Refactor permissions to Django auth Permission and Group model

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#355 1 commento 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
15/100
Tipo di issue
Refactoring
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Tranquilla
Stack tecnologico
django, python
Ambito
authorization, backend

Direzione di ricerca

This is design work, not a first task. Start by reading Meshflow/common/access.py and Meshflow/common/drf_permissions.py, then the permission matrix in docs/permissions/README.md and docs/permissions/outstanding-tasks.md. Agree on the custom permission codenames and the feeder/admin group design with maintainers before writing code. Done means the views use has_perm checks, a migration creates the groups and permissions, and the #346 access matrix tests still pass.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

enhancement permissions

Context

Follow-on from #346 (site-wide guest / user / feeder / admin model). Implementation in #354 introduces:

  • Meshflow/common/access.py — AccessLevel enum and get_access_level()
  • Meshflow/common/drf_permissions.py — custom DRF classes (AllowGuestReadOnly, IsFeederOrAdmin, etc.)
  • A single Django feeder group for trusted operators; is_staff for admin
  • Per-view permission class wiring and serializer redaction for guest reads

That delivery is intentional and shippable, but authorization logic is still mostly bespoke Python rather than declarative Django permissions.

Related work (not in scope here):

Goal (future)

Refactor toward first-class Django Permission and Group objects so that:

  1. Capabilities (e.g. trigger_traceroute, manage_api_keys, ingest_packets, manage_constellations, read_observed_node_positions) are defined as custom permissions on relevant models or a dedicated permissions app.
  2. Groups map cleanly to roles: at minimum feeder; consider whether user and admin should also be groups vs continuing to use is_staff / default authenticated user.
  3. DRF viewsets use DjangoModelPermissions, DjangoObjectPermissions, or thin wrappers that check user.has_perm(...) instead of ad-hoc user_is_feeder() scattered across views.
  4. Guest read remains explicit (unauthenticated + serializer redaction) — likely still needs custom permission classes or a documented exception list, since Django auth has no built-in “guest”.
  5. Admin surface (DX, constellation CRUD) aligns with is_staff or a dedicated meshflow_admin permission set.

Why

  • Auditability: permission matrix in docs maps to real auth_permission rows.
  • Operability: grant/revoke capabilities via Django admin or management commands without code changes.
  • Consistency: reduces drift between access.py, DRF classes, and view-level checks.
  • Extensibility: when constellation/regional ACLs return, object-level perms are already idiomatic.

Non-goals (this ticket)

  • Re-introducing ConstellationUserMembership or regional ACLs
  • Changing the four access levels product model (guest / user / feeder / admin)
  • UI route changes (stay in meshflow-ui #298)

Suggested approach (sketch)

  1. Inventory — derive permission codenames from docs/permissions/README.md matrix and current DRF permission_classes.
  2. Define permissions — migration to create Permission rows; assign defaults to feeder and staff groups.
  3. Replace helpers — migrate user_is_feeder(), user_can_manage_api_keys(), traceroute helpers to has_perm checks where possible; keep get_access_level() for serializer context / guest redaction.
  4. DRF — standardize on permission classes backed by Django perms; document guest exceptions.
  5. Tests — permission-matrix tests assert has_perm + HTTP status, not only AccessLevel.
  6. Docs — update docs/permissions/README.md with codename ↔ endpoint mapping.

Acceptance criteria

  • Custom permissions defined and listed in permissions docs
  • feeder (and admin) groups hold permissions via migrations/data migration, not only hard-coded group name checks
  • Representative viewsets use Django permission checks; no regression vs #346 matrix
  • Guest redaction behaviour unchanged (tests)
  • Management note for deploy (migrate + optional run_deploy_tasks if used)

Priority

Future / after #346 ships. Safe to schedule once #354 is merged and permissions docs are stable.

Lingua principale
Python
Stelle
1
Fork
0
Merge medio
1g 10h
PR unite (30g)
8

Preparare l'ambiente

  • Include un Dockerfile o un file Docker Compose
  • Ha un modello di pull request
  • Nessuna guida per i contributori

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di pskillen/meshflow-api

Tutte le issue di pskillen/meshflow-api

Issue simili

Altre issue su Python

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.