Enable Pundit authorization with namespaced decorators

[rogerkk]

I guess the testing could do with some love, and perhaps we should add tests for both namespaced and non-namespaced decorators. Am I on the right track here?

What

When retrieving auth policies and the subject is wrapped in a namespaced decorator, Pundit is not able to find the policy. My original issue with full description and code to reproduce is in issue #7933.

How

This fix makes use of ResourceController::Decorators.undecorate to undecorate the target before asking pundit to fetch the policy.

It does this in PunditAdaper#policy_target, so as to have the fix affect PunditAdapter#retrieve_policy which in turn is used by PunditAdapter#authorized.

Unless I'm missing something the remaining public methods are not affected by the issue at hand.

---

Fixes #7933

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (e242b89) 99.10% compared to head (3a74ef8) 99.10%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #7934   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.10%   99.10%           
=======================================
  Files         140      140           
  Lines        4017     4019    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         3981     3983    +2     
  Misses         36       36           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[lukeasrodgers]

fwiw @rogerkk this would fix a similar issue I'm having with the CanCanAdapter, have been working around it by implementing custom authorized? logic that uses subject.try(:decorated?) but I think using undecorate is better

[rogerkk]

@lukeasrodgers Ah, thanks for the verification!

If you want to have a stab at making codecov happy, I'll be happy to share the glory ;) If not I'll see if I can set off some time do it and see if it's possible to get the attention of a maintainer.

[rogerkk]

Changing state of this PR from a draft, in the hopes of attracting maintainer attention. 😅

Is there any interest in getting this into master? If so then I can put a little effort into improving the tests, rebasing and all that jazz.

[rogerkk]

Still eager to get a fix for this into master ✋