Parse.com dashboard ACL display

There seems to be a difference when you add an ACL to a class object from the Parse dashboard and when you add the ACL from cloud code (locally hosted).

In both cases, I am removing public read access and granting read access to the "Administrator" role and the owning user (in this case user id: 7sT0tCqA25).

From the Parse Dashboard, I see this added to my object:

"_acl": {
        "7sT0tCqA25": {
            "r": true
        },
        "role:Administrator": {
            "r": true
        }
    }

My cloud code to produce the ACL described above:

var orderACL = new Parse.ACL();
orderACL.setPublicReadAccess(false);
orderACL.setRoleReadAccess("Administrator",  true);
orderACL.setReadAccess( "7sT0tCqA25", true );
order.setACL(orderACL);
return order.save();

When executed, Parse server adds this to the DB:

"ACL": {
        "role:Administrator": {
            "read": true
        },
        "7sT0tCqA25": {
            "read": true
        }
    }

This is causing the Parse Dashboard not to display the correct ACL for the object.

Interesting, because neither of those formats is how it actually goes in the database. ACLs are split in to 2 columns, _rperm and _wperm, one for read permissions, and one for write permissions. Older objects (>1 yr old) have an even older ACL format... take a look at transform.js and also spec/ParseACL.spec.js to see what is implemented and how it is tested.

Ok just did the comparison again. I am seeing _rperm and _wperm. Here are the two full objects:

Setting permissions on Dashboard:

{
    "_id": "tzlHLw9p9W",
    "_rperm": [
        "7sT0tCqA25",
        "role:Administrator"
    ],
    "_p_client": "Client$fnSGmgEEA9",
    "amount": 4.95,
    "fee": 0.05,
    "authorized": false,
    "captured": false,
    "token": "r29MUo32h1",
    "orderNumber": "x1s37JM4X4YcDiFx4gwQUnTh/Fw=",
    "customerEmail": "matthew.talma@gmail.com",
    "nonce": "somenouce",
    "_updated_at": {
        "$date": "2016-02-02T08:11:46.211Z"
    },
    "_created_at": {
        "$date": "2016-02-02T08:03:36.261Z"
    },
    "_acl": {
        "7sT0tCqA25": {
            "r": true
        },
        "role:Administrator": {
            "r": true
        }
    },
    "_wperm": []
}

Through cloud code:

{
    "_id": "tzlHLw9p9W",
    "_rperm": [
        "role:Administrator",
        "7sT0tCqA25"
    ],
    "_p_client": "Client$fnSGmgEEA9",
    "amount": 4.95,
    "fee": 0.05,
    "authorized": false,
    "captured": false,
    "token": "r29MUo32h1",
    "orderNumber": "x1s37JM4X4YcDiFx4gwQUnTh/Fw=",
    "customerEmail": "matthew.talma@gmail.com",
    "nonce": "somenouce",
    "_updated_at": {
        "$date": "2016-02-02T08:08:38.558Z"
    },
    "_created_at": {
        "$date": "2016-02-02T08:03:36.261Z"
    }
}

Ah, one of the recent changes around null behaviors may have interacted here... Looks like the _wperm entry is missed.

Thanks. Although it seems that the Dashboard is looking for the "_acl" entry. Even when I added the _wperm entry, I still get the wrong ACL on the Dashboard.

Perhaps, since this is an 1+ year old app, my Dashboard has an internal config setting to look at "_acl" instead of the newer format?

It may be that the dashboard expects Parse to write the ACL both ways, and so the dashboard depends on the _acl field. Are you experiencing a failure in ACL security, i.e. can you test that write permissions are failing?

All ParseACL test passed:

Started
....{"$set":{"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:01.045Z"}}
....{"$set":{"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:01.944Z"}}
..{"$set":{"_rperm":["1wOPaR7wR6","*"],"_wperm":["1wOPaR7wR6"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:02.345Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["T0YH5bjpRZ","*"],"_wperm":["T0YH5bjpRZ"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:02.541Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["4dU2yvpTTQ","*"],"_wperm":["4dU2yvpTTQ"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:02.733Z"}}
{"$set":{"_rperm":["4dU2yvpTTQ","*"],"_wperm":["4dU2yvpTTQ"],"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:02.740Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["blufhLCrzC","*"],"_wperm":["blufhLCrzC"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:02.976Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["CLjnOc04gO"],"_wperm":["CLjnOc04gO","*"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:03.187Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["cXSMjpop8O"],"_wperm":["cXSMjpop8O","*"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:03.526Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["rlA0wMOcpM"],"_wperm":["rlA0wMOcpM","*"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:03.903Z"}}
{"$set":{"_rperm":["rlA0wMOcpM"],"_wperm":["rlA0wMOcpM","*"],"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:03.910Z"}}
.{"$set":{"_rperm":["F7F4YbtfyB"],"_wperm":["F7F4YbtfyB","*"],"_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:04.127Z"}}
...{"$set":{"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:05.089Z"}}
....{"$set":{"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:06.152Z"}}
..{"$set":{"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:06.556Z"}}
{"$set":{"foo":"bar","_updated_at":"2016-02-03T05:23:06.556Z"}}
...


29 specs, 0 failures
Finished in 6.91 seconds

Is there any way to support the newer _wperm and _rperm structure when viewing ACL on the Dashboard or would we have to hack it to also output the "_acl" entry?

Merge pull request parse-community#171 from sahanh/patch-1

@drew-gross

Just wanted to alert @drew-gross of this because of dashboard work.

@mtalma

Hey @mtalma, please try this from the Parse Server Dashboard (https://github.com/ParsePlatform/parse-dashboard) and if you have issues, open an issue on the repository.

I got the same problem here. When I change the ACL in parse-server, only _rperm and _wperm are changed, _acl will keep the old value. Parse.com dashboard will show the old value, and Parse Server Dashboard will show the updated ACL _rperm and _wperm. But the problem is when I update the ACL in parse.com, _rperm and _wperm will be overwritten to the old value.

Is this behavior expected?

_acl will be deprecated after migrate to parse-server?

Thanks!:)

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Parse.com dashboard ACL display #167

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Parse.com dashboard ACL display #167

Description

Activity

gfosco commented on Feb 2, 2016

mtalma commented on Feb 2, 2016

gfosco commented on Feb 2, 2016

mtalma commented on Feb 2, 2016

gfosco commented on Feb 2, 2016

mtalma commented on Feb 3, 2016

gfosco commented on Feb 20, 2016

drew-gross commented on Mar 5, 2016

carmenlau commented on Mar 21, 2016

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions