| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The taxonomy is now as follows:
* A _login_ is someone's identity for the purposes of authenticating to the service. Logins are not synchronized, and in fact are not published anywhere in the current API. They have a login ID, a name and a password.
* A _user_ is someone's identity for the purpose of participating in conversations. Users _are_ synchronized, as before. They have a user ID, a name, and a creation instant for the purposes of synchronization.
In practice, a user exists for every login - in fact, users' names are stored in the login table and are joined in, rather than being stored redundantly in the user table. A login ID and its corresponding user ID are always equal, and the user and login ID types support conversion and comparison to facilitate their use in this context.
Tokens are now associated with logins, not users. The currently-acting identity is passed down into app types as a login, not a user, and then resolved to a user where appropriate within the app methods.
As a side effect, the `GET /api/boot` method now returns a `login` key instead of a `user` key. The structure of the nested value is unchanged.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is the leading edge of a larger storage refactoring, where repo types stop doing things like generating secrets or deciding whether to carry out an operation. To make this work, there is now a `Token` type that holds the complete state of a token, in memory.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
As with the previous commits, the body was never actually being used.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Having this buried under `crate::user` makes it hard to split up the roles `user` fulfils right now. Moving it out to its own module makes it a bit tidier to reuse it in a separate, authentication-only way.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are a couple of migration suggestions from `cargo fix --edition` that I have deliberately skipped, which are intended to make sure that the changes to `if let` scoping don't bite us. They don't, I'm pretty sure, and if I turn out to be wrong, I'd rather fix the scoping issues (as they arise) than use `match` (`cargo fix --edition`'s suggestion).
This change also includes a bulk reformat and a clippy cleanup.
NOTA BENE: As this requires a new Rust toolchain, you'll need to update Rust (`rustup update`, normally) or the server won't build. This also applies to the Debian builder Docker image; it'll need to be rebuilt (from scratch, pulling its base image again) as well.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Nasty design corner. Logins need to be created in three places:
1. In tests, using app.logins().create(…);
2. On initial setup, using app.setup().initial(…); and
3. When accepting invites, using app.invites().accept(…).
These three places do the same thing with respect to logins, but also do a varying mix of other things. Testing is the simplest and _only_ creates a login. Initial setup and invite acceptance both issue a token for the newly-created login. Accepting an invite also invalidates the invite. Previously, those three functions have been copy-pasted variations on a theme. Now that we have validation, the copy-paste approach is no longer tenable; it will become increasingly hard to ensure that the three functions (plus any future functions) remain in synch.
To accommodate the variations while consolidating login creation, I've added a typestate-based state machine, which is driven by method calls:
* A creation attempt begins with `let create = Create::begin()`. This always succeeds; it packages up arguments used in later steps, but does nothing else.
* A creation attempt can be validated using `let validated = create.validate()?`. This may fail. Input validation and password hashing are carried out at this stage, making it potentially expensive.
* A validated attempt can be stored in the DB, using `let stored = validated.store(&mut tx).await?`. This may fail. The login will be written to the DB; the caller is responsible for transaction demarcation, to allow other things to take place in the same transaction.
* A fully-stored attempt can be used to publish events, using `let login = stored.publish(self.events)`. This always succeeds, and unwraps the state machine to its final product (a `login::History`).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There's no good reason to use an empty string as your login name, or to use one so long as to annoy others. Names beginning or ending with whitespace, or containing runs of whitespace, are also a technical problem, so they're also prohibited.
This change does not implement [UTS #39], as I haven't yet fully understood how to do so.
[UTS #39]: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/
|
| |
|
|
| |
This also found a bug! No live event was being emitted during invite accept. The only way to find out about invites was to reconnect.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Canonicalization does two things:
* It prevents duplicate names that differ only by case or only by normalization/encoding sequence; and
* It makes certain name-based comparisons "case-insensitive" (generalizing via Unicode's case-folding rules).
This change is complicated, as it means that every name now needs to be stored in two forms. Unfortunately, this is _very likely_ a breaking schema change. The migrations in this commit perform a best-effort attempt to canonicalize existing channel or login names, but it's likely any existing channels or logins with non-ASCII characters will not be canonicalize correctly. Since clients look at all channel names and all login names on boot, and since the code in this commit verifies canonicalization when reading from the database, this will effectively make the server un-usuable until any incorrectly-canonicalized values are either manually canonicalized, or removed
It might be possible to do better with [the `icu` sqlite3 extension][icu], but (a) I'm not convinced of that and (b) this commit is already huge; adding database extension support would make it far larger.
[icu]: https://sqlite.org/src/dir/ext/icu
For some references on why it's worth storing usernames this way, see <https://www.b-list.org/weblog/2018/nov/26/case/> and the refernced talk, as well as <https://www.b-list.org/weblog/2018/feb/11/usernames/>. Bennett's treatment of this issue is, to my eye, much more readable than the referenced Unicode technical reports, and I'm inclined to trust his opinion given that he maintains a widely-used, internet-facing user registration library for Django.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This normalizes the following values:
* login names
* passwords
* channel names
* message bodies, because why not
The goal here is to have a canonical representation of these values, so that, for example, the service does not inadvertently host two channels whose names are semantically identical but differ in the specifics of how diacritics are encoded, or two users whose names are identical.
Normalization is done on input from the wire, using Serde hooks, and when reading from the database. The `crate::nfc::String` type implements these normalizations (as well as normalizing whenever converted from a `std::string::String` generally).
This change does not cover:
* Trying to cope with passwords that were created as non-normalized strings, which are now non-verifiable as all the paths to verify passwords normalize the input.
* Trying to ensure that non-normalized data in the database compares reasonably to normalized data. Fortunately, we don't _do_ very many string comparisons (I think only login names), so this isn't a huge deal at this stage. Login names will probably have to Get Fixed later on, when we figure out how to handle case folding for login name verification.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In general:
* If the client can only assume the response is immediately valid (mostly, login creation, where the client cannot monitor the event stream), then 200 Okay, with data describing the server's view of the request.
* If the client can monitor for completion by watching the event stream, then 202 Accepted, with data describing the server's view of the request.
This comes on the heels of a comment I made on Discord:
> hrm
>
> creating a login: 204 No Content, no body
> sending a message: 202 Accepted, no body
> creating a channel: 200 Okay, has a body
>
> past me, what were you on
There wasn't any principled reason for this inconsistency; it happened as the endpoints were written at different times and with different states of mind.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
I've also aligned channel creation with this (it's 409 Conflict). To make server setup more distinct, it now returns 503 Service Unavailable if setup has not been completed.
|
| |
|
