search

pundit-community / pundit-matchers

A set of RSpec matchers for testing Pundit authorisation policies.
MIT License
234 stars 22 forks source link
authorisation authorization pundit pundit-matchers rspec rspec-matchers ruby

readme

Pundit Matchers

Gem Version Test RuboCop

A set of RSpec matchers for testing Pundit authorisation policies. The matcher syntax was inspired by this excellent blog post from Thunderbolt Labs.

Installation

Include pundit-matchers in your Rails application's Gemfile, inside the test group:

group :test do
  gem 'pundit-matchers', '~> 3.1'
end

And then execute the following command:

bundle

Pundit Matchers expects that the application you're testing is using a software stack consisting of:

Setup

Add the following to the top of your Rails application's spec/spec_helper.rb file:

require 'pundit/matchers'

Configuration

Pundit Matchers relies on your policies having a user attribute. If your app checks against a differently named "user" model (such as account) you will need to set a user alias. To add a user alias, add the following configuration to your app's spec/spec_helper.rb or spec/rails_helper.rb file:

Pundit::Matchers.configure do |config|
  # Change the default user alias
  config.default_user_alias = :account

  # Change the user alias for a specific policy
  config.user_aliases = { 'Post' => :account }
end

Matchers

The following RSpec matchers can now be used in your Pundit policy spec files (by convention, saved in the spec/policies directory).

Permit Matchers

Forbid Matchers

A Basic Example of a Policy Spec

The following example shows how to structure a Pundit policy spec (in this example, the spec would be located in spec/policies/article_policy_spec.rb) which authorises administrators to view and manage articles, while visitors are only authorised to have read only access.

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[index show]) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_all_actions }
  end
end

A Testing Strategy

Pundit Matchers makes several assumptions about how you're going to structure your policy spec file. First, you should declare a subject for the spec. The subject should be a new instance of the policy class that you're testing. For example:

subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

The subject will be implicitly referenced inside of it blocks throughout the spec, whenever a permit or forbid matcher is used. The new method of the policy class should also contain the two objects that will be used to authorise each action within the policy: the user who is attempting access to the record and the record which is to be authorised.

Throughout the spec, you can use let statements to create objects for the user/record pair which is being authorised. For example, the following permit_action matcher would test that the user can destroy articles containing a user_id attribute which matches the user's ID:

let(:user) { User.create }
let(:article) { Article.new(user_id: user.id) }

it { is_expected.to permit_action(:destroy) }

The user and record objects used by the subject policy class will be reassigned whenever you reassign these using the let keyword. This will typically be done on a per context basis, as you will likely want to check the outcome of an authorisation attempt using different configurations of user/record pairs based on application state. These variations should be organised into separate RSpec context blocks, as in the previous example.

Testing For an Allow List of Permitted Actions

As of Pundit Matchers 2.1, the recommended approach is to use an explicit allow list of actions permitted by the policy (permit_only_actions) which will cause the test to fail if other actions in the policy are not forbidden.

Using allow lists ensures for comprehensiveness so that any actions that shouldn't be permitted don't slip through the cracks in practice, for example due to developer oversight. The OWASP Top 10 - 2021 recommends that access control enforces policy so that users cannot act outside of their intended permissions. It was discovered that 94% of applications that were tested had some form of broken access control with an average incidence rate of 3.81%.

The following example tests a policy that authorises visitors to view articles only, while administrators can create and update articles (but are forbidden from deleting them):

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[index show]) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[index show new create edit update]) }
  end
end

This approach would be robust in the following scenario:

The opposite approach is to test for the only actions that are forbidden with the forbid_only_actions matcher:

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to forbid_only_actions(%i[new create edit update destroy]) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to forbid_only_actions(%i[destroy]) }
  end
end

You can use both permit_only_actions and forbid_only_actions in the same context. However, this approach would test the policy twice. In terms of minimum clearance, using just the permit_only_actions matcher would be sufficient. The other advantage with permit_only_actions is that it does require knowledge of the whole policy.

Testing All Actions

In some cases, the allow list of permitted or forbidden actions will encompass all of the actions in the policy. As a shorthand, the permit_all_actions and forbid_all_actions matchers are also available. If all actions for a policy are expected to be permitted or forbidden you can write a single expectation that will check every action in the policy.

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

   context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to forbid_all_actions }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_all_actions }
  end
end

Testing a Single Action

While it is recommended to use permit_only_actions, sometimes you may want to test that a single action is authorised without testing other actions in the policy. This may be because you are only concerned about testing a particular context, for example testing whether a user can publish an article:

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:user) { User.create }

  context 'when user updates an article that they authored' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(user_id: user.id) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_action(:update) }
  end

  context 'when user updates an article that they did not author' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(user_id: nil) }

    it { is_expected.to forbid_action(:update) }
  end
end

Testing Multiple Actions

To test multiple actions at once the permit_actions and forbid_actions matchers can be used. Both matchers accept an array of actions as a parameter.

While it is recommended to use permit_only_actions over these more permissive matchers, they are useful for documenting the intent for a particular context; if you use the forbid_actions matchers it is a good idea to test using permit_only_actions matchers in addition to it for comprehensiveness.

In the following example, visitors can view articles, while administrators can also manage (but not delete) articles.

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[index show]) }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_actions(%i[create update destroy]) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[index show new create edit update]) }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_actions(%i[destroy]) }
  end
end

Optionally, you can pass the actions to the permit_actions and forbid_actions matchers as a series of parameters, rather than an array. The following examples are equivalent:

it { is_expected.to forbid_actions([:show, :create, :update]) }
it { is_expected.to forbid_actions(%i[show create update]) }
it { is_expected.to forbid_actions(:show, :create, :update) }

Testing New/Create and Edit/Update Pairs

It is common to write separate authorisation policies on a per action basis. A notable exception to this is in the case of new/create and edit/update action pairs. Generally speaking, you do not want to allow users to access a 'new' form unless the user is also authorised to create the record associated with that form. Similarly, you generally do not want the user to access an 'edit' form unless that user can also update the associated record.

Pundit Matchers provides four shortcut matchers to account for these common scenarios:

The following example tests a policy which grants administrators permission to create articles, but does not authorise visitors to do the same.

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to forbid_new_and_create_actions }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_new_and_create_actions }
  end
end

Testing if an Attribute is Authorised

For policies that contain a permitted_attributes method (to authorise only particular attributes), Pundit Matchers provides two matchers to test for mass assignment.

Let's modify the earlier example which tests a policy where administrators are granted permission to create articles, but visitors are not authorised to do so. In this updated example, visitors can create articles but they cannot set the publish flag.

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to permit_new_and_create_actions }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:publish) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_new_and_create_actions }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:publish) }
  end
end

Testing if Multiple Attributes are Authorised

To test multiple attributes at once, the permit_attributes and forbid_attributes matchers can be used. Both matchers accept single, multiple, arrays and hashes of attributes as a parameter. In the following example, visitors can only set the name of articles, while administrators can also set the description.

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:name) }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:description) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_attributes(%i[name description]) }
  end
end

Just like permit_actions and forbid_actions, you can pass the attributes to check as a series of parameters, rather than an array.

The following examples are equivalent:

it { is_expected.to permit_attributes([:first_name, :last_name]) }
it { is_expected.to permit_attributes(%i[first_name last_name]) }
it { is_expected.to permit_attributes(:first_name, :last_name) }
it { is_expected.to permit_mass_assignment_of(:first_name, :last_name) }

Testing Nested Attributes

It is possible to test nested attributes by specifying them with the usual nested syntax:

it 'permits nested attributes for address' do
  is_expected.to(
    permit_attribute(address_attributes: [:country])
  )
end

There is no limit to the depth of nested attributes, allowing for testing at any necessary level.

Testing if Attributes are Authorised for Particular Actions

Pundit allows you to permit different attributes based on the current action by adding a permitted_attributes_for_#{action} method to your policy. Pundit Matchers supports testing of these methods via composable matchers.

To illustrate this, we'll check for the mass assignment of a slug attribute in our spec. The policy is expected to allow visitors to set the slug attribute when creating an article, but not when updating it. Administrators will be permitted to set the slug when either creating or updating the article.

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:article) { Article.new }

  context 'with visitors' do
    let(:user) { nil }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[new create edit update]) }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:slug) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug).for_action(:create) }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:slug).for_action(:update) }
  end

  context 'with administrators' do
    let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[new create edit update]) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug).for_action(:create) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug).for_action(:update) }
  end
end

Warning: Currently, Pundit Matchers does not automatically check if the attribute is permitted by a permitted_attributes_for_#{action} method, so even if you include a forbid_attribute(:attribute) expectation in the policy spec, it's entirely possible that the attribute is being permitted through a permitted_attributes_for_#{action} method that is tested separately. For this reason, you should always explicitly test all implemented permitted_attributes_for_#{action} methods, as demonstrated in the example.

Testing Resolved Scopes

Another common scenario is to authorise particular records to be returned in a collection, based on particular properties of candidate records for that collection. To test for this you don't need to use any matchers. Instead, you can test for the inclusion or exclusion of a record in the resolved scope by using the let keyword to create a resolved scope based on the current user and record objects used by a Policy::Scope class.

For example, to test that visitors can only view published articles in a resolved scope you could write your policy spec as follows:

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:resolved_scope) do
    described_class::Scope.new(user, Article.all).resolve
  end

  let(:user) { nil }

  context 'when visitor accesses a published article' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(publish: true) }

    it 'includes article in resolved scope' do
      expect(resolved_scope).to include(article)
    end
  end

  context 'when visitor accesses an unpublished article' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(publish: false) }

    it 'excludes article from resolved scope' do
      expect(resolved_scope).not_to include(article)
    end
  end
end

Putting It All Together

The following example puts all of the techniques discussed so far together in one policy spec that tests multiple user and record configurations within different context blocks. Here visitors can view published articles and create unpublished articles, while administrators have full access to all articles. Visitors can only set the slug attribute when creating an article.

To avoid deeply nested context trees it is a good idea to split larger policy specs up into multiple files. Here we divide the policy spec into separate files for the visitor and administrator contexts, but you could just as easily split the files by published status or policy action.

spec/policies/article_policy/visitor_context_spec.rb:

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:resolved_scope) do
    described_class::Scope.new(user, Article.all).resolve
  end

  let(:user) { nil }

  context 'when visitor creates a new article' do
    let(:article) { Article.new }

    it { is_expected.to permit_new_and_create_actions }
  end

  context 'when visitor accesses a published article' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(publish: true) }

    it 'includes article in resolved scope' do
      expect(resolved_scope).to include(article)
    end

    it { is_expected.to permit_only_actions(%i[index show]) }
  end

  context 'when visitor accesses an unpublished article' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(publish: false) }

    it 'excludes article from resolved scope' do
      expect(resolved_scope).not_to include(article)
    end

    it { is_expected.to forbid_all_actions }
  end

  describe 'permitted attributes for visitor' do
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:publish) }
    it do
      is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:publish).for_action(:create)
    end
    it do
      is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:publish).for_action(:update)
    end
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:slug) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug).for_action(:create) }
    it { is_expected.to forbid_attribute(:slug).for_action(:update) }
  end
end

spec/policies/article_policy/administrator_context_spec.rb:

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe ArticlePolicy do
  subject { described_class.new(user, article) }

  let(:resolved_scope) do
    described_class::Scope.new(user, Article.all).resolve
  end

  let(:user) { User.new(administrator: true) }

  context 'when administrator creates a new article' do
    let(:article) { Article.new }

    it { is_expected.to permit_new_and_create_actions }
  end

  context 'when administrator accesses a published article' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(publish: true) }

    it 'includes article in resolved scope' do
      expect(resolved_scope).to include(article)
    end

    it { is_expected.to permit_all_actions }
  end

  context 'when administrator accesses an unpublished article' do
    let(:article) { Article.create(publish: false) }

    it 'includes article in resolved scope' do
      expect(resolved_scope).to include(article)
    end

    it { is_expected.to permit_all_actions }
  end

  describe 'permitted attributes for administrator' do
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:publish) }
    it do
      is_expected.to permit_attribute(:publish).for_action(:create)
    end
    it do
      is_expected.to permit_attribute(:publish).for_action(:update)
    end
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug).for_action(:create) }
    it { is_expected.to permit_attribute(:slug).for_action(:update) }
  end
end

The advantage of this approach is that it increases the readability of your specs. It allows you to place all of your specifications for authorising a particular context (user and record configuration) inside of a single context block, with each spec file representing a wider context.

Development

Run RSpec: docker build . && docker-compose run lib bin/rspec

Run Rubocop: docker build . && docker-compose run lib bin/rubocop

Contributing