Refactor entity models and enhance document metadata management#64
Merged
Conversation
- Moved `NoActiveRevisionsError` import to `include.exceptions.misc` for better organization. - Updated import paths for `Document`, `DocumentRevision`, and `Folder` to reflect new structure in `obj.py`. - Created `base.py` for shared base functionality among entity models. - Introduced `metadata.py` for document metadata handling. - Added `obj.py` to define core entity models including `Document`, `DocumentRevision`, `Folder`, and their access rules. - Implemented `batch_count_other_revisions` in `count.py` for centralized reference counting. - Refactored `purge.py` to utilize new counting method. - Adjusted `document.py` and `search.py` to align with new import paths.
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this to Backlog
in Confidential File Management System
Contributor
Reviewer's GuideRefactors shared entity model logic into a new BaseObject, extracts batch file-reference counting into a reusable utility, and introduces a full document metadata subsystem (creator, last-modified, tags) with API, permissions, migrations, and tests. ER diagram for new document metadata modelserDiagram
Document {
string id PK
string title
}
DocumentMetadata {
string document_id PK
string creator_username
string last_modified_by_username
}
DocumentMetadataTag {
string document_id PK
string tag PK
int position
}
User {
string username PK
}
Document ||--o| DocumentMetadata : has_metadata
DocumentMetadata ||--o{ DocumentMetadataTag : has_tags
User ||--o{ DocumentMetadata : created_by
User ||--o{ DocumentMetadata : last_modified_by
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
![github-code-quality[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9919?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| else: | ||
| raise ValueError('the value of "match" must be "all" or "any"') | ||
|
|
||
| def match_primary_sub_group(per_match_group): |
|
|
||
| require_auth = True | ||
|
|
||
| def handle(self, handler: ConnectionHandler): |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've found 2 issues
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location path="src/include/handlers/document.py" line_range="1139" />
<code_context>
+ {"tags": normalized_tags},
+ "Document metadata tags updated successfully",
+ )
+ return 0, document_id, {"tags": normalized_tags}, handler.username
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** The return tuple shape for RequestSetDocumentMetadataTagsHandler is inconsistent with other handlers and may break upstream consumers.
This handler returns a 4‑tuple `(0, document_id, {"tags": normalized_tags}, handler.username)` while others in this module return a 3‑tuple like `(code, document_id, username)`. If callers assume a fixed 3‑tuple structure or a specific index for `username`, this can cause runtime errors or incorrect logging. Please match the existing convention (e.g. `return 0, document_id, handler.username`) and rely on `conclude_request` to convey `tags` in the response body.
</issue_to_address>
### Comment 2
<location path="tests/test_documents.py" line_range="41" />
<code_context>
data = assert_success(response)
assert isinstance(data, dict)
+ @pytest.mark.asyncio
+ async def test_document_metadata_tags(
+ self, authenticated_client: CFMSTestClient, test_document: dict
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (testing):** Add a test to verify that document metadata is only returned when the caller has VIEW_METADATA permission
Right now the tests only cover an admin/sysop user who has `Permissions.VIEW_METADATA`. Please also add a case with a user who lacks `VIEW_METADATA` (but still has read access) and assert that `get_document_info` either omits `metadata` or returns the sanitized form, per the expected behavior, to guard against metadata access-control regressions.
Suggested implementation:
```python
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_document_metadata_tags(
self, authenticated_client: CFMSTestClient, test_document: dict
):
document_id = test_document["document_id"]
info_response = await authenticated_client.get_document_info(document_id)
info = assert_success(info_response)
assert info["metadata"] == {
"tags": [],
"creator": "admin",
"last_modified_by": "admin",
}
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_document_metadata_hidden_without_view_metadata_permission(
self,
read_only_client: CFMSTestClient,
test_document: dict,
):
"""
A user who can read the document but does not have VIEW_METADATA must
not see full metadata in get_document_info.
"""
document_id = test_document["document_id"]
info_response = await read_only_client.get_document_info(document_id)
info = assert_success(info_response)
# Depending on implementation, either metadata is omitted entirely,
# or present but sanitized. Adjust expectations to match behavior.
if "metadata" in info:
# Minimal / sanitized form – adjust keys/values as appropriate
assert isinstance(info["metadata"], dict)
# Example: tags may be visible but creator/last_modified_by hidden
assert "tags" in info["metadata"]
assert "creator" not in info["metadata"]
assert "last_modified_by" not in info["metadata"]
else:
# Metadata is fully hidden from callers without VIEW_METADATA
assert "metadata" not in info
```
To make this test pass and accurately reflect your access-control semantics, you may need to:
1. Ensure there is a `read_only_client` (or similarly named) fixture in your test suite that:
- Authenticates as a non-admin user.
- Has read access to `test_document`.
- Explicitly does **not** have the `VIEW_METADATA` permission.
If the fixture has a different name (e.g. `authenticated_reader_client`, `user_client`, etc.), update the test signature accordingly.
2. Align the assertions in the test with the actual behavior of `get_document_info` for users without `VIEW_METADATA`:
- If your implementation omits `metadata` entirely, simplify the test to `assert "metadata" not in info`.
- If your implementation returns a sanitized `metadata` object, replace the example checks inside the `if "metadata" in info:` block with the exact expected shape (keys and values) for that sanitized form.
3. If your permission model requires explicitly granting read permission to the document for the non-admin user (e.g. sharing or group membership), ensure that is done in the fixture or a helper invoked by the fixture so that `get_document_info` returns a successful response instead of a 403/404.
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
| {"tags": normalized_tags}, | ||
| "Document metadata tags updated successfully", | ||
| ) | ||
| return 0, document_id, {"tags": normalized_tags}, handler.username |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (bug_risk): The return tuple shape for RequestSetDocumentMetadataTagsHandler is inconsistent with other handlers and may break upstream consumers.
This handler returns a 4‑tuple (0, document_id, {"tags": normalized_tags}, handler.username) while others in this module return a 3‑tuple like (code, document_id, username). If callers assume a fixed 3‑tuple structure or a specific index for username, this can cause runtime errors or incorrect logging. Please match the existing convention (e.g. return 0, document_id, handler.username) and rely on conclude_request to convey tags in the response body.
| data = assert_success(response) | ||
| assert isinstance(data, dict) | ||
|
|
||
| @pytest.mark.asyncio |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (testing): Add a test to verify that document metadata is only returned when the caller has VIEW_METADATA permission
Right now the tests only cover an admin/sysop user who has Permissions.VIEW_METADATA. Please also add a case with a user who lacks VIEW_METADATA (but still has read access) and assert that get_document_info either omits metadata or returns the sanitized form, per the expected behavior, to guard against metadata access-control regressions.
Suggested implementation:
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_document_metadata_tags(
self, authenticated_client: CFMSTestClient, test_document: dict
):
document_id = test_document["document_id"]
info_response = await authenticated_client.get_document_info(document_id)
info = assert_success(info_response)
assert info["metadata"] == {
"tags": [],
"creator": "admin",
"last_modified_by": "admin",
}
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_document_metadata_hidden_without_view_metadata_permission(
self,
read_only_client: CFMSTestClient,
test_document: dict,
):
"""
A user who can read the document but does not have VIEW_METADATA must
not see full metadata in get_document_info.
"""
document_id = test_document["document_id"]
info_response = await read_only_client.get_document_info(document_id)
info = assert_success(info_response)
# Depending on implementation, either metadata is omitted entirely,
# or present but sanitized. Adjust expectations to match behavior.
if "metadata" in info:
# Minimal / sanitized form – adjust keys/values as appropriate
assert isinstance(info["metadata"], dict)
# Example: tags may be visible but creator/last_modified_by hidden
assert "tags" in info["metadata"]
assert "creator" not in info["metadata"]
assert "last_modified_by" not in info["metadata"]
else:
# Metadata is fully hidden from callers without VIEW_METADATA
assert "metadata" not in infoTo make this test pass and accurately reflect your access-control semantics, you may need to:
-
Ensure there is a
read_only_client(or similarly named) fixture in your test suite that:- Authenticates as a non-admin user.
- Has read access to
test_document. - Explicitly does not have the
VIEW_METADATApermission.
If the fixture has a different name (e.g.authenticated_reader_client,user_client, etc.), update the test signature accordingly.
-
Align the assertions in the test with the actual behavior of
get_document_infofor users withoutVIEW_METADATA:- If your implementation omits
metadataentirely, simplify the test toassert "metadata" not in info. - If your implementation returns a sanitized
metadataobject, replace the example checks inside theif "metadata" in info:block with the exact expected shape (keys and values) for that sanitized form.
- If your implementation omits
-
If your permission model requires explicitly granting read permission to the document for the non-admin user (e.g. sharing or group membership), ensure that is done in the fixture or a helper invoked by the fixture so that
get_document_inforeturns a successful response instead of a 403/404.
… and RequestSetDocumentMetadataTagsHandler
…ocumentTagsHandler for consistency
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from Backlog
to Done
in Confidential File Management System
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary by Sourcery
Refactor entity models and introduce persistent document metadata with tag management and permission-controlled access.
New Features:
Enhancements:
Tests: