CODEWITHSUNDEEP
firebasefirebase-securitygoogle-cloud-firestore
Marcel Bochtler
Marcel Bochtler

Reputation: 1361

Firestore security rules based on map values

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?

Upvotes: 14

Views: 8218

Answers (2)

Gerardlamo
Gerardlamo

Reputation: 1723

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
}

Upvotes: 1

Todd Kerpelman
Todd Kerpelman

Reputation: 17523

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!

Upvotes: 12

Related Questions