this works:
var allowedToInsert = MyColl._validators.insert.allow[0];
if (!allowedToInsert)
throw new Meteor.Error(403, 'Invalid permissions.');
But that's probably a no-no calling private methods such as _validators. Does anyone know of a more 'best practices' way?

You can do validation in the addobject method. For example, if you only want logged in users to be able to add an object, you can write:
if (!Meteor.user()) throw new Meteor.Error();
at the beginning of the addobject method.
Personally I never use allow.
On a related note, the collection2 and simple-schema packages can often help a lot with validation.

The validation pattern you are using might not be the best way to do things.
If you assume that methods can be called from the client, you shouldn't 'hack' it into doing something it's not meant to do.
If you are calling a method that changes data in the database you should check within that method that the currently logged in user has permission to do so.
However, are you sure you want to do this? Meteor also has Collection.allow and Collection.deny methods that you can use to define read/write/update/delete permission with. That's the recommended way to handle permissions, so what you are doing is an anti-pattern. However, perhaps in your case it is strictly necessary? If not, you might want to rethink the use case.
Like another response suggests, using something like Collections or SimpleSchema to validate data structure is also a good idea.

Related

Scoped properties for Application Insights

I would like to know if there is an elegant way to add scoped properties to Application Insights, something similar to Serilog:
var yearEnricher = new PropertyEnricher("Year", year);
using (LogContext.PushProperties(yearEnricher))
{
// ...
}
In the previous example every log created within the using block will have the property Year stamped on it.
I figured out how to do this when I want the property to be present within the whole request pipeline:
var requestTelemetry = context.Features.Get<RequestTelemetry>();
requestTelemetry?.Properties.Add(propertyName, propertyValue.ToString());
Sometimes I want to create a logging scope in code that is not related to the web context so it doesn't make sense to rely on the IHttpContextAccessor. I acknowledge I could leverage OperationTelemetry and TelemetryClient.StartOperation to achieve my goal but it is cumbersome as I've to implement a few properties in which I've no interest (such as Name, Success, Duration...).
Is there a better way than relying on OperationTelemetry?
If you don't want to use OperationTelemetry, you might want to look into implementing your own ITelemetryInitializer (see documentation here).
It should be fairly easy to implement a stack-like global structure to hold the properties you want to push, and pop the stack on your Dispose method.
Note that you'll probably need to utilize CallContext in order for your stacks to be thread safe.

Permanently disable saving of a model in Yii

Is it possible to create an AR model in yii in such a way as to disable the save() function? I am using the models to display data that is entered into the DB from another source and will never need to update it.
UPDATE:
So which methods do I override, which methods in the base class actually write something to DB?
Simply override save and have it throw an appropriate exception. For example:
public function save(bool $runValidation=true, array $attributes=NULL)
{
throw new \LogicException("This kind of model does not support saving.");
}
This way it's also clear to anyone that mistakenly calls the method what is going on.
Don't forget to also override saveAttributes since the two methods are unfortunately completely independent.

Method Interception, replace return value

We’re using Ninject.Extensions.Interception (LinFu if it matters) to do a few things and I want to know if its possible to return a value form the method being intercepted.
EG
A Call is made into one of our repository methods
Our Interceptor gets the BeforeInvoke event, we use this to look into the ASP.NET Cache to see if there is any relevant data
- Return the relevant data (this would cause the method to return immediately and NOT execute the body of the method
- Or Allow the method to run as per normal
Extra points if in the AfterInvoke method we take a peek at the data being returned and add it to the cache.
Has anybody done something similar before?
From your question I assume that you derive from SimpleInterceptor. This will not allow to return imediately. Instead you have to implement the Iinterceptor interface. You can decide to call the intercepted method by calling the Proceed method on the invocation or not.

Why is Mage_Persistent breaking /api/wsdl?soap

I get the following error within Magento CE 1.6.1.0
Warning: session_start() [<a href='function.session-start'>function.session-start</a>]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home/dev/env/var/www/user/dev/wdcastaging/lib/Zend/Controller/Response/Abstract.php:586) in /home/dev/env/var/www/user/dev/wdcastaging/app/code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Session/Abstract/Varien.php on line 119
when accessing /api/soap/?wsdl
Apparently, a session_start() is being attempted after the entire contents of the WSDL file have already been output, resulting in the error.
Why is magento attempting to start a session after outputting all the datums? I'm glad you asked. So it looks like controller_front_send_response_after is being hooked by Mage_Persistent in order to call synchronizePersistentInfo(), which in turn ends up getting that session_start() to fire.
The interesting thing is that this wasn't always happening, initially the WSDL loaded just fine for me, initially I racked my brains to try and see what customization may have been made to our install to cause this, but the tracing I've done seems to indicate that this is all happening entirely inside of core.
We have also experienced a tiny bit of (completely unrelated) strangeness with Mage_Persistent which makes me a little more willing to throw my hands up at this point and SO it.
I've done a bit of searching on SO and have found some questions related to the whole "headers already sent" thing in general, but not this specific case.
Any thoughts?
Oh, and the temporary workaround I have in place is simply disabling Mage_Persistent via the persistent/options/enable config data. I also did a little bit of digging as to whether it might be possible to observe an event in order to disable this module only for the WSDL controller (since that seems to be the only one having problems), but it looks like that module relies exclusively on this config flag to determine it's enabled status.
UPDATE: Bug has been reported: http://www.magentocommerce.com/bug-tracking/issue?issue=13370
I'd report this is a bug to the Magento team. The Magento API controllers all route through standard Magento action controller objects, and all these objects inherit from the Mage_Api_Controller_Action class. This class has a preDispatch method
class Mage_Api_Controller_Action extends Mage_Core_Controller_Front_Action
{
public function preDispatch()
{
$this->getLayout()->setArea('adminhtml');
Mage::app()->setCurrentStore('admin');
$this->setFlag('', self::FLAG_NO_START_SESSION, 1); // Do not start standart session
parent::preDispatch();
return $this;
}
//...
}
which includes setting a flag to ensure normal session handling doesn't start for API methods.
$this->setFlag('', self::FLAG_NO_START_SESSION, 1);
So, it sounds like there's code in synchronizePersistentInf that assumes the existence of a session object, and when it uses it the session is initialized, resulting in the error you've seen. Normally, this isn't a problem as every other controller has initialized a session at this point, but the API controllers explicitly turns it off.
As far as fixes go, your best bet (and probably the quick answer you'll get from Magento support) will be to disable the persistant cart feature for the default configuration setting, but then enable it for specific stores that need it. This will let carts
Coming up with a fix on your own is going to be uncharted territory, and I can't think of a way to do it that isn't terribly hacky/unstable. The most straight forward way would be a class rewrite on the synchronizePersistentInf that calls it's parent method unless you've detected this is an API request.
This answer is not meant to replace the existing answer. But I wanted to drop some code in here in case someone runs into this issue, and comments don't really allow for code formatting.
I went with a simple local code pool override of Mage_Persistent_Model_Observer_Session to exit out of the function for any URL routes that are within /api/*
Not expecting this fix to need to be very long-lived or upgrade-friendly, b/c I'm expecting them to fix this in the next release or so.
public function synchronizePersistentInfo(Varien_Event_Observer $observer)
{
...
if ($request->getRouteName() == 'api') {
return;
}
...
}

Entity Framework: AttachAsModified failure / confusion :)

Ok... I tried google and didn't get many hits. I dont want to abuse So but this is one of the best places to ask and EF isn't well documented.
My fails because the GetOriginal() returns null in UpdateCmsProductCategory. I assume that means currentCmsProductCategory is not in the ChangeSet. Ok... how do I put it in the changeset?
Here is the sequence...
I pull a CmsProductCategory down over Wcf.
I make changes.
I call the Wcf update method...
public void UpdateProductCategory(CmsProductCategory category)
{
domainservice.UpdateCmsProductCategory(category);
}
Which calls the Domain servide method...
public virtual void UpdateCmsProductCategory(CmsProductCategory currentCmsProductCategory)
{
this.Context.AttachAsModified(currentCmsProductCategory,
this.ChangeSet.GetOriginal(currentCmsProductCategory));
}
And that should work - but no, it Exceptions on me when GetOriginal() fails. I feel like I am missing a step between when the code modifies it and I pass it to Wcf.
Any hints / pointers to good documentation?
Thanks!
Your problem is probably that you lose the "context".
When you make the call to update the "this.Context" is not the same as the one you read it from.
WCF has a concept of "per call" and "per session". The "per call" is default your are therefore getting a new instance of the domain service. You may be able to solve it using per session.
Have a look at this link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163590.aspx
Also try writing a test to check that what you are doing works without transfering the data over wcf.