This PR adds a check to policy, role and namespace list pages to make sure the user has can write those things before offering to create them via a button. (The create page/form would then be a read-only form)
* ui: Don't show the CRD menu for read-only intentions
The UI bug here manifests itself only when a user/token is configured to have read-only access to intentions. Instead of only letting folks click to see a read only page of the intention, we would show an additional message saying that the intention was read-only due to it being 'Managed by [a kubernetes] CRD'. Whilst the intention was still read only, this extra message was still confusing for users.
This PR fixes up the conditional logic and further moves the logic to use ember-can - looking at the history of the files in question, this bug snuck itself in partly due to it being 'permission-y type stuff' previous to using ember-can and when something being editable or not was nothing to do with ACLs. Then we moved to start using ember-can without completely realising what IsEditable previously meant. So overall the code here is a tiny bit clearer/cleaner by adding a proper can view CRD intention instead of overloading the idea of 'editability'.
Use kubectl's base64decode template function (added in K8s 1.11) to
decode values in Secrets. Removes external call to `base64` utility on
the host system.
* ui: Gracefully recover from non-existent DC errors
This PR fixes what happens in the UI if you try to navigate to a non-existing DC.
When we received a 500 error from an API response due to a non-existent DC, previously we would show a 404 error, which is what we were trying to convey. But in the spirit of the UI being a 'thin client', its probably best to just show the 500 error from the API response, which may help folks to debug any issues better.
* Automatically set the CONSUL_DATACENTER_LOCAL env var for testing
* ui: Ignore response from API for KV permissions
Currently there is no way for us to use our HTTP authorization API
endpoint to tell us whether a user has access to any KVs (including the
case where a user may not have access to the root KV store, but do have
access to a sub item)
This is a little weird still as in the above case the user would click
on this link and still get a 403 for the root, and then have to manually
type in the URL for the KV they do have access to.
Despite this we think this change makes sense as at least something about KV is
visible in the main navigation.
Once we have the ability to know if any KVs are accessible, we can add
this guard back in.
We'd initially just removed the logic around the button, but then
noticed there may be further related KV issues due to the nested nature
of KVs so we finally decided on simply ignoring the responses from the
HTTP API, essentially reverting the KV area back to being a thin client.
This means when things are revisited in the backend we can undo this
easily change in one place.
* Move acceptance tests to use ACLs perms instead of KV ones
John Cowen