Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle situations where request has no User object, closes #1746 #1765

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 31, 2017

Conversation

alukach
Copy link
Contributor

@alukach alukach commented Aug 30, 2017

Proposed changes in this pull request

Going off of the description in this StackOverflow article, #1746 appears to be related to situations where we have a redirect from APPEND_SLASH=True. Typically, a request works its way through the middleware stack, is sent to a view, and then a response works its way through the middleware (in opposite order). If a redirect occurs from the CommonMiddleware middleware but before AuthenticationMiddleware, the AuthenticationMiddleware is skipped (meaning the user object is not added to the request) and the response is sent through all middleware. Our UserLanguageMiddleware expects that the request have a user property, but in the event of skipping the AuthenticationMiddleware this is not true.

We could do a re-org of the middleware, but it seems more robust to just handle situations where there is no user property on the request.

When should this PR be merged

ASAP, as this is a blocking bug.

Risks

None foreseen. I would have liked to write a test that worked through all the existing middleware, but felt that this was simpler and better for the sake of time.

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

  • Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the migration label if a new migration is added.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Functionality

  • Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Code

  • Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Is there a maintenance plan in place?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Tests

  • Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Security

  • Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does all branching logic have a default case?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Documentation

  • Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2
  • Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.
    • Review 1
    • Review 2

Copy link
Contributor

@amplifi amplifi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Works in dev VM. :shipit:

Copy link
Member

@oliverroick oliverroick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🥇

@amplifi amplifi merged commit 7216a13 into master Aug 31, 2017
@amplifi amplifi deleted the bugfix/1746 branch August 31, 2017 09:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants