Feature/table personalization

[darinkelkhoff]

Pull Request

📝 Description

What does this PR do?
This PR adds a new concept of "Table Meta Data Personalization" to QQQ.

The concept here is, that an application can provide a code reference on the QInstance, which implements a new TableMetaDataPersonalizerInterface, and all "user-facing" actions executed in the application are then subject to using a cloned QTableMetaData object, which has gone through a level of personalization (customization) specific for the user/session of the request. An implementation is being developed along with this framework capability in qbit-customizable-table-views.

The business goal of this is so that an application's various user roles can be given different views of tables, e.g., "show all fields to admins", "hide some fields from end-users", "make users in Role X be required to put a value in field Foo", "don't allow users in Role Y to edit values in field Bar", and/or, "don't show a given Widget to users in some role".

The goal of the implementation is to remove fields entirely from users - so that they may not insert, update, or query/get values from fields that aren't in their personalized version of a table - and supporting actions (such as column stats, child record list widgets, audits, etc) all respect this personalization as well, in theory, to completely block fields from users who aren't allowed access to them. Yet - at the same time - if a user with a personalized view of a table, for example, runs a process, and that process works with a table (say to insert records with values that the user themselves can't see), the process should still have access to all field. Generally this is expected to be handled within the implementation of TableMetaDataPersonalizerInterface, where personalization would only be applied if inputSource.equals(QInputSource.USER) - but this is not enforced by QQQ.

Secondary changes

• To remove hidden fields from audits, a new process was written to fetch audits (GetAuditsForRecordProcess).
• To allow the new GetAuditsForRecordProcess to use the same permission as the audit table's read permission, CustomPermissionChecker and PermissionsHelper were updated (basically custom permissions were less than half-implemented before, but are more complete now).
• The Filesystem module's file importer process previously relied on the memory backend's ignoring of unrecognized fields. As a mongoDB backend may still work this way (as per the original intent of that process), it is now a setting on processes of this type whether they expect to store their record values in unstructured fields, or in a "values" JSON-blob.

Related Issue:
Closes #[issue_number]

🔍 Type of Change

• Bug Fix - Fixes an existing issue
• New Feature - Adds new functionality
• Breaking Change - Fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected
  • This feature does make some subtle changes to some of the core actions of the framework, such as specifically:
    • QueryAction throwing an exception if given an unrecognized criteria fieldName
    • MemoryBackendModule stripping values from records if they aren't in the (active) QTableMetaData.
    • Table action input objects now store a QTableMetaData object, rather than always getting it from the QInstance. This can cause subtle changes if a table meta data object is modified on a re-used input object (an anti-pattern, but one that some tests were doing).
• Documentation Update - Updates documentation
• Refactoring - Code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
• Performance Improvement - Code change that improves performance
• Test Addition - Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests

🧪 Testing

How has this been tested?

• Unit Tests: All unit tests pass
• Integration Tests: Integration tests pass
• Coverage: Meets QQQ's coverage requirements (80% instructions, 95% classes)
• [x\ Manual Testing: Tested manually in development environment

Test Commands:

# Commands used for testing
mvn test
mvn verify

📋 Checklist

Before submitting this PR, please ensure:

• Code Style: Follows QQQ's Code Review Standards
• Tests: All tests pass with required coverage
• Documentation: Updated relevant wiki pages and code comments
• Breaking Changes: Documented any breaking changes
• Commit Messages: Follow conventional commit format
• Self Review: Code has been reviewed by the author

🔗 Related Resources

Documentation:

• 📖 Complete Documentation Wiki - Start here for comprehensive guides
• 🔍 Code Review Standards - QQQ's coding standards
• 🧪 Testing Guide - Testing requirements and strategy
• 🔧 Feature Development - How to extend QQQ

📊 Additional Information

Any additional information that reviewers should know:

• Screenshots (if applicable)
• Performance impact
• Migration notes
• Dependencies added/removed

---

Thank you for contributing to QQQ! 🚀

[github-actions]

🔒 Security Scan Complete

Dependency vulnerability scan completed for this PR. View full report

[github-actions]

🔒 Security Scan Complete

Dependency vulnerability scan completed for this PR. View full report

[github-actions]

🔒 Security Scan Complete

Dependency vulnerability scan completed for this PR. View full report