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.
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.
ignacionelson