The four routes that edit a group's membership -- add and remove, web
and API -- contain no authorization call of any kind. `can:edit_groups`
in front of them is the whole of it, and a permission is not a boundary.
The authorization sweep looked at these and let them stand, on the
grounds that groups are installation-wide by design: GroupsController
::index lists every group unfiltered, so list and single-object access
agree, and there is no listing/direct-access mismatch to fix. That is
true, and it is the answer to the question of who may *see* a group.
This is a different question: what a write to one *does*.
Joining a group hands the new member everything shared with it. When
that member is one of a client-scoped staff member's own clients,
File::scopeVisibleToClient hands the same content straight back to them
-- that scope is what StaffLibraryScope::files() is built out of. So the
one write turns a file they get a 403 on into a file in their library,
and the download that follows is a 200. ResolvesShareTargets draws that
line on the sharing path through canAssignGroup(); nobody drew it on the
membership path, and canAssignGroup() is *derived from membership*, so
whoever may edit the list also decides what the list entitles them to.
StaffLibraryScope::allowsGroupMembership answers it directly instead of
through the derived predicate, which is the wrong tool here twice over.
Membership asks about reach, so it checks reach: the client must be one
this staff member holds, and the group must not already reach past their
library -- no file assigned to it, and no folder shared with it, outside
StaffLibraryScope. A group nothing has been shared with passes trivially,
which matters, because canAssignGroup() would have said no to a group
that has no members yet and left a scoped staff member unable to put the
first client into one they had just created.
The same write has a second door. MembershipRequestsController::approve
joins a client to a group with identical consequences, under
`approve_groups_memberships_requests`, and deny() decides about somebody
else's client and emails them about it. Both go through the same
boundary, answering 404 to match the guard already above approve().
The queue and its sidebar badge are narrowed to the clients the viewer
holds, through one scope on the model that both read -- the rule the
comment badge in HandleInertiaRequests already states two branches down
("a client-scoped staff member is not shown a number they cannot act
on"), and the reason VisibleCommentScope owns its own pendingTotal()
rather than leaving the middleware to count for itself. Each row carries
the client's name and email, so an unnarrowed queue was also handing
those over for clients outside the roster. Unscoped staff still see every
pending request.
That narrowing is on the client, not on the group: whether a group is
reachable depends on what is shared with it, which is not a question to
ask row by row in a listing. A scoped viewer may therefore still be
shown a request they would be refused on -- one of their own clients
asking to join a group out of their reach. The names were the part that
leaked.
Unscoped staff are unaffected throughout -- both halves of the predicate
are true for them by construction. No seeded role reaches this: Client
Manager is the only client-scoped role that ships, and it holds no group
permissions, so a custom role is needed to get here at all.
The published API document gains a 403 on both member routes.
Regenerated with php artisan scramble:export; Scramble reads abort_unless
out of the method body but not out of a private helper, which is why the
guard is written out at each of the four call sites rather than shared.
FileCommentPolicy::moderate() asked only whether somebody is staff and
holds moderate_comments. It never weighed the file the comment sits on,
and delete() returns true the moment moderate() does — so a client-scoped
moderator could delete any comment on the installation by naming its id.
Three call sites already knew this and wrote the boundary out by hand,
each with its own abort_unless($library->allowsFile(...), 403) after the
gate. The two that did not are FileCommentsController::destroy(), web and
API: both bind a comment directly, so nothing earlier in the request
establishes that the viewer may see its file.
The intent was documented in three places and enforced in none of them by
the policy — StaffLibraryScope says "the policies consult allowsFile() so
direct access respects the same boundary", VisibleCommentScope says "a
moderation screen is not a way around the visibility model". Put the rule
where those docblocks already say it lives.
moderate() now takes the comment when there is one. Named against the
class it still answers the coarser "does this user moderate at all",
which is what the queue's gate and the affordances ask. Membership is
tested by file id, so a file soft-deleted out from under its comments is
not in a scoped moderator's library either.
The author branch of delete() is deliberately untouched: deleting your
own words inside the edit window is not moderation, and a client is not
client-scoped in StaffLibraryScope's sense.
Approving through the API now derives its 403 from Gate::authorize rather
than the removed abort_unless, so the committed OpenAPI document gains
the shared AuthorizationException ref in place of an inline "An error"
schema — the shape nine of the other twelve documented 403s already use.
I said they could not, in the guide, the Zapier page and the changelog.
That was carried over from the limitation of polling a list, where a
deleted row stops being returned and nothing marks the moment it went. It
was never true of the activity endpoint: file.deleted is recorded like
any other action, so ?action[]=file.deleted works today.
Checked with a test rather than the enum, which turned up the shape a
caller needs: a deletion entry has no subject, because the row is gone by
the time the entry is written, so the name is snapshotted into
context.name instead. Reading subject.name there gets you null.
Every list in /api/v1 answers "what is there now". Nothing answered
"what happened", and for the two events people most want to act on there
was nowhere to look at all.
Sharing a file writes an assignment row and never touches the file, so no
amount of polling /files?updated_since= will ever show a share. A
download is recorded only in the activity log. So the most requested
automations for a file-sharing product — tell me when a client gets a
file, tell me when they open it — were not possible to build.
GET /api/v1/activity is one feed rather than one endpoint per event,
because the log already records every one of them and a caller filtering
by action gets whatever the application grows later without waiting for
us to expose it.
It reuses what already exists: view_actions_log is the permission the
activity screen uses, and ActivityLogScope narrows the rows the same way,
so a staff member limited to their assigned clients cannot read the whole
installation's log through a token when the screen would not show it.
Two deliberate limits. Class names never reach the wire — subject.type is
a stable public string, or moving a model between namespaces would be a
breaking change to a frozen contract. And no ip_address, though the
column exists and the screen shows it: a person looking at a log has
decided to look, where an integration streams every row to somebody
else's servers by default.
PollingQuery grew an optional column so it can walk a table that is
appended to rather than edited. The parameter stays updated_since
everywhere, because on an append-only log the two timestamps are the same
thing and one shape learned once is worth more than a second name.
Two things the guide got wrong, both of which would waste somebody's
afternoon.
It said tokens max out at a year and left it there. There is a "Never
expires" option on the token screen, and for an unattended integration
that is usually the right choice — the guide now says so, along with why
it is off by default and what to do instead if you keep an expiry.
And everything in it uses Webhooks by Zapier, which Zapier includes only
from its Professional plan up. Somebody on the free plan would follow the
whole page and then find they cannot add the step. That belongs at the
top, not in a support ticket.
The API has had everything Zapier needs since it shipped — a bearer
token, an auth-test endpoint at /me, and list endpoints that return
newest-first with a stable id, which is exactly the shape a polling
trigger wants. What was missing was anyone saying so.
This is written for somebody wiring up a Zap, not for somebody writing
code, which is why it is a second document rather than a section of the
guide. Same reason it renders in-app rather than linking to GitHub: the
installations most likely to need it are the ones least likely to have
outbound internet access.
It says out loud the two things that will otherwise be discovered the
hard way — a token expires within a year and nothing renews it, and a
deletion cannot start a Zap because polling cannot see one.
Discussion feedback: in ProjectSend "sending" can just as well mean
files. Outgoing email is unambiguous and the established name for this
screen elsewhere (GitLab, Jira, Moodle all call it that).
A step-by-step guide (docs/email-oauth.md, same shape as the API
guide, whitelisted alongside it) through both vendor consoles: the
Entra app registration with its three account-type choices and what
each means for the tenant field, and the Google Cloud client with its
consent screen, test users and the testing-status 7-day refresh-token
expiry. The troubleshooting entries are errors actually hit while
building this — including Graph's ErrorQuotaExceeded, whose message
text hides that the mailbox may simply be full.
The Sending tab links to the guide right where an admin picks an
OAuth provider, via the shared links.source origin.
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.
Ignacio Nelson