Protected Fields docs

[BufferUnderflower]

Documentation for protected fields - CLP feature currently under development. As of now it does not provide substantial level of security and it is advised to avoid using it in production environment especially for sensitive data.

[awgeorge]

Probably worth mentioning that by default the field email in the _User table is protected.

Additionally, that you can configure the protected fields in the init options of ParseServer.

var api = new ParseServer({
    protectedFields: { _User: {"*": [ "username", "email", "gender", "mobile", "telephone", "addressLine1", "addressLine2", "city", "postcode","dob"], "role:Management": []}} 
});

[awgeorge]

extra comma.

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

	It is essential to understand the basic principle how server determines which fields to protect when user belongs to multiple groups with different rules defined. First, server finds all scopes with `protectedFields` the user belongs to. Then resulting set is determined as an intersection of all applicable sets.
	It is essential to understand the basic principle of how the server determines which fields to protect when a user belongs to multiple groups with different rules defined. First, the server finds all scopes with the `protectedFields` the user belongs to. Then the resulting set is determined as an intersection of all applicable sets.

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

	In the above example, for logged in user:
	In the above example, for a logged in user:

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

* When user with `role:tester` fetches same object - all fields appear to be visible, even though `role:tester` has `ownerEmail` set as protected. This happens because of role hierarchy - when user has a role, he also implicitly gets all the inherited roles. Then server intersects sets for all roles (both `role:tester` and inherited `role:moderator` in this case) and intersection of `["secret"]` vs `["ownerEmail"]` results in `[]` (sets have no fields in common).

* When a user with `role:tester` fetches the same object - all fields appear to be visible, even though `role:tester` has `ownerEmail` set as protected. This happens because of role hierarchy - when a user has a role, they also implicitly get all the inherited roles. Then server intersects sets for all roles (both `role:tester` and inherited `role:moderator` in this case) and intersection of `["secret"]` vs `["ownerEmail"]` results in `[]` (sets have no fields in common).

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

	Here is an example of a tricky setup that may lead to unexpected result, we'll explain why right after:
	Here is an example of a tricky setup that may lead to unexpected results, we'll explain why right after:

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

	* As a result only `["ownerEmail"]` ia protected.
	* As a result only `["ownerEmail"]` is protected.

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

	There is one more way to target user - by pointer field. The syntax is: `userField:column_name`. This uses similar concept as [#pointer-permissions](Pointer Permisssions). You use column name (of either `Pointer<_User>` or `Array` type) as a key. And fields will be protected for any users pointed to by this field. For example:
	There is one more way to target a user - by pointer field. The syntax is: `userField:column_name`. This uses a similar concept as [#pointer-permissions](Pointer Permissions). You use column name (of either `Pointer<_User>` or `Array` type) as a key and fields will be protected for any users pointed to by this field. For example:

[awgeorge]

Suggested change

	In this example, server checks if the user who hass issued a request is pointed to in requested object's `owner` field. No fields will be protected for user who is set as `owner` of each particular object.
	In this example, the server checks if the authenticated user is equal to the `owner` field of the object. No fields will be protected for the user who is set in the `owner` field of each particular object.