[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5698?focusedWorklogId=1038207&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-1038207
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on WW-5698:
--------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 27/Aug/26 06:20
Start Date: 27/Aug/26 06:20
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: lukaszlenart opened a new pull request, #1872:
URL: https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/1872
Fixes [WW-5698](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5698)
> **Decision still needed before merge: target release.** This is a
behavioural change (see Compatibility). The ticket flags 7.4.0 vs 8.0.0 vs
gating behind `requireAnnotations.transitionMode` as an open question. The PR
is raised against `main` for review; retarget if 8.0.0 is preferred.
## Problem
`StrutsParameterAuthorizer.isAuthorized(...)` returned `true` for *any*
parameter name once the action implemented `ModelDriven`:
```java
if (target != action && action instanceof ModelDriven) {
return true;
}
```
OGNL then resolves that name against the whole `CompoundRoot`, which holds
the model **on top of the action**. Authorization was decided about the model
while the write could land on the action. The practical result: the
`@StrutsParameter` requirement did not apply to a `ModelDriven` action's own
members.
Same unannotated setter, declared on the action class in both cases, with
`struts.parameters.requireAnnotations=true`:
```
plain action actionSecret=... -> not bound (correctly rejected)
ModelDriven action actionSecret=... -> bound
```
## Change
The exemption now covers what it was meant to cover:
- a property declared by **the model** is exempt — returning an object from
`getModel()` declares it request surface, and that is the whole point of the
exemption
- a property declared by **the action** is subject to the annotation
requirement, as it would be on any other action
- a property declared by **neither** is still allowed
That third case matters for compatibility. A model bound through a custom
OGNL property accessor — a Map-backed model, most commonly — declares no bean
property, and such a name cannot be reaching a member of the action either.
Rejecting it would break those applications, so it is explicitly allowed.
The model is checked **first**, so a model property that shadows an action
property still binds without an annotation, matching OGNL's own resolution
against the stack top.
## Compatibility
An application whose `ModelDriven` action relies on binding unannotated
members **declared on the action** will stop binding them and will need those
members annotated with `@StrutsParameter`. That is the same migration those
members would have needed had the action not been `ModelDriven`. Model binding
itself is unchanged.
## Tests
Six new cases in `ParameterAuthorizerTest`, covering the rejection, the
annotated action member, the model property, the shadowed property, and the
declared-on-neither escape.
Both new branches were mutation-checked rather than trusted because they
passed:
- removing the model-first check fails **only** the shadowing test — so the
ordering is load-bearing
- removing the declared-on-neither escape fails the new test **and** the
pre-existing `modelDriven_targetIsModel_allAuthorized` — so that escape is what
preserves existing behaviour
Green: `core` 3202, `json` 166, `rest` 124 (including
`ParameterAuthorizingModuleTest`).
Note: a full-reactor `mvn test` currently fails to compile
`struts2-tiles-plugin` (`package org.apache.velocity.tools.view does not
exist`). That is pre-existing — it reproduces identically on unmodified `main`
— and unrelated to this change, but it does mean the four modules after tiles
were not exercised.
## Related
[WW-5697](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5697) / #1871 came from
the same triage. Different cause, different fix; the two overlap only in that a
`ModelDriven` action is the easiest way to reach both.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 1038207)
Remaining Estimate: 0h
Time Spent: 10m
> ModelDriven exemption in StrutsParameterAuthorizer also exempts the action's
> own members
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WW-5698
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5698
> Project: Struts 2
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Lukasz Lenart
> Assignee: Lukasz Lenart
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 7.4.0
>
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> {{StrutsParameterAuthorizer.isAuthorized(...)}} exempts {{ModelDriven}}
> actions from the {{@StrutsParameter}} requirement:
> {code:java}// ModelDriven exemption: only exempt when the action explicitly
> implements ModelDriven
> // and the target is its model object. ...
> if (target != action && action instanceof ModelDriven) {
> return true;
> }
> {code}
> The intent is sound and is what makes model binding work: implementing
> {{ModelDriven}} and returning an object from {{getModel()}} is a type-level
> declaration that the model is request surface, so its properties do not each
> need annotating.
> The effect is wider than the intent. The method returns {{true}} for _any_
> parameter name, and the name is subsequently resolved by OGNL against the
> whole {{CompoundRoot}}, which holds the model on top of the action.
> Authorization is therefore decided about the model, while the resulting write
> may land on the action. The practical result is that the {{@StrutsParameter}}
> requirement does not apply to an action's own members once that action
> implements {{ModelDriven}}.
> h2. Observed
> Same unannotated setter, declared on the action class in both cases, with
> {{struts.parameters.requireAnnotations=true}}:
> {code}plain action parameter actionSecret=... -> not bound
> (correctly rejected)
> ModelDriven action parameter actionSecret=... -> bound
> {code}
> Both runs also bound a second, expected parameter, confirming the negative
> result is a real rejection rather than a harness that binds nothing.
> A related consequence is that framework members inherited from
> {{ActionSupport}} become reachable on {{ModelDriven}} actions in the same way
> — a parameter name of {{getText('some-key').property}} invokes
> {{ActionSupport.getText(String)}}, which is not annotated and is not part of
> any model. That particular call is inert, since it is a resource bundle
> lookup whose result is discarded, but it illustrates that the exempted
> surface is the whole stack rather than the model.
> h2. Proposed change
> Keep the exemption, but scope it to what it is meant to cover: authorize
> members of the model object, and continue to apply the annotation requirement
> to members of the action itself. {{resolveTarget(...)}} already distinguishes
> the two, so the information needed is present at the decision point.
> h2. Compatibility
> This is a behavioural change. An application with a {{ModelDriven}} action
> that currently relies on binding unannotated members declared on the action
> will stop binding them once the requirement applies, and will need those
> members annotated with {{@StrutsParameter}}. That is the same migration those
> members would have needed had the action not been {{ModelDriven}}, but it is
> still a change for existing applications, so it may belong in 8.0.0 rather
> than 7.4.0, or behind {{struts.parameters.requireAnnotations.transitionMode}}
> for a release. Worth deciding before the change is written.
> Related to WW-5697, which concerns method invocation during binding and has a
> separate cause and a separate fix; the two only overlap in that a
> {{ModelDriven}} action is the easiest way to reach both.
> The exemption is also currently undocumented. Whatever scope it ends up with
> should be stated in the {{@StrutsParameter}} and ModelDriven documentation,
> together with the advice that a model should be a request DTO rather than a
> domain or persistence object.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
