Unify logic of e_user_model::checkAdminPerms() and getperms()

[Deltik]

Motivation and Context

I had some concerns about 44526b4 and 001799c:

The modified method signature of e_user_model::checkAdminPerms() defeats the encapsulation offered by moving the global getperms() to e_user_model::checkAdminPerms() per user because $ap would override the object's internal state for the purposes of simulating permissions.

To remedy this, I suggest that we extract getperms() into a third static method that doesn't depend on state―perhaps called e_userperms::checkAdminPerms()―and have both getperms() and e_user_model::checkAdminPerms() call it to check the admin permissions. This way, we can have both backwards compatibility and encapsulation for the two different styles we support.

---

I have another concern, which is the extra logic for plugins. I would move this into a new method called e_user_model::checkPluginAdminPerms($plugin_name) which then calls e_user_model::checkAdminPerms() once it has figured out the $perm_str.

Description

Along with extensive documentation, getperms() is now deprecated and its replacements now have first-class support:

• e_user_model::checkAdminPerms() and getperms() both use e_userperms::simulateHasAdminPerms().
• e_user_model::checkPluginAdminPerms() and getperms('P', …, …) both use e_userperms::simulateHasPluginAdminPerms().

---

Partially reverts: 44526b43

Reverts: 001799cb

Fixes: #5064

How Has This Been Tested?

As this is a refactoring only, all existing tests of getperms() pass.

I also added some tests for the misuse cases of whitespace in the second argument or an integer in the first argument of getperms(0, ' ').

Types of Changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
• Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist

• My code adheres to the e107 code style standard.
• I have read the contributing document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests pass.

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit dd36fbd and detected 183 issues on this pull request.

Here's the issue category breakdown:

Category	Count
Bug Risk	183

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 77.5% (80% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 34.4% (-0.2% change).

View more on Code Climate.

[CaMer0n]

Thank you!! 🥇 👍