Firestore has a DocumentReference type, which is a "pointer" to another firestore document. Using the firebase JavaScript client, you can access properties (e.g. document "id"), directly on the reference.
For example, if there is a document with a docRef property that is a firestore DocumentReference:
const retrievedDoc = await getFirestoreDocument();
console.log(retrievedDoc.docRef.id); // "jRmSeMYDMKiOPGsmkdaZ"
I am trying to accomplish the same thing within firestore rules. There is a custom function named isOwner. It uses the firestore rules get call on a document path, and then attempts to access the docRef.id just as if it were the JavaScript client above.
get(/databases/$(database)/documents/path/to/$(id)).data.docRef.id
The value of the document's id is compared against the current user's. But when I test this using the simulator and in real code, it fails. I feel like this should work, but it doesn't.
What does work is to store and use the id value directly as a string (e.g. get(/path/id).docId) instead of a DocumentReference.
Should I be able to access the id value of a DocumentReference within the firestore rules? Am I doing something wrong?
I want to avoid doing a second document get within the rule as described in this SO answer. That's a second "read" for each trigger of this rule. And I don't think the document id (which is what I need) will be available on the get call anyway.
Based on documentation:
https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/rules/rules.firestore#.get
https://firebase.google.com/docs/reference/rules/rules.firestore.Resource
get() method is supposed to returns a Resource object which is supposed to contains a .id property (as well as .data).
For example, to restrict write access to an authenticated user which is the author of a book document (authors documents are identified with the user uid), you would do:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /books/{document=**} {
allow write: if get(resource.data.authorReference).id == request.auth.uid;
}
}
}
Yet I'm always having the error property id is undefined on object on trying.
.data is accessible so I suppose there is an issue in the api.
Update
Actually, a reference is a Path object in Firestore rules as documented here. So you access the id by the index of the part of the path you need.
In this example I use the incoming document's data which has a reference object to lookup a property on another document from a get()
match /databases{database}/documents {
match /contacts/{contact} {
allow create: if get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.relatedRules[request.resource.data.relation.path[4]].canBeRelated
// the [4] assumes the path to be `databases/$(database)/documents/contacts/contactId`
// your exact index would vary for your data structure
}
}
First Answer
This only works in the Firestore dashboard rules simulator, it is not a working example for either the local emulation or production Firestore.
This is a year old but I encountered this same puzzling issue, but not on the data from a get(), just on the data of the request.resource.data. I'm not sure what ought to be available (not even __name__ is available) in the rules but if you're accessing a resource reference on the data and you have a predictable id size (say, 20 characters) you could simply get the range of the path on the resource to check against
match /databases{database}/documents {
match /contacts/{contact} {
allow create: if get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.relatedRules[request.resource.data.relation.path[9:29]].canBeRelated
// the [9:29] assumes the path to be `/contacts/20characterLongIdStr`
// your exact range would vary for your data structure
}
}
Feels like a resource reference object should have at least the id since the path is there. It appears Firestore won't support this for whatever reason.
Related
I'm trying to use the new Firebase cross-service Security Rules (https://firebase.blog/posts/2022/09/announcing-cross-service-security-rules) but I having some problems with Storage Rules accessing to Firestore data.
The problem seems to be with userIsCreator() function
match /certification/{certificationId}/{fileId} {
function userIsCreator() {
let certification = firestore.get(/databases/(default)/documents/certifications/$(certificationId));
return firestore.get(certification.data.creatorRef).id == request.auth.uid;
}
allow read, write: if userIsCreator()
}
The content of the Firestore Document is:
{
"data": {
othersValues,
"creatorRef": "/databases/%28default%29/documents/users/CuutSAtFkDX2F9T8hlT4pjMUByS2"
}
"id": "3EhQakDrsKxlacUjdibs"
"__name__":
"/databases/%28default%29/documents/certifications/3EhQakDrsKxlacUjdibs"
}
The creatorRef variable is a reference to a Firestore Document to user. Inside Users collection, the doc id is the UID of an user, so I'm obtaining the creatorRef of an item and then checking if the id of that user collection referenced is the same UID that user logged in.
The same function is working for Firestore Rules to avoid updating certification document if not the creator, without any problem.
It seems to be a problem calling to firestore.get to creatorRef after obtaining it but it not make sense!
Tested:
If I use Firestore Storage Rules validator, it is not failing and it says I have access to that resource from the UID typed in the tester (for other UID is failing as expected). But in my app, even logged in with creator user is getting permission error.
If changing the function to only one call directly to the Users collection id (return firestore.get(/databases/(default)/documents/users/CuutSAtFkDX2F9T8hlT4pjMUByS2).id == request.auth.uid;), it is working in the tester and my app. But it isn't a solution because I need to get first the Users collection ref for the creator!
For original function in the tester It's getting the variables as expected and returning true if simulate the creator UID! But for any reason, in the real app access it is getting unauthorized if making both calls!
Firebaser here!
It looks like you've found a bug in our implementation of cross-service rules. With that said, your example will create two reads against Firestore but it's possible to simplify this to avoid the second read.
Removing the second read
From your post:
return firestore.get(certification.data.creatorRef).id == request.auth.uid;
This line is a bit redundant; the id field is already contained in the certification.data.creatorRef path. Assuming you are indeed using Firestore document references, the format of creatorRef will be /projects/<your-project-id>/databases/(default)/documents/users/<some-user-id>. You can therefore update your function to the following:
function userIsCreator() {
let certification = firestore.get(/databases/(default)/documents/certifications/$(certification));
let creatorRef = certification.data.creatorRef;
// Make sure to replace <your-project-id> with your project's actual ID
return creatorRef ==
/projects/<your-project-id>/databases/(default)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid);
}
I've tested this out in the emulator and in production and it works as expected. The benefit of doing it this way is you only have to read from Firestore once, plus it works around the bug you've discovered.
I have an app using Cloud Firestore. I'm trying to secure my database with Firebase security rules and have been struggling with receiving a document that I'm querying through a collection group query.
Here is my security rule that is passing the emulator, but not inside my web app.
match /{path=**}/groups/{groupId} {
allow read: if resource.data.id == resource.id;
}
If I hardcode my rule to this:
match /{path=**}/groups/{groupId} {
allow read: if resource.data.id == "1" <--- hard coding the value to match my DB, this works;
}
This is how I query for the group:
this.db
.collectionGroup('groups')
.where('id', '==', id)
.get()
.then(snapshot => { ... });
Screenshot:
I wouldn't expect that first rule to work in any situation because it's attempting to filter documents based on their contents. Security rules are not filters. If it works in the console simulator, that might be a bug in the simulator. Also, bear in mind that the simulator does not simulate queries, it just tests document gets.
The second rule works because the client query exactly matches the rules. They are both requiring a document id property of "1". Since the client is specifying the filter, and the filter matches the rule, it's OK.
It's not entirely clear to me what your first rule is supposed to be allowing or rejecting. It looks like you want it to only allow documents whose ID property is the same as its actual document ID. But since the client is not actually capable of expressing that filter condition, the rule is simply rejecting the query every time.
I am creating a game and I want to store completed game levels on firestore for each user.
Now my problem is that I will have to initalize this data once - I want to add a document for new user and a pojo that containts map of level ids and boolean for completed/uncompleted.
So I need to execute some kind of logic like "if document with this id doesnt exist, then add that document and add default data that means user hasnt completed any levels". Is there some way that would guarantee Id have to execute this logic only once? I want to avoid some kind of repeating/re-try if something fails and so on, thanks for your suggestion
That's what a transaction is for (definitely read the linked docs). In your transaction, you can read the document to find out if it exists, then write the document if it does not.
Alternatively, you may be able to get away with a set() with merge. A merged set operation will create the document if it doesn't exist, then update the document with the data you specify.
The typical approach to create-a-document-if-it-doesn't-exist-yet is to use a transaction. Based on the sample code in the documentation on transactions:
// Create a reference to the SF doc.
var sfDocRef = db.collection("cities").doc("SF");
return db.runTransaction(function(transaction) {
// This code may get re-run multiple times if there are conflicts.
return transaction.get(sfDocRef).then(function(sfDoc) {
if (!sfDoc.exists) {
transaction.set(sfDocRef, { count: 1 });
}
});
}).then(function() {
console.log("Transaction successfully committed!");
}).catch(function(error) {
console.log("Transaction failed: ", error);
});
Also see:
Firestore create document if it doesn't exist security rule, which shows security rules that allow a document to be create-but-not-updated.
Create a document only if it doesn't exist in Firebase Firestore, which shows how to allow a document only to be created by a UID identified in the data.
the documentation on transactions
the reference docs for the Transaction class
I'm using firebase in my Android project, I have a users collection in the Cloud Firestore database, users can only update some fields, but can read all, I know it is not possible to protect a subset of a document from being updated, and security rules can be applied only to the entire document, so I searched about this and the only solution I found is to make a sub-collection inside the user document and create a new document inside this sub-collection and finally put fields I want to protect in there, then I can easily secure this document applying this code in security rules section:
match /users/{userId}/securedData/{securedData} {
allow write: if false;
allow read: if true;
}
So now no one can write these fields, but anyone can read, and this is exactly what I want, but later I found that I need to query users based on fields inside the sub-collection, what is known as a collection group query which is not supported at the moment, so I ended up with two solutions:
Retrieve all users and filter them at the client side, but this will increase the number of the document reads because I'm querying all users collection documents + an extra sub-collection document read for each user to get the needed field for filtering users.
Instead of making a sub-collection inside user document and incurring these problems, just keep all fields in the top level document(user document), allowing users to update any field.
match /users/{userId} {
allow update, read: if true;
allow create, remove: if false;
}
But make an (onUpdate) cloud function to listen on user document update and
detect changes in fields which aren't allowed to be modified by the user, so
if the user tried to change these fields I can detect this and return modified fields to their previous values like this:
export const updateUser = functions.firestore
.document('users/{userId}')
.onUpdate((change, context) => {
const previousValue = change.before.data().securedField;
const newValue = change.after.data().securedField;
if (previousValue !== newValue) {
return db.collection('users')
.doc(context.params.userId)
.update({ securedField: previousValue });
}
});
Is the second solution secure? which is the best solution for this? or any other solutions?
Your approach is definitely a possibility, and an interesting use of Cloud Functions. But there will be a delay between the write operation from the user, and the moment the Cloud Function detects and reverts the change.
I'd probably catch the situation in security rules. While you can't deny the user from writing the field in security rules, you can ensure that they can only write the same value to a field that currently has. That effectively also makes it impossible for them to change the value of a field. You do this by:
allow write: if request.resource.data.securedField == resource.data.securedField;
This rule ensures that the field in the updated document (request.resource.data.securedField) has the same value as that field in the current document(resource.data.securedField).
I want to store if a user is permitted to read a document in the document itself, based on the user's email address. Multiple users should have access to the same document.
According to the documentation Firestore does not allow querying array members. That'S why I'm storing the users email addresses in a String-Bool Map with the email address as a key.
For the following example I'm not using emails as map keys, because it already doesn't work with basic strings.
The database structure looks like that:
lists
list_1
id: String
name: String
owner: E-Mail
type: String
shared:
test: true
All security rules are listed here:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /lists/{listId=**} {
allow read: if resource.data.shared.test == true
}
}
}
Edit: It also doesn't work if I use match /lists/{listId} instead of match /lists/{listId=**}
How I understand it, this security rules should allow reading access to everyone if the value in the map shared[test] is true.
For completness sake: This is the query I'm using (Kotlin on Android):
collection.whereEqualTo("shared.test", true).get()
.addOnCompleteListener(activity, { task ->
if (task.isSuccessful) {
Log.i("FIRESTORE", "Query was successful")
} else {
Log.e("FIRESTORE", "Failed to query existing from Firestore. Error ${task.exception}")
}
})
I'm guessing that I cannot access map values from the security rules. So what would be an alternative solution to my problem?
In the Firestore rules reference it's written that maps can be accessed like that resource.data.property == 'property' so, what am I doing wrong?
Edit: This issue should be fixed now. If you're still seeing it (and are sure it's a bug with the rules evaluator), let me know in the comments.
I've chatted with some folks here about the problem you're encountering, and it appears to be an issue with the security rules itself. Essentially, the problem seems to be specific to evaluating nested fields in queries, like what you're doing.
So, basically, what you're doing should work fine, and you'll need to wait for an update from the Firestore team to make this query work. I'll try to remember to update this answer when that happens. Sorry 'bout that!
Whenever you have (optional) nested properties you should make sure the property exists before continuing to check its' value eg.
allow read: if role in request.auth.token && request.auth.token[role] == true
in your case:
allow read: if test in resource.data.shared && resource.data.shared.test == true
, I was struggling a long time with roles until I realized that on non-admin users the admin field is undefined and firestore rules just crashes and doesn't continue checking other possible matches.
For a user without token.admin, this will always crash no matter if you have other matches that are true eg:
function userHasRole(role) {
return isSignedIn() && request.auth.token[role] == true
}