Add new can view and can view minor roles #2791
Conversation
beaa829 to
1364ff8
Compare
1364ff8 to
c6fc9b5
Compare
ed09fb5 to
53b4c03
Compare
c6fc9b5 to
c942615
Compare
aae378b to
a57ceba
Compare
a57ceba to
97aa6a7
Compare
onadata/apps/logger/models/xform.py
Outdated
| @@ -1415,6 +1415,27 @@ def save_project(sender, instance=None, created=False, **kwargs): | |||
| pre_save.connect(save_project, sender=XForm, dispatch_uid="save_project_xform") | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def _create_meta_perms(sender, instance, created, **kwargs): | |||
| metadata = instance.metadata_set.all().filter(data_type="xform_meta_perms").first() | |||
| if instance.deleted_by is None and metadata is None: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we care whether the object is deleted or not? I think we can omit the check.
onadata/apps/logger/models/xform.py
Outdated
| if instance.deleted_by is None and metadata is None: | ||
| from onadata.libs.serializers.metadata_serializer import MetaDataSerializer | ||
|
|
||
| serializer = MetaDataSerializer( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the past, how have we created xform_meta_perms,or rather when is the record created? It's best to use the MetaData model here to created the object directly instead of using the serializer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The xform_meta_perms , in the past, has been created by making API requests from the front-end. So this record is normally not created on the back-end service
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could use the MetaData.objects.create method directly. I think if we use the serializer this way, we will benefit from some validation and logic already in the create method of the serializer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@FrankApiyo Noted, though since it's being created directly and not a request from a client, we are assured the values are always correct. But if there is some essential checks that we think applies, it should be moved to a some utiility module accessible by the serializer module and model module
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've refactored the MetaData creation signal to use the model directly
onadata/libs/permissions.py
Outdated
| @@ -251,6 +261,33 @@ class DataEntryRole(Role): | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class EditorNoDownload(Role): | |||
| """ | |||
| Editor-Minor Role class - user can submit data, read and edit only the data | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Editor-Minor Role class does not match the class name, either way, I think we can omit it the Editor-Minor Role class - prefix altogether
| update_role_by_meta_xform_perms(instance.content_object) | ||
| xform = instance.content_object | ||
| update_role_by_meta_xform_perms(xform) | ||
| safe_delete(f"{PROJ_OWNER_CACHE}{xform.project.pk}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it preferrable if the cache invalidations be inside update_role_by_meta_xform_perms method?
62e9830 to
0a9edc6
Compare
0a9edc6 to
769aee2
Compare
9eafbf3 to
965c0f2
Compare
769aee2 to
f78d5eb
Compare
e726383 to
919d5af
Compare
f78d5eb to
5a303f9
Compare
Changes / Features implemented
Steps taken to verify this change does what is intended
Added test cases
Before submitting this PR for review, please make sure you have:
Todo