Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

firewall: transparent proxy rule leaks into rules page #695

Closed
oparoz opened this issue Jan 22, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

firewall: transparent proxy rule leaks into rules page #695

oparoz opened this issue Jan 22, 2016 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
bug Production bug
Milestone

Comments

@oparoz
Copy link
Contributor

oparoz commented Jan 22, 2016

Env

15.7.99_2050

Steps to reproduce

  1. Go to Services -> Proxy Server
  2. Click on the Forward Proxy tab
  3. Click on advanced mode
  4. Click on the (i) for Enable Transparent HTTP proxy
  5. Click on add a new firewall rule
  6. Pick an interface and save the rule
  7. Go to Firewall: Rules
  8. Click on the tab matching the interface chosen above
  9. Edit the rule called NAT redirect traffic to proxy
  10. Change the gateway (it's not greyed out)
  11. Save

Expected result

I should be able to save the rule

Actual result

The Javascript validation rules get in the way, thinking that all greyed out fields are fields which have not been filled.

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

Can you please refine the terminology and exact page names for steps 1., 2. and 3., I am unable to reproduce this with the current description.

@oparoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

oparoz commented Jan 27, 2016

OK, I've updated the OP.

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

Is this the error you're seeing?

The following input errors were detected:
The field Protocol is required.
The field Source is required.
The field Destination is required.
The field Source bit count is required.
The field Destination bit count is required.
is not a valid source IP address or alias.
A valid source bit count must be specified.
is not a valid destination IP address or alias.
A valid destination bit count must be specified.

@oparoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

oparoz commented Jan 27, 2016

Exactly and all of these fields are filled up, but greyed out to prevent bad things to happen.

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

Ok, it's a NAT rule and it shouldn't show up in the rules screen.

@fichtner fichtner changed the title Cannot edit associated rule, the javascript validator prevents it firewall: transparent proxy rule leaks into rules page Jan 27, 2016
@fichtner fichtner added the bug Production bug label Jan 27, 2016
@fichtner fichtner added this to the 16.1 milestone Jan 27, 2016
@fichtner fichtner self-assigned this Jan 27, 2016
@oparoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

oparoz commented Jan 27, 2016

OK, so it's the same rule as the Port Forward rule, but presented differently?

@fichtner
Copy link
Member

exactly, and since it's a NAT rule it fails to save properly in the rules screen

@oparoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

oparoz commented Jan 27, 2016

OK, thanks 👍

fichtner added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2016
AdSchellevis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 4, 2016
…ut hide edit and duplicate buttons

If for some reason a config has "typeless" rules, which don't belong to any active nat rule the user won't notice this anymore (and doesn't have the ability to remove them).
This can happen with imports from old configs for example or manually changed configs.
fichtner pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 5, 2016
…ut hide edit and duplicate buttons

If for some reason a config has "typeless" rules, which don't belong to any active nat rule the user won't notice this anymore (and doesn't have the ability to remove them).
This can happen with imports from old configs for example or manually changed configs.

(cherry picked from commit e1dd183)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Production bug
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants