synapse-old/tests/handlers/test_user_directory.py

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

1087 lines
43 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

# Copyright 2018 New Vector
#
# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
# You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
# limitations under the License.
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
from typing import Tuple
from unittest.mock import Mock, patch
from urllib.parse import quote
from twisted.test.proto_helpers import MemoryReactor
import synapse.rest.admin
from synapse.api.constants import UserTypes
from synapse.api.room_versions import RoomVersion, RoomVersions
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
from synapse.appservice import ApplicationService
from synapse.rest.client import login, register, room, user_directory
from synapse.server import HomeServer
from synapse.storage.roommember import ProfileInfo
from synapse.types import create_requester
from synapse.util import Clock
from tests import unittest
from tests.storage.test_user_directory import GetUserDirectoryTables
from tests.test_utils import make_awaitable
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
from tests.test_utils.event_injection import inject_member_event
from tests.unittest import override_config
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
class UserDirectoryTestCase(unittest.HomeserverTestCase):
"""Tests the UserDirectoryHandler.
We're broadly testing two kinds of things here.
1. Check that we correctly update the user directory in response
to events (e.g. join a room, leave a room, change name, make public)
2. Check that the search logic behaves as expected.
The background process that rebuilds the user directory is tested in
tests/storage/test_user_directory.py.
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
"""
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
servlets = [
login.register_servlets,
synapse.rest.admin.register_servlets,
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
register.register_servlets,
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
room.register_servlets,
]
def make_homeserver(self, reactor: MemoryReactor, clock: Clock) -> HomeServer:
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
config = self.default_config()
config["update_user_directory"] = True
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
self.appservice = ApplicationService(
token="i_am_an_app_service",
id="1234",
namespaces={"users": [{"regex": r"@as_user.*", "exclusive": True}]},
# Note: this user does not match the regex above, so that tests
# can distinguish the sender from the AS user.
sender="@as_main:test",
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
)
mock_load_appservices = Mock(return_value=[self.appservice])
with patch(
"synapse.storage.databases.main.appservice.load_appservices",
mock_load_appservices,
):
hs = self.setup_test_homeserver(config=config)
return hs
def prepare(self, reactor: MemoryReactor, clock: Clock, hs: HomeServer) -> None:
self.store = hs.get_datastores().main
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
self.handler = hs.get_user_directory_handler()
self.event_builder_factory = self.hs.get_event_builder_factory()
self.event_creation_handler = self.hs.get_event_creation_handler()
self.user_dir_helper = GetUserDirectoryTables(self.store)
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
def test_normal_user_pair(self) -> None:
"""Sanity check that the room-sharing tables are updated correctly."""
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
bob_token = self.login(bob, "pass")
public = self.helper.create_room_as(
alice,
is_public=True,
extra_content={"visibility": "public"},
tok=alice_token,
)
private = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=False, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.invite(private, alice, bob, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.join(public, bob, tok=bob_token)
self.helper.join(private, bob, tok=bob_token)
# Alice also makes a second public room but no-one else joins
public2 = self.helper.create_room_as(
alice,
is_public=True,
extra_content={"visibility": "public"},
tok=alice_token,
)
# The user directory should reflect the room memberships above.
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, {(alice, public), (bob, public), (alice, public2)})
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
self.assertEqual(
in_private,
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
{(alice, bob, private), (bob, alice, private)},
)
# The next four tests (test_excludes_*) all setup
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
# - A normal user included in the user dir
# - A public and private room created by that user
# - A user excluded from the room dir, belonging to both rooms
# They match similar logic in storage/test_user_directory. But that tests
# rebuilding the directory; this tests updating it incrementally.
def test_excludes_support_user(self) -> None:
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
support = "@support1:test"
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(
user_id=support, password_hash=None, user_type=UserTypes.SUPPORT
)
)
public, private = self._create_rooms_and_inject_memberships(
alice, alice_token, support
)
self._check_only_one_user_in_directory(alice, public)
def test_excludes_deactivated_user(self) -> None:
admin = self.register_user("admin", "pass", admin=True)
admin_token = self.login(admin, "pass")
user = self.register_user("naughty", "pass")
# Deactivate the user.
channel = self.make_request(
"PUT",
f"/_synapse/admin/v2/users/{user}",
access_token=admin_token,
content={"deactivated": True},
)
self.assertEqual(channel.code, 200)
self.assertEqual(channel.json_body["deactivated"], True)
# Join the deactivated user to rooms owned by the admin.
# Is this something that could actually happen outside of a test?
public, private = self._create_rooms_and_inject_memberships(
admin, admin_token, user
)
self._check_only_one_user_in_directory(admin, public)
def test_excludes_appservices_user(self) -> None:
# Register an AS user.
user = self.register_user("user", "pass")
token = self.login(user, "pass")
as_user, _ = self.register_appservice_user(
"as_user_potato", self.appservice.token
)
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
# Join the AS user to rooms owned by the normal user.
public, private = self._create_rooms_and_inject_memberships(
user, token, as_user
)
self._check_only_one_user_in_directory(user, public)
def test_excludes_appservice_sender(self) -> None:
user = self.register_user("user", "pass")
token = self.login(user, "pass")
room = self.helper.create_room_as(user, is_public=True, tok=token)
self.helper.join(room, self.appservice.sender, tok=self.appservice.token)
self._check_only_one_user_in_directory(user, room)
def test_user_not_in_users_table(self) -> None:
"""Unclear how it happens, but on matrix.org we've seen join events
for users who aren't in the users table. Test that we don't fall over
when processing such a user.
"""
user1 = self.register_user("user1", "pass")
token1 = self.login(user1, "pass")
room = self.helper.create_room_as(user1, is_public=True, tok=token1)
# Inject a join event for a user who doesn't exist
self.get_success(inject_member_event(self.hs, room, "@not-a-user:test", "join"))
# Another new user registers and joins the room
user2 = self.register_user("user2", "pass")
token2 = self.login(user2, "pass")
self.helper.join(room, user2, tok=token2)
# The dodgy event should not have stopped us from processing user2's join.
in_public = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms())
self.assertEqual(set(in_public), {(user1, room), (user2, room)})
def test_excludes_users_when_making_room_public(self) -> None:
# Create a regular user and a support user.
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
support = "@support1:test"
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(
user_id=support, password_hash=None, user_type=UserTypes.SUPPORT
)
)
# Make a public and private room containing Alice and the support user
public, initially_private = self._create_rooms_and_inject_memberships(
alice, alice_token, support
)
self._check_only_one_user_in_directory(alice, public)
# Alice makes the private room public.
self.helper.send_state(
initially_private,
"m.room.join_rules",
{"join_rule": "public"},
tok=alice_token,
)
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice})
self.assertEqual(in_public, {(alice, public), (alice, initially_private)})
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
def test_switching_from_private_to_public_to_private(self) -> None:
"""Check we update the room sharing tables when switching a room
from private to public, then back again to private."""
# Alice and Bob share a private room.
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
bob_token = self.login(bob, "pass")
room = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=False, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.invite(room, alice, bob, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.join(room, bob, tok=bob_token)
# The user directory should reflect this.
def check_user_dir_for_private_room() -> None:
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, set())
self.assertEqual(in_private, {(alice, bob, room), (bob, alice, room)})
check_user_dir_for_private_room()
# Alice makes the room public.
self.helper.send_state(
room,
"m.room.join_rules",
{"join_rule": "public"},
tok=alice_token,
)
# The user directory should be updated accordingly
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, {(alice, room), (bob, room)})
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
# Alice makes the room private.
self.helper.send_state(
room,
"m.room.join_rules",
{"join_rule": "invite"},
tok=alice_token,
)
# The user directory should be updated accordingly
check_user_dir_for_private_room()
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
def _create_rooms_and_inject_memberships(
self, creator: str, token: str, joiner: str
) -> Tuple[str, str]:
"""Create a public and private room as a normal user.
Then get the `joiner` into those rooms.
"""
# TODO: Duplicates the same-named method in UserDirectoryInitialPopulationTest.
public_room = self.helper.create_room_as(
creator,
is_public=True,
# See https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/10951
extra_content={"visibility": "public"},
tok=token,
)
private_room = self.helper.create_room_as(creator, is_public=False, tok=token)
# HACK: get the user into these rooms
self.get_success(inject_member_event(self.hs, public_room, joiner, "join"))
self.get_success(inject_member_event(self.hs, private_room, joiner, "join"))
return public_room, private_room
def _check_only_one_user_in_directory(self, user: str, public: str) -> None:
"""Check that the user directory DB tables show that:
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
- only one user is in the user directory
- they belong to exactly one public room
- they don't share a private room with anyone.
"""
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
self.assertEqual(users, {user})
self.assertEqual(in_public, {(user, public)})
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
def test_handle_local_profile_change_with_support_user(self) -> None:
support_user_id = "@support:test"
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(
user_id=support_user_id, password_hash=None, user_type=UserTypes.SUPPORT
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
)
)
regular_user_id = "@regular:test"
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(user_id=regular_user_id, password_hash=None)
)
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
self.get_success(
self.handler.handle_local_profile_change(
support_user_id, ProfileInfo("I love support me", None)
)
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
)
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(support_user_id))
self.assertIsNone(profile)
display_name = "display_name"
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
profile_info = ProfileInfo(avatar_url="avatar_url", display_name=display_name)
self.get_success(
self.handler.handle_local_profile_change(regular_user_id, profile_info)
)
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(regular_user_id))
assert profile is not None
self.assertTrue(profile["display_name"] == display_name)
def test_handle_local_profile_change_with_deactivated_user(self) -> None:
# create user
r_user_id = "@regular:test"
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(user_id=r_user_id, password_hash=None)
)
# update profile
display_name = "Regular User"
profile_info = ProfileInfo(avatar_url="avatar_url", display_name=display_name)
self.get_success(
self.handler.handle_local_profile_change(r_user_id, profile_info)
)
# profile is in directory
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(r_user_id))
assert profile is not None
self.assertTrue(profile["display_name"] == display_name)
# deactivate user
self.get_success(self.store.set_user_deactivated_status(r_user_id, True))
self.get_success(self.handler.handle_local_user_deactivated(r_user_id))
# profile is not in directory
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(r_user_id))
self.assertIsNone(profile)
# update profile after deactivation
self.get_success(
self.handler.handle_local_profile_change(r_user_id, profile_info)
)
# profile is furthermore not in directory
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(r_user_id))
self.assertIsNone(profile)
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
def test_handle_local_profile_change_with_appservice_user(self) -> None:
# create user
as_user_id, _ = self.register_appservice_user(
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
"as_user_alice", self.appservice.token
)
# profile is not in directory
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(as_user_id))
self.assertIsNone(profile)
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
# update profile
profile_info = ProfileInfo(avatar_url="avatar_url", display_name="4L1c3")
self.get_success(
self.handler.handle_local_profile_change(as_user_id, profile_info)
)
# profile is still not in directory
profile = self.get_success(self.store.get_user_in_directory(as_user_id))
self.assertIsNone(profile)
def test_handle_local_profile_change_with_appservice_sender(self) -> None:
# profile is not in directory
profile = self.get_success(
self.store.get_user_in_directory(self.appservice.sender)
)
self.assertIsNone(profile)
# update profile
profile_info = ProfileInfo(avatar_url="avatar_url", display_name="4L1c3")
self.get_success(
self.handler.handle_local_profile_change(
self.appservice.sender, profile_info
)
)
# profile is still not in directory
profile = self.get_success(
self.store.get_user_in_directory(self.appservice.sender)
)
self.assertIsNone(profile)
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
def test_handle_user_deactivated_support_user(self) -> None:
s_user_id = "@support:test"
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(
user_id=s_user_id, password_hash=None, user_type=UserTypes.SUPPORT
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
)
)
mock_remove_from_user_dir = Mock(return_value=make_awaitable(None))
with patch.object(
self.store, "remove_from_user_dir", mock_remove_from_user_dir
):
self.get_success(self.handler.handle_local_user_deactivated(s_user_id))
# BUG: the correct spelling is assert_not_called, but that makes the test fail
# and it's not clear that this is actually the behaviour we want.
mock_remove_from_user_dir.not_called()
def test_handle_user_deactivated_regular_user(self) -> None:
r_user_id = "@regular:test"
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(user_id=r_user_id, password_hash=None)
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
)
mock_remove_from_user_dir = Mock(return_value=make_awaitable(None))
with patch.object(
self.store, "remove_from_user_dir", mock_remove_from_user_dir
):
self.get_success(self.handler.handle_local_user_deactivated(r_user_id))
mock_remove_from_user_dir.assert_called_once_with(r_user_id)
def test_reactivation_makes_regular_user_searchable(self) -> None:
user = self.register_user("regular", "pass")
user_token = self.login(user, "pass")
admin_user = self.register_user("admin", "pass", admin=True)
admin_token = self.login(admin_user, "pass")
# Ensure the regular user is publicly visible and searchable.
self.helper.create_room_as(user, is_public=True, tok=user_token)
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(admin_user, user, 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
self.assertEqual(s["results"][0]["user_id"], user)
# Deactivate the user and check they're not searchable.
deactivate_handler = self.hs.get_deactivate_account_handler()
self.get_success(
deactivate_handler.deactivate_account(
user, erase_data=False, requester=create_requester(admin_user)
)
)
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(admin_user, user, 10))
self.assertEqual(s["results"], [])
# Reactivate the user
channel = self.make_request(
"PUT",
f"/_synapse/admin/v2/users/{quote(user)}",
access_token=admin_token,
content={"deactivated": False, "password": "pass"},
)
self.assertEqual(channel.code, 200)
user_token = self.login(user, "pass")
self.helper.create_room_as(user, is_public=True, tok=user_token)
# Check they're searchable.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(admin_user, user, 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
self.assertEqual(s["results"][0]["user_id"], user)
def test_process_join_after_server_leaves_room(self) -> None:
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
bob_token = self.login(bob, "pass")
# Alice makes two rooms. Bob joins one of them.
room1 = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, tok=alice_token)
room2 = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.join(room1, bob, tok=bob_token)
# The user sharing tables should have been updated.
public1 = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms())
self.assertEqual(set(public1), {(alice, room1), (alice, room2), (bob, room1)})
# Alice leaves room1. The user sharing tables should be updated.
self.helper.leave(room1, alice, tok=alice_token)
public2 = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms())
self.assertEqual(set(public2), {(alice, room2), (bob, room1)})
# Pause the processing of new events.
dir_handler = self.hs.get_user_directory_handler()
dir_handler.update_user_directory = False
# Bob leaves one room and joins the other.
self.helper.leave(room1, bob, tok=bob_token)
self.helper.join(room2, bob, tok=bob_token)
# Process the leave and join in one go.
dir_handler.update_user_directory = True
dir_handler.notify_new_event()
self.wait_for_background_updates()
# The user sharing tables should have been updated.
public3 = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms())
self.assertEqual(set(public3), {(alice, room2), (bob, room2)})
def test_per_room_profile_doesnt_alter_directory_entry(self) -> None:
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
# Alice should have a user directory entry created at registration.
users = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_profiles_in_user_directory())
self.assertEqual(
users[alice], ProfileInfo(display_name="alice", avatar_url=None)
)
# Alice makes a room for herself.
room = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=True, tok=alice_token)
# Alice sets a nickname unique to that room.
self.helper.send_state(
room,
"m.room.member",
{
"displayname": "Freddy Mercury",
"membership": "join",
},
alice_token,
state_key=alice,
)
# Alice's display name remains the same in the user directory.
search_result = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(bob, alice, 10))
self.assertEqual(
search_result["results"],
[{"display_name": "alice", "avatar_url": None, "user_id": alice}],
0,
)
def test_making_room_public_doesnt_alter_directory_entry(self) -> None:
"""Per-room names shouldn't go to the directory when the room becomes public.
This isn't about preventing a leak (the room is now public, so the nickname
is too). It's about preserving the invariant that we only show a user's public
profile in the user directory results.
I made this a Synapse test case rather than a Complement one because
I think this is (strictly speaking) an implementation choice. Synapse
has chosen to only ever use the public profile when responding to a user
directory search. There's no privacy leak here, because making the room
public discloses the per-room name.
The spec doesn't mandate anything about _how_ a user
should appear in a /user_directory/search result. Hypothetical example:
suppose Bob searches for Alice. When representing Alice in a search
result, it's reasonable to use any of Alice's nicknames that Bob is
aware of. Heck, maybe we even want to use lots of them in a combined
displayname like `Alice (aka "ali", "ally", "41iC3")`.
"""
# TODO the same should apply when Alice is a remote user.
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
bob_token = self.login(bob, "pass")
# Alice and Bob are in a private room.
room = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=False, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.invite(room, src=alice, targ=bob, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.join(room, user=bob, tok=bob_token)
# Alice has a nickname unique to that room.
self.helper.send_state(
room,
"m.room.member",
{
"displayname": "Freddy Mercury",
"membership": "join",
},
alice_token,
state_key=alice,
)
# Check Alice isn't recorded as being in a public room.
public = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms())
self.assertNotIn((alice, room), public)
# One of them makes the room public.
self.helper.send_state(
room,
"m.room.join_rules",
{"join_rule": "public"},
alice_token,
)
# Check that Alice is now recorded as being in a public room
public = self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms())
self.assertIn((alice, room), public)
# Alice's display name remains the same in the user directory.
search_result = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(bob, alice, 10))
self.assertEqual(
search_result["results"],
[{"display_name": "alice", "avatar_url": None, "user_id": alice}],
0,
)
def test_private_room(self) -> None:
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
"""
A user can be searched for only by people that are either in a public
room, or that share a private chat.
"""
u1 = self.register_user("user1", "pass")
u1_token = self.login(u1, "pass")
u2 = self.register_user("user2", "pass")
u2_token = self.login(u2, "pass")
u3 = self.register_user("user3", "pass")
# u1 can't see u2 until they share a private room, or u1 is in a public room.
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
# Get u1 and u2 into a private room.
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
room = self.helper.create_room_as(u1, is_public=False, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.invite(room, src=u1, targ=u2, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.join(room, user=u2, tok=u2_token)
# Check we have populated the database correctly.
users, public_users, shares_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {u1, u2, u3})
self.assertEqual(shares_private, {(u1, u2, room), (u2, u1, room)})
self.assertEqual(public_users, set())
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
# We get one search result when searching for user2 by user1.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
# We get NO search results when searching for user2 by user3.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u3, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
# We get NO search results when searching for user3 by user1.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user3", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
# User 2 then leaves.
self.helper.leave(room, user=u2, tok=u2_token)
# Check this is reflected in the DB.
users, public_users, shares_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {u1, u2, u3})
self.assertEqual(shares_private, set())
self.assertEqual(public_users, set())
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
# User1 now gets no search results for any of the other users.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user3", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
def test_joining_private_room_with_excluded_user(self) -> None:
"""
When a user excluded from the user directory, E say, joins a private
room, E will not appear in the `users_who_share_private_rooms` table.
When a normal user, U say, joins a private room containing E, then
U will appear in the `users_who_share_private_rooms` table, but E will
not.
"""
# Setup a support and two normal users.
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
bob_token = self.login(bob, "pass")
support = "@support1:test"
self.get_success(
self.store.register_user(
user_id=support, password_hash=None, user_type=UserTypes.SUPPORT
)
)
# Alice makes a room. Inject the support user into the room.
room = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=False, tok=alice_token)
self.get_success(inject_member_event(self.hs, room, support, "join"))
# Check the DB state. The support user should not be in the directory.
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, set())
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
# Then invite Bob, who accepts.
self.helper.invite(room, alice, bob, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.join(room, bob, tok=bob_token)
# Check the DB state. The support user should not be in the directory.
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, set())
self.assertEqual(in_private, {(alice, bob, room), (bob, alice, room)})
def test_spam_checker(self) -> None:
"""
A user which fails the spam checks will not appear in search results.
"""
u1 = self.register_user("user1", "pass")
u1_token = self.login(u1, "pass")
u2 = self.register_user("user2", "pass")
u2_token = self.login(u2, "pass")
# We do not add users to the directory until they join a room.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
room = self.helper.create_room_as(u1, is_public=False, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.invite(room, src=u1, targ=u2, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.join(room, user=u2, tok=u2_token)
# Check we have populated the database correctly.
shares_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_users_who_share_private_rooms()
)
public_users = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms()
)
self.assertEqual(shares_private, {(u1, u2, room), (u2, u1, room)})
self.assertEqual(public_users, set())
# We get one search result when searching for user2 by user1.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
async def allow_all(user_profile: ProfileInfo) -> bool:
# Allow all users.
return False
# Configure a spam checker that does not filter any users.
spam_checker = self.hs.get_spam_checker()
spam_checker._check_username_for_spam_callbacks = [allow_all]
# The results do not change:
# We get one search result when searching for user2 by user1.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
# Configure a spam checker that filters all users.
async def block_all(user_profile: ProfileInfo) -> bool:
# All users are spammy.
return True
spam_checker._check_username_for_spam_callbacks = [block_all]
# User1 now gets no search results for any of the other users.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
def test_legacy_spam_checker(self) -> None:
"""
A spam checker without the expected method should be ignored.
"""
u1 = self.register_user("user1", "pass")
u1_token = self.login(u1, "pass")
u2 = self.register_user("user2", "pass")
u2_token = self.login(u2, "pass")
# We do not add users to the directory until they join a room.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 0)
room = self.helper.create_room_as(u1, is_public=False, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.invite(room, src=u1, targ=u2, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.join(room, user=u2, tok=u2_token)
# Check we have populated the database correctly.
shares_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_users_who_share_private_rooms()
)
public_users = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms()
)
self.assertEqual(shares_private, {(u1, u2, room), (u2, u1, room)})
self.assertEqual(public_users, set())
# Configure a spam checker.
spam_checker = self.hs.get_spam_checker()
# The spam checker doesn't need any methods, so create a bare object.
spam_checker.spam_checker = object()
# We get one search result when searching for user2 by user1.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user2", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
def test_initial_share_all_users(self) -> None:
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
"""
Search all users = True means that a user does not have to share a
private room with the searching user or be in a public room to be search
visible.
"""
self.handler.search_all_users = True
self.hs.config.userdirectory.user_directory_search_all_users = True
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
u1 = self.register_user("user1", "pass")
self.register_user("user2", "pass")
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
u3 = self.register_user("user3", "pass")
shares_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_users_who_share_private_rooms()
)
public_users = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_users_in_public_rooms()
)
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
# No users share rooms
self.assertEqual(public_users, set())
self.assertEqual(shares_private, set())
2019-03-07 02:22:53 -07:00
# Despite not sharing a room, search_all_users means we get a search
# result.
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, u3, 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
# We can find the other two users
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, "user", 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 2)
# Registering a user and then searching for them works.
u4 = self.register_user("user4", "pass")
s = self.get_success(self.handler.search_users(u1, u4, 10))
self.assertEqual(len(s["results"]), 1)
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
@override_config(
{
"user_directory": {
"enabled": True,
"search_all_users": True,
"prefer_local_users": True,
}
}
)
def test_prefer_local_users(self) -> None:
"""Tests that local users are shown higher in search results when
user_directory.prefer_local_users is True.
"""
# Create a room and few users to test the directory with
searching_user = self.register_user("searcher", "password")
searching_user_tok = self.login("searcher", "password")
room_id = self.helper.create_room_as(
searching_user,
room_version=RoomVersions.V1.identifier,
tok=searching_user_tok,
)
# Create a few local users and join them to the room
local_user_1 = self.register_user("user_xxxxx", "password")
local_user_2 = self.register_user("user_bbbbb", "password")
local_user_3 = self.register_user("user_zzzzz", "password")
self._add_user_to_room(room_id, RoomVersions.V1, local_user_1)
self._add_user_to_room(room_id, RoomVersions.V1, local_user_2)
self._add_user_to_room(room_id, RoomVersions.V1, local_user_3)
# Create a few "remote" users and join them to the room
remote_user_1 = "@user_aaaaa:remote_server"
remote_user_2 = "@user_yyyyy:remote_server"
remote_user_3 = "@user_ccccc:remote_server"
self._add_user_to_room(room_id, RoomVersions.V1, remote_user_1)
self._add_user_to_room(room_id, RoomVersions.V1, remote_user_2)
self._add_user_to_room(room_id, RoomVersions.V1, remote_user_3)
local_users = [local_user_1, local_user_2, local_user_3]
remote_users = [remote_user_1, remote_user_2, remote_user_3]
# The local searching user searches for the term "user", which other users have
# in their user id
results = self.get_success(
self.handler.search_users(searching_user, "user", 20)
)["results"]
received_user_id_ordering = [result["user_id"] for result in results]
# Typically we'd expect Synapse to return users in lexicographical order,
# assuming they have similar User IDs/display names, and profile information.
# Check that the order of returned results using our module is as we expect,
# i.e our local users show up first, despite all users having lexographically mixed
# user IDs.
[self.assertIn(user, local_users) for user in received_user_id_ordering[:3]]
[self.assertIn(user, remote_users) for user in received_user_id_ordering[3:]]
def _add_user_to_room(
self,
room_id: str,
room_version: RoomVersion,
user_id: str,
) -> None:
# Add a user to the room.
builder = self.event_builder_factory.for_room_version(
room_version,
{
"type": "m.room.member",
"sender": user_id,
"state_key": user_id,
"room_id": room_id,
"content": {"membership": "join"},
},
)
event, context = self.get_success(
self.event_creation_handler.create_new_client_event(builder)
)
self.get_success(
2022-05-31 06:17:50 -06:00
self.hs.get_storage_controllers().persistence.persist_event(event, context)
)
def test_local_user_leaving_room_remains_in_user_directory(self) -> None:
"""We've chosen to simplify the user directory's implementation by
always including local users. Ensure this invariant is maintained when
a local user
- leaves a room, and
- leaves the last room they're in which is visible to this server.
This is user-visible if the "search_all_users" config option is on: the
local user who left a room would no longer be searchable if this test fails!
"""
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
alice_token = self.login(alice, "pass")
bob = self.register_user("bob", "pass")
bob_token = self.login(bob, "pass")
# Alice makes two public rooms, which Bob joins.
room1 = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=True, tok=alice_token)
room2 = self.helper.create_room_as(alice, is_public=True, tok=alice_token)
self.helper.join(room1, bob, tok=bob_token)
self.helper.join(room2, bob, tok=bob_token)
# The user directory tables are updated.
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(
in_public, {(alice, room1), (alice, room2), (bob, room1), (bob, room2)}
)
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
# Alice leaves one room. She should still be in the directory.
self.helper.leave(room1, alice, tok=alice_token)
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, {(alice, room2), (bob, room1), (bob, room2)})
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
# Alice leaves the other. She should still be in the directory.
self.helper.leave(room2, alice, tok=alice_token)
self.wait_for_background_updates()
users, in_public, in_private = self.get_success(
self.user_dir_helper.get_tables()
)
self.assertEqual(users, {alice, bob})
self.assertEqual(in_public, {(bob, room1), (bob, room2)})
self.assertEqual(in_private, set())
def test_ignore_display_names_with_null_codepoints(self) -> None:
MXC_DUMMY = "mxc://dummy"
# Alice creates a public room.
alice = self.register_user("alice", "pass")
# Alice has a user directory entry to start with.
self.assertIn(
alice,
self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_profiles_in_user_directory()),
)
# Alice changes her name to include a null codepoint.
self.get_success(
self.hs.get_user_directory_handler().handle_local_profile_change(
alice,
ProfileInfo(
display_name="abcd\u0000efgh",
avatar_url=MXC_DUMMY,
),
)
)
# Alice's profile should be updated with the new avatar, but no display name.
self.assertEqual(
self.get_success(self.user_dir_helper.get_profiles_in_user_directory()),
{alice: ProfileInfo(display_name=None, avatar_url=MXC_DUMMY)},
)
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
class TestUserDirSearchDisabled(unittest.HomeserverTestCase):
servlets = [
user_directory.register_servlets,
room.register_servlets,
login.register_servlets,
synapse.rest.admin.register_servlets_for_client_rest_resource,
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
]
def make_homeserver(self, reactor: MemoryReactor, clock: Clock) -> HomeServer:
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
config = self.default_config()
config["update_user_directory"] = True
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
hs = self.setup_test_homeserver(config=config)
self.config = hs.config
return hs
def test_disabling_room_list(self) -> None:
self.config.userdirectory.user_directory_search_enabled = True
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
# Create two users and put them in the same room.
u1 = self.register_user("user1", "pass")
u1_token = self.login(u1, "pass")
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
u2 = self.register_user("user2", "pass")
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
u2_token = self.login(u2, "pass")
room = self.helper.create_room_as(u1, tok=u1_token)
self.helper.join(room, user=u2, tok=u2_token)
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
# Each should see the other when searching the user directory.
channel = self.make_request(
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
"POST",
b"user_directory/search",
b'{"search_term":"user2"}',
access_token=u1_token,
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
)
self.assertEqual(200, channel.code, channel.result)
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
self.assertTrue(len(channel.json_body["results"]) > 0)
# Disable user directory and check search returns nothing
self.config.userdirectory.user_directory_search_enabled = False
channel = self.make_request(
Consistently exclude from user_directory (#10960) * Introduce `should_include_local_users_in_dir` We exclude three kinds of local users from the user_directory tables. At present we don't consistently exclude all three in the same places. This commit introduces a new function to gather those exclusion conditions together. Because we have to handle local and remote users in different ways, I've made that function only consider the case of remote users. It's the caller's responsibility to make the local versus remote distinction clear and correct. A test fixup is required. The test now hits a path which makes db queries against the users table. The expected rows were missing, because we were using a dummy user that hadn't actually been registered. We also add new test cases to covert the exclusion logic. ---- By my reading this makes these changes: * When an app service user registers or changes their profile, they will _not_ be added to the user directory. (Previously only support and deactivated users were excluded). This is consistent with the logic that rebuilds the user directory. See also [the discussion here](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/pull/10914#discussion_r716859548). * When rebuilding the directory, exclude support and disabled users from room sharing tables. Previously only appservice users were excluded. * Exclude all three categories of local users when rebuilding the directory. Previously `_populate_user_directory_process_users` didn't do any exclusion. Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
2021-10-04 05:45:51 -06:00
"POST",
b"user_directory/search",
b'{"search_term":"user2"}',
access_token=u1_token,
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
)
self.assertEqual(200, channel.code, channel.result)
2019-03-20 09:16:36 -06:00
self.assertTrue(len(channel.json_body["results"]) == 0)