Add an exception when not allowed to "Access Administration Interface"

[andrepereiradasilva]

Summary of Changes

This PR does for weblinks what was already done and merged for the core.
Replace existing 404 JError for a 403 php exception (JAccessExceptionNotallowed) when the user does not have access to "Access Administration Interface" (core.manage).

See also joomla/joomla-cms#11608

Testing Instructions

Code review.

[zero-24]

👍

[mbabker]

There should be a manifest script added to the package blocking installs on
older Joomla versions if this is accepted. Otherwise you'll get class not
found errors.

On Friday, August 19, 2016, andrepereiradasilva [email protected]
wrote:

Summary of Changes

This PR does for weblinks what was already done and merged for the core.
Replace existing 404 JError for a 403 php exception
(JAccessExceptionNotallowed) when the user does not have access to "Access
Administration Interface" (core.manage).

See also joomla/joomla-cms#11608
joomla/joomla-cms#11608
Testing Instructions

Code review.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#262
Commit Summary

• Add an exception when not allowed

File Changes

• M src/administrator/components/com_weblinks/weblinks.php
  https://github.com/joomla-extensions/weblinks/pull/262/files#diff-0
  (2)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/joomla-extensions/weblinks/pull/262.patch
• https://github.com/joomla-extensions/weblinks/pull/262.diff

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#262, or mute the
thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWfodqt7FrAyg_euRPdcnlHf9RFpHiwks5qhjWQgaJpZM4Jo65Y
.

[andrepereiradasilva]

There should be a manifest script added to the package blocking installs on older Joomla versions if this is accepted. Otherwise you'll get class not found errors.

i know and has about to write that here.
Yes, must be J! 3.6.3+ to get the correct message in the error or will get an error also but with an incorrect message JAccessExceptionNotallowed not found or something.

[chrisdavenport]

I don't like the name of that exception. In English it reads like the exception is not allowed! But I suppose there isn't much to be done about it given the autoloader, right?

[mbabker]

Pretty much. In our namespaced code the Exception objects either get into
their own namespace or don't have this issue of fighting with a camel cased
autoloader but can enjoy the benefit of PSR-4 rules. I don't like the
names of the cache and database exceptions I added either but it's all the
same problem in the end.

On Friday, August 19, 2016, Chris Davenport [email protected]
wrote:

In src/administrator/components/com_weblinks/weblinks.php
#262 (comment)
:

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@

if (!JFactory::getUser()->authorise('core.manage', 'com_weblinks'))
{

• return JError::raiseWarning(404, JText::_('JERROR_ALERTNOAUTHOR'));
• throw new JAccessExceptionNotallowed(JText::_('JERROR_ALERTNOAUTHOR'), 403);

I don't like the name of that exception. In English it reads like the
exception is not allowed! But I suppose there isn't much to be done about
it given the autoloader, right?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/joomla-extensions/weblinks/pull/262/files/cfa32e7ec46893a49d281460600711c8df8ec7d6#r75564612,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAWfoQ1qh4gcBAC8W_OBJRSH6qdp5LU6ks5qhjr7gaJpZM4Jo65Y
.

[zero-24]

Can we move this forward? As we have the same exeption JAccessExceptionNotallowed in the core we can go with it?

[andrepereiradasilva]

this can only be merged if the next weblinks version is only 3.6.3+

[yvesh]

@andrepereiradasilva imo weblinks should only support latest stable release. But it's probably a PLT decision needed on that..

[chrisdavenport]

@andrepereiradasilva Can you update this PR to block installs prior to 3.6.3? I can't think of any good reason to support earlier versions. Thanks.

[andrepereiradasilva]

i think that should not be related to this PR, but the release itself

[yvesh]

Thank you @andrepereiradasilva, we will add a check that we only support latest 3.6 version.