Don't allow Super Admins to use disabled PCH features #2895
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Permissions
participant Feature
User->>Permissions: current_user_can_use_pch_feature(feature_name, pch_options)
alt User is Super Admin
Permissions-->>User: return true
else User has necessary roles
Permissions-->>User: return true
else User lacks necessary roles
Permissions-->>User: return false
end
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/class-permissions.php (1)
118-121: Consider enhancing the comment and handling non-multisite environments.
The current implementation could be improved in two ways:
- The comment should be more descriptive about the multisite requirement
- Consider handling super admins in non-multisite environments
Here's a suggested improvement:
- // If the user is a super admin, they can access the feature.
+ // Allow access for super administrators in multisite environments.
+ // Note: In non-multisite environments, super admin status is equivalent to regular admin.
if ( is_multisite() && is_super_admin( $current_user->ID ) ) {
return true;
}📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- src/class-permissions.php (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
src/class-permissions.php (1)
Pattern **/*.{html,php}: "Perform a detailed review of the provided code with following key aspects in mind:
- Review the HTML and PHP code to ensure it is well-structured and adheres to best practices.
- Ensure the code follows WordPress coding standards and is well-documented.
- Confirm the code is secure and free from vulnerabilities.
- Optimize the code for performance, removing any unnecessary elements.
- Validate comments for accuracy, currency, and adherence to WordPress coding standards.
- Ensure each line comment concludes with a period.
- Verify code compatibility with the latest version of WordPress, avoiding deprecated functions or features."
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/class-permissions.php (1)
118-121: Implementation looks good, verify multisite behavior.
The super admin check is correctly implemented and placed in the right order within the validation chain.
Let's verify that this is the only place where super admin permissions need to be checked:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the complete context of the permissions handling to ensure there are no other places where super admin permissions should be considered.
Super admin check implementation is correctly isolated and complete
After analyzing the complete permissions class, the super admin check is properly implemented in the only location where permission checks are performed (current_user_can_use_pch_feature). The implementation:
- Correctly handles multisite environments
- Is placed at the right position in the validation chain
- Is the only place where such a check is needed as all feature-specific permissions flow through this method
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other potential places where super admin permissions might need to be handled
rg -l "is_super_admin|super admin|superadmin" --type php
Length of output: 84
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the full content of class-permissions.php to analyze all permission checks
cat src/class-permissions.php
Length of output: 5976
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
tests/Integration/PermissionsTest.php (1)
157-161: LGTM! Consider enhancing the test method's documentation.
The changes improve test clarity by explicitly setting the user role. Consider updating the method's documentation to reflect that it specifically tests editor access when only administrator role is allowed.
/**
* Verifies that permissions are correct when a disallowed User Role tries
* to access enabled Content Helper features.
+ * Specifically tests editor access when only administrator role is allowed.
*
* @since 3.17.0
*/📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- tests/Integration/PermissionsTest.php (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
tests/Integration/PermissionsTest.php (1)
Pattern **/*.{html,php}: "Perform a detailed review of the provided code with following key aspects in mind:
- Review the HTML and PHP code to ensure it is well-structured and adheres to best practices.
- Ensure the code follows WordPress coding standards and is well-documented.
- Confirm the code is secure and free from vulnerabilities.
- Optimize the code for performance, removing any unnecessary elements.
- Validate comments for accuracy, currency, and adherence to WordPress coding standards.
- Ensure each line comment concludes with a period.
- Verify code compatibility with the latest version of WordPress, avoiding deprecated functions or features."
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/Integration/PermissionsTest.php (2)
182-216: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage for super admin access to disabled features.
The test method thoroughly verifies that super admins cannot access disabled PCH features, including proper filter handling and edge cases with unset options.
218-261: LGTM! Consider adding edge case test.
The test comprehensively verifies super admin access behavior in both multisite and non-multisite environments. Consider adding a test case where a super admin is also assigned to a specific site to verify the interaction between super admin privileges and site-specific roles.
Let's verify if there are any existing tests covering this scenario:
|
Looking at the code, I have difficulty understanding how this disables features for Super Admins when a feature is disabled. Can you please elaborate? Alternatively, a quick meeting to show me the behavior with and without the fix is fine, even maybe better. Thank you! 🙂 |
acicovic
changed the title
Description
Super Admins, by default, will have no user roles unless they are added to that specific site. By doing a validation if the user is a Super Admin - after validating that the feature is enabled - we can allow super admins to use any PCH feature, unless they are intentionally disabled.
Motivation and context
How has this been tested?
Tested locally on a multisite with a super admin account.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests