This commit introduces the usage of Common Table Expressions (CTEs) to
efficiently retrieve nested group hierarchies, without having to rely on
the "routes" table (which is an _incredibly_ inefficient way of getting
the data). This requires a patch to ActiveRecord (found in the added
initializer) to work properly as ActiveRecord doesn't support WITH
statements properly out of the box.
Unfortunately MySQL provides no efficient way of getting nested groups.
For example, the old routes setup could easily take 5-10 seconds
depending on the amount of "routes" in a database. Providing vastly
different logic for both MySQL and PostgreSQL will negatively impact the
development process. Because of this the various nested groups related
methods return empty relations when used in combination with MySQL.
For project authorizations the logic is split up into two classes:
* Gitlab::ProjectAuthorizations::WithNestedGroups
* Gitlab::ProjectAuthorizations::WithoutNestedGroups
Both classes get the fresh project authorizations (= as they should be
in the "project_authorizations" table), including nested groups if
PostgreSQL is used. The logic of these two classes is quite different
apart from their public interface. This complicates development a bit,
but unfortunately there is no way around this.
This commit also introduces Gitlab::GroupHierarchy. This class can be
used to get the ancestors and descendants of a base relation, or both by
using a UNION. This in turn is used by methods such as:
* Namespace#ancestors
* Namespace#descendants
* User#all_expanded_groups
Again this class relies on CTEs and thus only works on PostgreSQL. The
Namespace methods will return an empty relation when MySQL is used,
while User#all_expanded_groups will return only the groups a user is a
direct member of.
Performance wise the impact is quite large. For example, on GitLab.com
Namespace#descendants used to take around 580 ms to retrieve data for a
particular user. Using CTEs we are able to reduce this down to roughly 1
millisecond, returning the exact same data.
== On The Fly Refreshing
Refreshing of authorizations on the fly (= when
users.authorized_projects_populated was not set) is removed with this
commit. This simplifies the code, and ensures any queries used for
authorizations are not mutated because they are executed in a Rails
scope (e.g. Project.visible_to_user).
This commit includes a migration to schedule refreshing authorizations
for all users, ensuring all of them have their authorizations in place.
Said migration schedules users in batches of 5000, with 5 minutes
between every batch to smear the load around a bit.
== Spec Changes
This commit also introduces some changes to various specs. For example,
some specs for ProjectTeam assumed that creating a personal project
would _not_ lead to the owner having access, which is incorrect. Because
we also no longer refresh authorizations on the fly for new users some
code had to be added to the "empty_project" factory. This chunk of code
ensures that the owner's permissions are refreshed after creating the
project, something that is normally done in Projects::CreateService.
- Group / project members cannot request access
- Group members cannot request access to a group's project
This addresses an issue where project owners could request access
to their own project, leading to UI inconsistency where their requester
status would replace their owner status.
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
Exclude requesters from Project#members, Group#members and User#members
## What does this MR do?
It excludes requesters from the `Project#members`, `Group#members` and `User#members` associations, and adds new `Project#requesters` and `Group#requesters` associations.
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No.
## Why was this MR needed?
Without this, if you call `project.members`, requesters are included in the results! This is at best misleading, and at worst can lead to security issues. By excluding requesters from the `#members` associations, we avoid introducing security inadvertently since you have to call the `#requesters` association explicitly to get requesters.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
This is something I realized while fixing the security issue #19102.
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] I don't think this needs a CHANGELOG since this is an internal change
- Tests
- [x] Added for this feature/bug
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !4946
The issue was with the `User#groups` and `User#projects` associations
which goes through the `User#group_members` and `User#project_members`.
Initially I chose to use a secure approach by storing the requester's
user ID in `Member#created_by_id` instead of `Member#user_id` because I
was aware that there was a security risk since I didn't know the
codebase well enough.
Then during the review, we decided to change that and directly store the
requester's user ID into `Member#user_id` (for the sake of simplifying
the code I believe), meaning that every `group_members` / `project_members`
association would include the requesters by default...
My bad for not checking that all the `group_members` / `project_members`
associations and the ones that go through them (e.g. `Group#users` and
`Project#users`) were made safe with the `where(requested_at: nil)` /
`where(members: { requested_at: nil })` scopes.
Now they are all secure.
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
Display group/project access requesters separately in admin
## What does this MR do?
It displays the access requesters in a separate list in group & project members pages.
It also harmonize the members counter UI to use `%span.badge` everywhere (in the admin & non-admin members views).
## Are there points in the code the reviewer needs to double check?
No.
## Why was this MR needed?
To not confuse access requesters with actual members.
## What are the relevant issue numbers?
Closes#18871.
## Screenshots
### Group members
| Before | After |
| --------- | ---- |
|  |  |
### Project members
| Before | After |
| --------- | ---- |
|  |  |
### Admin group members
| Before | After |
| --------- | ---- |
|  |  |
### Admin project members
| Before | After |
| --------- | ---- |
|  |  |
## Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?
- [x] No CHANGELOG since this is related to the original "request access" MR.
- [ ] All builds are passing
- [x] Conform by the [style guides](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#style-guides)
- [x] Branch has no merge conflicts with `master` (if you do - rebase it please)
- [x] [Squashed related commits together](https://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History#Squashing-Commits)
See merge request !4798
+ Move 'Edit Project/Group' out of membership-related partial
+ Show the access request buttons only to logged-in users
+ Put the request access buttons out of in a more visible button
+ Improve the copy in the #remove_member_message helper
Signed-off-by: Rémy Coutable <remy@rymai.me>
Robert Speicher
Keifer Furzland
Paul Charlton
Dmitriy Zaporozhets
Yorick Peterse
Toon Claes
Phil Hughes
Nur Rony
Douglas Barbosa Alexandre
Luke "Jared" Bennett
Nick Thomas
Rémy Coutable
Felipe Artur
Douwe Maan
Grzegorz Bizon