Closed
Bug 253088
Opened 20 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
Users with bless permission cannot edit users
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Administration, task, P2)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.16
People
(Reporter: bugreport, Assigned: bugreport)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [ready for 2.16.8] [fixed in 2.18rc2] [fixed in 2.19.1])
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
589 bytes,
patch
|
kiko
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
When a user with bless permission but not editusers attempts to update a user, the form variable "user" is not set. As a result, the balance of editusers.cgi assumes that the login_name is being changed to a blank.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Flags: blocking2.18?
Priority: -- → P2
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #154353 -
Flags: review?
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 154353 [details] [diff] [review] Patch - dont wipe out user if it is not in form actually, there is a better way
Attachment #154353 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #154353 -
Flags: review?
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #154354 -
Attachment description: patch - hide fields instead of skiping them → patch - hide fields instead of skipping them
Attachment #154354 -
Flags: review?
Comment 4•20 years ago
|
||
The only difference between the two methods is that the first one is safer -- in the obscure contrived and utterly impractical case that the user is using an "independent" browser to access the page he may "forget" to supply the user and then looses data. I don't care either way, but if you go with the first approach, be sure to do that ||=ing only if the user doesn't have editusers -- or you'll make it impossible for an edituser-capable user to erase the name (hmm, but is that something you want to let them do?) Your second solution is nice because it also protects the user from erasing description, which also uses EmitElement. Apply r=kiko to the patch you decide to apply, and request a2.18 as well.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Assignee: justdave → bugreport
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #154354 -
Flags: review? → review+
Comment 5•20 years ago
|
||
Talked over IRC, Joel thinks the latter is the cleaner way.
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval2.18?
Updated•20 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking2.18?
Flags: blocking2.18+
Flags: approval?
Flags: approval2.18?
Flags: approval2.18+
Flags: approval+
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•20 years ago
|
||
checked in on both branches. Note: This should get seriously cleaned up when this is templatized
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 7•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 266333 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8•19 years ago
|
||
This problem also exists in 2.16, we need this backported to the 2.16 branch. See bug 266333.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Flags: blocking2.16.8+
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Whiteboard: [wanted for 2.16.8] [fixed in 2.18rc2] [fixed in 2.19.1]
Target Milestone: Bugzilla 2.18 → Bugzilla 2.16
Comment 9•19 years ago
|
||
Wow, believe it or not, this patch applies unmodified to Bugzilla 2.16.7. :) Bob, care to give it a shot and let us know if it works for you?
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
I can confirm that the one-liner patch works in the 2.16.7 install. Actually, I wrote that exact line, patch unseen, and was switching the hash comment character back and forth between the lines to write out the behavior for the bug report. Guess I should have used the time to look harder for the bug so I wouldn't duplicate it. My bad. Good shot, all of you, and quick turnaround. Thanks.
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Flags: approval2.16?
Updated•19 years ago
|
Flags: approval2.16? → approval2.16+
Whiteboard: [wanted for 2.16.8] [fixed in 2.18rc2] [fixed in 2.19.1] → [ready for 2.16.8] [fixed in 2.18rc2] [fixed in 2.19.1]
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
Checking in editusers.cgi; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/editusers.cgi,v <-- editusers.cgi new revision: 1.35.2.6; previous revision: 1.35.2.5 done Checked in on 2.16 branch
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago → 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•11 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•