Add view (read-only) permission to admin

[simon]

Adrian and Jacob on stage at DjangoCon.

[Aymeric Augustin]

A summary is here: https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/SummerOfCode2011#Integratedatabrowseintotheadmin
This project didn't happen in 2011.

[Julien Phalip]

See also #15956 for a list of specific problems when trying to use the admin merely for browsing data.

[Preston Holmes]

Since Databrowse is now deprecated, this should be considered as a proposed enhancement to the admin

Databrowse is now deprecated, see #16907

[Riccardo Di Virgilio]

django.contrib.admin.options.py

[anonymous]

hi, i've added a small patch to django.contrib.admin.options

i've tested it and it works, it's pretty basic and there is more work to do.

what i've done is to add a method has_view_permission, and check a view permission in every view

i also created a get_list_editable, and i add in get_list_editable and in get_readonly_fields a check, and it returns original read_only and list_editable only if user has got a change_pemission

i also raise a permission error every time there is a post request and user do not have a change_permission

a also ask for view_permission in history_view.

todo:

fix inlines
fix submit_row

add a opts.has_view_permission()

[Aymeric Augustin]

Another discussion here: ​https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/ad9e4fb7d47de1de

[naktinis@…]

What is the current status of this one? Is the provided patch of any help or do we need a new patch?

[Tim Graham]

It's probably best to start from scratch on this one. The patch is in a weird format for one, and it's difficult for me to tell what's going on with it. Instead of just diving in and writing code for this, what we really need to move forward with this is a well thought out design document that can be reviewed. See ​Aymeric's post on the mailing list thread above for more details.

[Simon Charette]

I think a simple POC could be implemented by doing the following:

1. Create a view ​default permission.
2. Add has_view_permission methods to BaseModelAdmin and InlineModelAdmin.
3. Use the built-in readonly_fields logic to provide views of models.
4. Do the same thing with the listing of models.
5. Add a new icon to link to the read-only version of models.

Then some permission checks will need to be changed in order to fallback to the view mode of models if the user doesn't have the change permission but has the view one.

[anonymous]

It's weird to see a feature that was requested 6 years ago, by multiple people, still not being implemented. Instead, the "admins" refused this a number of times, calling it a pony, and generally ignoring what actual users want. It's very sad.

[Tim Graham]

If you want to see this, make a proposal (comment 12 looks good) and implement it with tests and documentation. That will be more useful than lamenting the fact that no one has done it.

[Petr Dlouhý]

Hi,

I have started to work on this issue. It is not complete yet, so any help with this will be appreciated. The commit is following:
​https://github.com/PetrDlouhy/django/commit/19b5582c8604cb8e96914aa382de18f2a1060ea7

• It should not break current permission model, so change permission also qualifies to view data in admin.
• All fields are made readonly, "Safe" button is hidden, and POST requests are denied without change permission.
• There is "change" link on index admin page for all models which links to list view. The name not very accurate, but I didn't rename it nor change the icon.
• Tests should be written for this.

I am new to Django contributing, so if someone helps me with finishing this and making it part of the project, I would be very glad.

[Petr Dlouhý]

Hello,

I have added few corrections to my patch, fixed tests, added new tests and made few updates to the documentation. I don't think, that all issues connected with this are solved yet. Anyway, I would like my work to be reviewed.

The new patches are part of (yet uncreated) pull request:
​https://github.com/django/django/compare/master...PetrDlouhy:view_permission_master?expand=1

There few weak spots, that I am feeling that should be discussed with someone more experienced:

• Model situation: User has defined ModelAdmin with custom has_change_permission() such that it disallows to change (consequently also view) anything.
  • Then adding view permissions allows superuser to view that ModelAdmin.
  • I had to change RowLevelChangePermissionModelAdmin in tests for this.
• How should change RelatedFieldWidgetWrapper

[Petr Dlouhý]

As advised on Django development mailing list, I have made PR for this ticket:
​https://github.com/django/django/pull/5108

[Tim Graham]

I left some comments for improvement on the pull request.

[Tim Graham]

Please uncheck "Patch needs improvement" when you update the pull request, but don't promote it to "Ready for checkin" until someone has reviewed the changes. Thanks!

[Asif Saifuddin Auvi]

​https://github.com/django/django/pull/5297 main PR now

[Collin Anderson]

This would solve #11561 (raw_id_fields requires that the user has change permissions on the model class that is being linked to)

[Collin Anderson]

(I believe this still needs work.)

[Olivier Dalang]

Hi,

I fixed the merge conflicts on the patch today : ​https://github.com/olivierdalang/django/commits/view_permission_master
See discussion on the PR :
​https://github.com/django/django/pull/5297#issuecomment-223714731

It should apply to master now.

I think we need a core dev to review this, so I unset the "patch needs improvement" tag. Sorry if this is not the right process (I'm new to contributing to django).

Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help getting those merged into core.

Bests

[Akshesh Doshi]

Since "databrowse" is not in the main focus anymore now.

[Tim Graham]

There are comments for improvement from Nick Pope on the PR.

[viktor25]

I'm copying here my comment from the pull request:

It is important to be able to see the read-only page even if one has change permission, because long-term the read-only page will be more helpful than the form. For example, the form shows foreign keys as dropdowns, while the read-only page could show them as links to the foreign object. The read-only page is not constrained by the need to show input widgets, so it is more powerful for visualizing information.

[Carlton Gibson]

Unchecking "Patch needs improvement" to add this back to the review queue. I will review over the next week with a possible inclusion (or not) in 2.1 in mind.

[Carlton Gibson]

Having reviewed, there are a few small changes needed.

Olivier, please uncheck "Patch needs improvement" when you've taken those on. (Feel free to @menion me on GitHub if you want input or help!)

[Carlton Gibson]

This looks ready to go now. A lot of points have been picked up and all addressed.

It's a big patch, with security implications, so a further review is justified.

These seem like the main areas:

• Manual testing looks good.
• Tests on permission checks when POSTing have been added.
• Permission checks on accessing inlines are also tested.

(Note: PR thread is so long that it's taking several refreshes to load when logged in to GitHub — it does load if you keep refreshing though.)

[Tim Graham]

I pushed a commit with some edits. I'm okay with merging this tomorrow, although I find the tests a bit lacking. In particular, many of the template changes are untested. I added some assertContains() assertions but more are needed. This could be done after the alpha release, I suppose.

[Tim Graham <timograham@…>]

In 825f0be:

Fixed #8936 -- Added a view permission and a read-only admin.

Co-authored-by: Petr Dlouhy <petr.dlouhy@…>
Co-authored-by: Olivier Dalang <olivier.dalang@…>

[Olivier Dalang]

Replying to Tim Graham:

I'm okay with merging this tomorrow, although I find the tests a bit lacking. In particular, many of the template changes are untested. I added some assertContains() assertions but more are needed. This could be done after the alpha release, I suppose.

Thanks for the merge ! Yes I think I could spare some time to add some tests. But would you have some concrete examples of tests you'd like to have added ?

[Tim Graham]

Try reverting various changes in templates and you'll find that no tests fail.

[Tim Graham <timograham@…>]

In b30f9b13:

Refs #29419, #8936 -- Removed change permission requirement for admin actions.

Partially reverted 825f0beda804e48e9197fcf3b0d909f9f548aa47.

[Tim Graham <timograham@…>]

In aea0e2b9:

[2.1.x] Refs #29419, #8936 -- Removed change permission requirement for admin actions.

Partially reverted 825f0beda804e48e9197fcf3b0d909f9f548aa47.

Backport of b30f9b131c9489b9d9f21c311ecb46d0aea91381 from master

[Tim Graham <timograham@…>]

In cd790ed1:

Refs #8936 -- Added ModelAdmin.has_view_or_change_permission().

[Tim Graham <timograham@…>]

In f5fbff0b:

[2.1.x] Refs #8936 -- Added ModelAdmin.has_view_or_change_permission().

Backport of cd790ed1a6dbdf910c41da44c306ddae6ea6fd4d from master