[battery_manager] Resolved Permission Issues

[HenriRabalais]

Brief summary of changes

This PR fixes the getCenterId function in test.class.inc so that it always passes a value to the UserSiteMatch filter by converting a centerId value of null from the database to an array of all sites.

Testing instructions (if applicable)

1. Create a user and do not assign it battery_manager view or edit permission.
2. Ensure that battery_manager cannot be accessed.
3. Assign user battery_manager view permission.
4. Ensure that battery_manager entries at user's site can be view, but there is no ability to add, activate, deactivate or edit the entries.
5. Give user battery_manager edit permission.
6. Ensure that entries can be added, activated, deactivated and edited.

Link(s) to related issue(s)

• Resolves [battery_manager] View permission #6682

[driusan]

The two issues this PR says it resolved are tagged for the 23.0.x, this should go to the 23.0 branch, not main.

[driusan]

Actually hold off on that, it involves SQL, so might need some discussion..

[HenriRabalais]

@driusan The SQL is just permission label changes to clear up the confusing that was mentioned in #6683

[ridz1208]

@HenriRabalais you will need to separate the pure bugfix from the "clarification" we dont do patches on bugfix releases, specially non-urgent ones like this one

[HenriRabalais]

@ridz1208 @driusan fixed.

[pierre-p-s]

I am getting this error when testing:

[ridz1208]

@HenriRabalais the loadResources() function was added in #6640 in order to be able to check for access before loading the target entity.

because it is being called on the testEndpoint class from the php/libraries/module.class.inc on line 350 the testendpoint class needs to either define the loadResources() function (see code changes in pr #6640) or needs to extend NDB_Page which has an empty implementation of loadResources() (see same PR)

[HenriRabalais]

@ridz1208 but what does that have to do with this PR? Isn't that an issue that should be solved separately and exists separately to the introduction of this PR?

[ridz1208]

@HenriRabalais not if u want your pr to pass testing. The base on which your pr is based has these changes which means your changes need to adapt as well. Call it a double bugfix if you want, this bugfix would have been necessary whether you had issued this PR or not (given that the problematic code has not been introduced in this PR directly)

[ridz1208]

@pierre-p-s can you give it another go

stale

[pierre-p-s]

@ridz1208 @HenriRabalais
Testing worked

[driusan]

Travis disagrees.

[ridz1208]

@driusan I disagree with TRAVIS' disagreement

[ridz1208]

@driusan finally urs