Reported by @ry2811 as GHSA-w3w9-prpw-qx77, with a working two-worker
reproducer.
Setup asked the database whether any staff user existed, and created one
some time later, in a separate statement with nothing joining the two. So
two POSTs arriving together both read "no staff" and both inserted a System
Administrator. Different addresses do not collide; `users.email` is the only
unique key and it has nothing to say about there being one first
administrator.
The gap is not narrow. Between the check and the insert sits password
hashing at BCRYPT_ROUNDS=12, which is slow on purpose, so the window is
hundreds of milliseconds wide and observable without trying.
What makes this worth fixing is not that a stranger can set up an
unconfigured installation — first-run setup is open to whoever reaches it
first, and always was. It is that racing the operator is *quiet*. The
operator's own request also succeeds, also redirects to /setup/success, and
the installation they get looks exactly like the one they expected. The
second administrator is discovered later or not at all, and closing setup
afterwards does not revoke it.
FirstAdministrator::claim() makes it one operation. The row it locks is the
System Administrator role, because the obvious candidate cannot work: there
are no staff rows on a fresh install and a lock over an empty result
serialises nothing. That role row is written by the roles migration and
rewritten on every boot, so it is always there to be locked. The second
caller waits on it, and by the time it has the lock the first caller's user
is committed and visible to the re-check it then makes.
Everything the request writes moved inside the claim, including the site
name. A request that loses now writes nothing at all, rather than renaming
the installation on its way to the login screen.
`projectsend:admin --if-none` had the same shape and is fixed the same way
— two containers coming up against one database is the version of this that
needs no attacker. The early check stays where it is so an unattended boot
does not prompt for a password it is about to discard; it is simply asked
again under the lock.
Both tests fail on the unfixed code. They stage the interleaving rather than
attempting real concurrency, creating the winning administrator from a query
listener after the request has made its first check — which is exactly the
window, and the re-check is the only thing that closes it. The lock itself
is invisible to them: the suite runs SQLite, where lockForUpdate() compiles
to nothing. That half was verified against MySQL 8.4 by running the
reporter's race for real, two processes through the full HTTP kernel: two
administrators before, one after, repeatably.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CNFU55Tkq6MuEQ73nbbBRx
The last two paths that passed email_verified_at into User::create() and
lost it: the setup screen, and projectsend:admin for a container that
comes up from environment variables. It is deliberately absent from
$fillable, so mass assignment drops it without a word, and both meant to
set it.
The intent is plain in both cases — the first administrator typed their
own address into the form in front of them, and whoever provisioned the
container supplied it themselves. There is nobody to confirm it to.
Inert today, since MustVerifyEmail is not enabled on the model, but the
column is what a later switch would read: turning verification on would
have locked out the one account that cannot be helped by another
administrator.
Both are now pinned by a test that fails when the forceFill is removed.
StaffAccounts had already fixed this for staff and named the rest; with
client accounts done earlier today, that list is empty.
Also says on User::$fillable what absence from it buys and what it does
not. It stops a request smuggling a value in; it does not tell code that
meant to set the value that it failed. Four separate paths made the same
mistake against the same comment.
/users/convert lists the accounts a conversion can be started from. For
the promotion direction those are clients, and the query asked only for
the type:
User::query()->where('type', UserType::Client)
The write beside it does not. AccountConversion::guardToStaff() ends with
abort_unless($this->library->canAssignClient($actor, $target), 404);
and says why: a promotion is the most far-reaching thing that can be done
to a client, so reaching one outside the actor's roster "through this door
and no other is not a rule, it is a gap".
The gap was on the way in. A client-scoped staff member holding
manage_users and edit_users was refused the promotion with a 404 -- the
refusal that is careful not to distinguish a stranger from an account that
is not there -- and then shown that same person's name, email, role,
status and consequence counts in the list the refusal came from,
searchable by name or address and paginated to the end.
StaffLibraryScope::clients() is canAssignClient()'s listing half, written
for this: "so a screen narrows by the same rule its buttons are guarded
with rather than restating it -- which is how ClientsController came to
list every client on the installation, name and email, to a viewer who
could reach nothing of theirs." The picker twenty lines below already went
through the same boundary via assignableClientIds().
Only the client direction is narrowed. The staff direction is left exactly
as it was: whoever may demote a staff member may see the staff roster, and
what limits a demotion is guardTarget() on the write, not the listing.
Tests: the listing half added to AccountConversionScopeTest, which until
now covered only the refusals. Two of the five fail against the unfixed
controller -- the stranger's address in the list, and reaching it by exact
search. The other three pin what must not change: the actor still sees
their own client, unscoped staff still see everybody, and the demotion
list still lists staff.
`reassign_candidates` is the delete dialog's picker: every active account
in the installation, by name and by role label. The same list is shared
on the clients index, the users index, both edit screens and privacy
settings, and it was narrowed by nothing.
Two lines above it on the clients index sits the listing itself, narrowed
through `scope->clients($viewer)` with a comment saying why: "a
client-scoped staff member is not shown the name and email of somebody
they can reach nothing of". The picker beside it handed over every client
in the installation, plus every staff account and its role name. The
filter by `can('delete_clients')` happens in React, which decides what is
rendered, not what is sent.
So the client half of the candidate list goes through the same
StaffLibraryScope as the listing, and each screen sends the picker only to
a viewer holding the delete permission it exists for. Staff accounts are
not narrowed -- they are not narrowed anywhere else either -- and an
unscoped viewer's list is unchanged, because StaffLibraryScope::clients()
returns every client for them.
Privacy settings keeps the whole installation on purpose: that picker sets
the erasure default stored once for everybody, behind edit_settings, so
narrowing it by whoever happens to be editing would store the wrong
answer. The parameter is nullable for that one caller, and the docblock
says so.
Four tests. Without the fix three go red; the fourth is the guard that an
administrator still sees every active account.
ProfileController::destroy() validated the current password and soft-deleted, without asking guardLastAdministrator() -- the rule the other four doors ask, at the one door where the account being removed is certainly signed in. The sole administrator could empty their own installation, and EnsureSetupIsComplete, which asks exists() and so skips trashed rows, then handed the first-run setup form to whoever loaded the page next. That form creates an active System Administrator, unauthenticated.
Verified before merging: on main the sole administrator's self-deletion succeeds and setup reopens; both new tests are red there and green here. Suite at 2088, PHPStan clean.
Two locks, because one of these questions is asked at five doors and the other at one. The guard closes the door. And "has this installation been set up" stops meaning "does it have a working administrator right now" -- a trashed staff row is still evidence that setup happened, counted now in both the middleware and SetupController::setupIsComplete(), which have to agree or the result is a redirect loop or an open form.
Worth recording: erasure force-deletes a self-deleted account after its grace period, so the second lock would expire on its own. It does not matter because the first lock stops the installation reaching that state, but a future change to either should know the other is not permanent.
An installation that has already lost its last administrator now finds setup shut. That is the point: recovery is php artisan projectsend:admin, which is also how every unattended container installs itself.
Reported and fixed by @denkfabrik-li.
The validation rule accepts 0 and "0" as well as false and does not cast, so a strict comparison against the validated array let two of the three spellings past the self-deactivation guard -- and the model's own boolean cast then stored exactly the value the guard had just decided was not a deactivation.
Reproduced on main before merging: {"active": false} is refused, {"active": 0} and {"active": "0"} both return 200 and switch the account off. Green on the branch, suite at 2074, PHPStan clean.
The fix reads the flag once with Request::boolean() and gives that same value to the guard and to the write -- the rule RolesController::guardScopeRemoval already documents for the same reason. Validation is unchanged, so the accepted inputs are the same; one of them just stops meaning two different things on its way through the method.
Follow-up for the release: this is a caller-visible change (200 to 422) and wants a line in api-changelog.md.
Reported and fixed by @denkfabrik-li.
EnforceTwoFactor exempts by route name, and only the GET half of the confirm-password screen had one -- Route::named() answers false for a null name, so the submission was never exempt. Enrolling requires password confirmation, so with enforcement on nobody could enrol at all: the form rendered, its POST was redirected to two-factor.show, auth.password_confirmed_at was never written, and every account on the installation was left with logout as its only working route. Including the administrator who turned the setting on.
Reproduced on main before merging: POST /confirm-password redirects to /settings/two-factor and the session flag stays unset. The widened pattern was checked against the route table -- password.confirm* reaches password.confirm and the newly named password.confirm.store and nothing else; password.reset, password.store and the rest are not under that prefix. Exempting the submission grants nothing further, since every other route stays bounced and store() still validates the password.
Reported and fixed by @denkfabrik-li.
It stopped being true in 623ad68, when users.manage opened on both
editions. The code moved and these did not, which is the worst kind of
comment: confidently wrong, and about the very rule a reader comes to
them to learn.
PlatformManaged claimed the tenant's own /users screens stay closed,
directly contradicting the UsersManage comment eleven lines above it.
routes/web.php said the same about the group it gates. The API
controller's docblock opened with "**Community only.**", and the
conversion screen's said a managed installation creates staff accounts
elsewhere.
Each now says what is actually true, and says the division the change
turned on: a platform sells the seats, the tenant decides who sits in
them. What limits a managed plan is the seat cap, not a shut door -- so
the API answers 422 at the limit rather than 403, which is a different
sentence to whoever is reading it.
On a managed installation with its staff seats full, /users/create opened
as though there were room. You typed a name, an address and a password
you had to invent, pressed Save, and the plan limit came back as a
validation error under the email field -- which reads as a complaint
about the address rather than a fact about the plan.
A full installation is an ordinary state on a plan sold by the seat, so
it is now stated up front. The list carries the seat position, the
button goes dead once the last seat is taken and says why, and the
create screen turns away anyone who reaches it by link or bookmark. The
guard in store() is untouched: that is still the rule, this is only the
door.
The refusal is worded once, in SeatAllowance, and the screen is handed
that sentence rather than writing its own -- two wordings of one limit
is how somebody ends up believing there are two limits. `full` is
derived there too, from the same comparison the guard refuses on, so a
screen cannot disagree with it about the edge (used > limit, after an
operator lowers a limit) and offer a button for a form that cannot be
submitted.
Clients get the same treatment: the cap exists there too, and reached it
the same way. Self-hosted installations have no limit, so they are shown
nothing about one.
ProfileController::destroy() validates current_password and soft-deletes.
It never asks StaffAccounts::guardLastAdministrator(), and every other
door does: Staff update(), guardDeletable(), and both directions of the
role conversion. This is the one door where the account being removed is
certainly signed in.
An installation with a single administrator therefore had a button that
emptied it. Measured on main:
DELETE /settings/profile 302, the account is gone
live staff rows 0 (the row is trashed, not removed)
anonymous GET / 302 -> /setup
anonymous POST /setup a new active System Administrator
EnsureSetupIsComplete asks ->exists(), which excludes trashed rows, and
routes/web.php registers GET and POST setup with no auth and no guest
middleware -- correctly, since a fresh installation has nobody to
authenticate. SetupController::store() re-checks the same condition, so
both halves agreed with each other and both were wrong once the last
staff row was trashed.
Two locks, because one of them is asked at five doors and the other at
one.
First: destroy() now asks guardLastAdministrator(), the same call with
the same message as everywhere else. An administrator with a colleague
still goes, a non-administrator staff member still goes, and a client
still closes their own account.
Second: "has this installation been set up" is not the same question as
"does it have a working administrator right now", and only the first one
belongs in EnsureSetupIsComplete. A trashed staff row is still evidence
that setup happened, so it now counts -- in the middleware and in
SetupController::setupIsComplete(), which have to agree or the result is
either a redirect loop or an open form.
That second lock holds even if a future door forgets the first one.
Measured with the guard bypassed entirely and the row trashed directly:
GET / answers with the login screen and POST /setup creates nothing.
Worth stating plainly: an installation that has already lost its last
administrator will now find setup shut rather than open. That is the
point -- the recovery path for it is `php artisan projectsend:admin`,
which is also how every unattended container installs itself, not a form
that anybody on the internet can reach.
Six tests, two measured red against the unfixed code (2 failed / 4
passed) -- one per lock. The other four are the boundaries: a colleague
present, a staff member who is not an administrator, a client, and a
genuinely fresh installation that must still reach setup.
Two existing tests needed saying more clearly rather than changing:
ProfileUpdateTest's deletion cases now create a second administrator, so
that what they assert is self-deletion and not this new refusal; and
GettingStartedTest's "fresh installation" cases forceDelete rather than
delete, because a soft-deleted staff row is no longer a fresh
installation -- which is the whole of the second lock.
Full suite passes (2054 passed / 2 skipped), PHPStan level 8 clean.
Api\UsersController::update() compares the validated value strictly:
if ($user->is($actor) && ($validated['active'] ?? true) === false) {
The `boolean` rule accepts 0 and "0" as well as false, and it does not
cast. `0 === false` is false, so the refusal never fires -- and the
model's own `boolean` cast then stores as false exactly the value the
guard had just decided was not a deactivation.
Measured against main, with a second administrator present so that
guardLastAdministrator is not what answers:
{"active": false} -> 422, still active
{"active": 0} -> 200, active is now false
{"active": "0"} -> 200, active is now false
The method's own docblock says it is "Refused with a 422 if the change
would leave the installation with no active administrator, or if you
would be deactivating yourself", and the web screen does refuse. This is
the API half of that sentence.
RolesController::guardScopeRemoval documents the rule this breaks, in the
same words: callers resolve the flag with Request::boolean() and hand the
same value to the guard and to the write, deliberately, because reading
the validated array and comparing it strictly "would let a request
through here that the model's `boolean` cast then stores as false anyway
-- the guard and the write disagreeing about one value is exactly the
shape this guard exists to prevent".
So read it once, with Request::boolean(), and give that one value to both.
Not changed: the validation rule. It stays `boolean`, so the accepted
inputs are the same as before -- what changes is that one of them stops
meaning two different things on its way through. Nor anything about
deactivating somebody else: all three forms still work, and there are
tests saying so.
Six cases from two datasets. Two measured red against the unfixed
controller (2 failed / 4 passed): 0 and "0" on yourself. `false` was
already refused, and the three "somebody else" cases are green either way
-- they guard against the fix over-refusing, not against the bug.
Full suite passes (2054 passed / 2 skipped), PHPStan level 8 clean.
EnforceTwoFactor exempts by route name, and only the GET half of
confirm-password has one. routes/auth.php:95 names the form
`password.confirm`; :98 registers its submission with no name at all, and
Route::named() answers false for a null name.
So the loop the exemption exists to prevent is still there, one step
further along. With Setting::TwoFactorEnforcement set to staff, clients
or all, an un-enrolled account walks:
GET /dashboard -> two-factor.show
GET /system/settings/security -> two-factor.show
PATCH /system/settings/security -> two-factor.show
POST /settings/two-factor -> /confirm-password (RequirePassword)
GET /confirm-password -> 200, the form renders
POST /confirm-password -> two-factor.show <- not exempt
`auth.password_confirmed_at` is never written, so enrolling can never
start, and every route that is not on the exemption list stays shut --
including Settings -> Security, the one screen that could turn
enforcement back off. Logout is the only door left; recovery is CLI or
database access. It takes one administrator turning the setting on to
reach it, and it reaches every account on the installation at once,
including their own.
The fix is the name. `password.confirm*` then covers both halves of one
screen, matching `two-factor.*` in the same expression; the namespace
belongs entirely to a flow enrolment already depends on being reachable,
and the route table has nothing else under it -- `password.confirm` (GET)
and `password.confirm.store` (POST) are the two it reaches.
Exempting the submission grants nothing further. store() validates the
password, writes a session flag and redirects; the redirect it issues
enters this middleware like any other request, so Settings -> Security is
still answered with two-factor.show after confirming. What changes is
that enrolment can now be started.
Two tests, both measured red against the unfixed middleware: the password
confirmation sticks, and enrolment can be started afterwards (the secret
is written and the screen reports `pending`).
Also named the redirect the existing test settles for. `->assertRedirect()`
with no target passes on this middleware bouncing the request back to
two-factor.show, which is the shape that file exists to refuse. It is a
clarification rather than a guard -- that assertion is green either way,
since the redirect it sees comes from RequirePassword.
Full suite passes (2050 passed / 2 skipped), PHPStan level 8 clean.
Nobody hands out reach they do not hold either
Two resolutions against branches that landed first. #1678 and this one
each add a constructor property and an import to StaffAccounts, so both
are kept. And #1702's merge note called this one exactly: its
"converting an account to staff cannot hand out clients either" case
promoted a stranger client, which #1702 now refuses at 404 before
validation runs. Pointed at a client the actor holds, as that note
proposed, so the request reaches the assigned_clients rule the case is
actually about.
Delete an account and dispose of its content in one transaction
Resolved the conflict with #1678 the way that PR's merge note predicted:
the erasure stamp goes inside the new transaction, so a deletion that
rolls back cannot leave a live account carrying a date on which it would
be erased.
StaffAccounts opens with the rule: "Nobody hands out authority they do
not hold ... that turns one permission into every permission and makes
the rest of the matrix decorative." mayGrant() enforces it for a role's
permissions, guardTarget() applies the same test to an existing account,
and RolesController::guardGrantablePermissions() names the attack in
full -- a non-administrator holding manage_users minting a role that
carries more than they do, and then holding it.
A role carries one more thing, and it is the larger one. `client_scoped`
decides whether the role reaches the clients assigned to its holder or
the whole library, which is the boundary StaffLibraryScope,
ActivityLogScope and every listing in the application are built around.
Nothing weighed it. store() and update() wrote the flag straight from
the request, and mayGrant() looked only at permissions -- so
`manage_users` on a client-scoped role was enough to take the limit off
that role and keep working, or to mint a role without one and move into
it. Either way the next request read the whole library, and the
`assigned_clients` roster that #1697 protects stopped meaning anything
for that account.
Both halves of the existing pair get the missing clause:
- guardScopeRemoval() in RolesController refuses a client-scoped actor
who creates a role without the limit, or takes the limit off one
that has it. Phrased as "removes the limit" rather than "is not
limited", so only what this request changes is weighed -- the same
reasoning guardGrantablePermissions() gives for looking at the diff.
Editing an already-unlimited role's permissions is not this actor
lifting a limit. Both writers resolve the flag with
Request::boolean() and hand that same value to the guard and to the
write: the `boolean` validation rule accepts "0" and 0 as well as
false and validates without casting, so reading the validated array
and comparing it strictly would leave this guard and the model's own
`boolean` cast disagreeing about one value -- which is the shape the
guard exists to prevent.
- mayGrant() refuses a client-scoped actor granting a role that is not
client-scoped, which closes assigning an existing one. It reaches
both surfaces at once: assignableRoleIds() validates role_id on the
web and API staff forms and on the account converter,
assignableRoles() fills the pickers, and guardTarget() covers the
account itself.
Administrators are unaffected -- mayGrant() returns early for them, and
an administrator role is never client-scoped. Unscoped staff are
unaffected: the clause is conditioned on the actor's own scope, so a
non-administrator with manage_users and no limit creates, edits and
grants exactly as before. The seeded roles are untouched; update()
already refused to move the flag on a system role, which is why the
stock Client Manager was never the way in.
Two changes a client-scoped holder of manage_users will notice, both
following from mayGrant():
- the role picker on the staff form and the account converter now
offers only client-scoped roles, rather than offering one the
request behind it would refuse;
- editing or deleting a staff account whose role is not client-scoped
now answers 403, through guardTarget(), on the same "if you could
not grant their role you have no business editing that account"
rule that already applied to permissions.
The roles API is read-only (GET /roles is the whole surface), so this
half has no API twin to mirror; the account half is covered above.
An account deleted by an administrator was soft-deleted with erase_after
null, so projectsend:purge-erasures — which filters on
whereNotNull('erase_after') — never reached it, and the unique index on
users.email kept the address reserved forever. Anyone re-creating the
account got "The email has already been taken", naming a conflict nothing
on any screen could show or clear (#1648).
Both halves of the issue's option 3:
Every deletion path now schedules the erasure. The stamp lives in
ErasureSchedule — self-deletion switched to it, and StaffAccounts::delete
(shared by the web screen and the API) and both client controllers call
it right before delete(). Same grace period, same purge, whoever deleted
the account. Deliberately no backfill for rows deleted before this
change: stamping them during an update would start a countdown to data
erasure that nobody chose at deletion time; the message below covers
them instead.
The staff creation paths swap unique:users,email for AvailableEmailRule,
which refuses exactly the same things but can explain the one refusal
the stock message can't: an address held by a deleted account now names
the date it becomes available, and one deleted before scheduling existed
points at projectsend:erase-account. A living account keeps the stock
message, and public registration keeps the stock rule — telling an
anonymous visitor the address belongs to a deleted account would confirm
it had an account here.
StaffAccounts opens with the rule for roles: "Nobody hands out authority
they do not hold … that turns one permission into every permission and
makes the rest of the matrix decorative." mayGrant enforces it, and
guardTarget applies the same test to an existing account.
The client roster never got the same treatment. `assigned_clients` was
validated as `exists:users,id where type = client` and passed straight to
syncAssignedClients, with nothing anywhere asking whether the actor holds
the clients they are handing out. Assigning a client is not a label: it
is that client's whole library, given to whoever is on the other end.
The case that matters is the actor's own account. guardTarget returns
immediately when the target is the actor — editing your own name and
email is not a question of authority — so a client-scoped staff member
with edit_users could PATCH their own id with every client on the
installation and read the whole library from then on.
assignableClientIds() answers the roster question the way
assignableRoleIds() answers the role one, and the five places that accept
`assigned_clients` — users store and update on both surfaces, and the
account conversion — validate against it. It returns the full roster for
an unrestricted actor, so every caller validates against one list instead
of composing a conditional rule; that list is already client-typed, which
is why one rule replaces the exists() and the type filter together.
The two pickers that offer the roster are narrowed to the same list, so a
form no longer offers a client the request behind it will refuse.
syncAssignedClients is untouched: which ids stick to which role is its
decision and it was never the problem.
Deleting a staff or client account is two writes: soft-delete the account,
then cascade or reassign the files and folders it owns. All four destroy()
paths (Users + Clients, web + API) ran them one after the other with nothing
tying them together.
If the second write throws, the account is already gone but its content is
not handled. The concrete way in is the reassign branch: validate() checks
reassign_to_id with exists(active), but apply() re-resolves it with
findOrFail() a moment later (AccountContentDeletion:108), so a target
deactivated or deleted in between throws — leaving a soft-deleted account
whose files still point at it, and a UserDeleted log for a deletion that did
not finish.
Wrap the delete()+apply() pair in a single DB::transaction() in each of the
four destroy() methods. validate() and the authorization guards stay outside
it: they are read-only and must be able to reject before anything is written.
cascadeDelete()/reassignTo() already open their own transaction, which nests
as a savepoint under this one, so the account soft-delete, its activity log,
and the content work now commit or roll back together.
Tests: a DeletedAccountContent double that reports content to handle and then
throws while handling it (tests/Helpers.php) drives one test per destroy()
endpoint asserting the account survives the failure and no UserDeleted entry
is written; each goes red against the un-wrapped controller.
Four create flows redirected to the new record's edit page on success,
but store is gated by create_* while the edit page is gated by edit_*,
and PermissionChecker has no create-implies-edit rule. A role holding
create_* without edit_* would create the record -- write, activity log
and notifications all run -- and then meet a 403 on the success
redirect, with no way to tell the action worked and every reason to
submit a duplicate. Categories is reachable with plain UI clicks, since
the sidebar shows it from create_categories alone.
Keep landing on the edit page for anyone who may edit, and divert only
those who can't -- to the create form, which shares store's own gate
and is therefore reachable by exactly whoever just created the record;
the success toast shows there. The index would not do: Clients/Groups
lists are gated by manage_*, which store itself does not require.
Implying edit_* from create_* would not do either -- edit has no
own/others split here, so it would silently hand a deliberately narrow
create-only role edit (two-factor reset included) on every existing
record.
#1680 fixed the redirect rendered from an exception and said plainly
what it did not cover: EnsureSetupIsComplete, EnsureAccountIsActive and
EnforceTwoFactor answer before HandleInertiaRequests is ever entered, so
a response they return never unwinds through Inertia's 302 to 303
upgrade either. Same 405, reached a different way — an account
deactivated while its owner was part-way through a form, or one being
made to enrol in two-factor.
The rule now lives in one place rather than four. Three copies of "if
the method is PUT, PATCH or DELETE" is how the fourth caller gets it
wrong, and WriteSafeRedirect can carry the explanation of why 303 —
which is worth more than the three lines it replaces, because nothing
about a bare setStatusCode call says what a browser does with a 302.
PUT /timezone is the route the setup test uses: it is one of only two
writes a guest can reach and the only one that middleware does not
exempt, so the case is real rather than defensive. All three new tests
were run against the unfixed middleware and fail there.
Extends the work of @denkfabrik-li, who found the gap and wrote it down.
Setup ended by handing somebody a login form and an empty dashboard.
Everything this application can do was one menu away, and which menu was
theirs to discover.
The first time the administrator signs in to a new installation they now
land on a short ordered list of what is worth doing first — add a client,
upload a file, group the people who get the same things, choose how the
file lists and the email look, point it at a mail server, add the team,
check the scheduler — each a link straight to the screen that does it.
The list is filtered twice, and both filters matter. By permission,
because a link that answers 403 is worse than no link. And by edition:
a managed installation is not sent off to configure a mail server
somebody else runs, to create staff accounts that are not its to create,
or to check a scheduler it does not host. Those three drop out on Cloud
and the other five remain.
Two steps tick themselves, because the database can answer them: a client
exists, a file exists. Nothing else is checkable without guessing — a
theme that was never changed looks exactly like one chosen deliberately —
and a tick meaning "we assume so" is worse than no tick.
The invitation to the Discord is at the very bottom, after the list.
Somebody who has just installed this came with a job in mind, and opening
with a social invitation is the fastest way to lose them.
The marker is raised where a first administrator comes into existence —
the setup screen and `projectsend:admin`, so a container provisioned from
environment variables is welcomed too — and it is false by default, so an
installation that updates into this feature is not congratulated on an
install it finished a year ago.
RedirectToWhatsNew becomes RedirectToGreeting and answers for both: they
are the same interruption, and a second middleware on the same route
would have to know about the first to avoid arguing with it. Installing
wins; release notes for a version you never ran are the wrong greeting.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Client file sharing, rebuilt from the ground up: a private area per
client, resumable uploads, folders, groups and categories, sharing with
expiry dates and download limits, comments, file versions, an activity
log, a REST API, and sixteen languages.
This repository begins here. ProjectSend 2 was developed privately, and
that development history is not published — the previous generation
remains available, with its own history, at projectsend/legacy.
Free software under the GNU General Public License v2, or (at your
option) any later version.
ignacionelson