Merge feat/secrets-nav-role-gate: side rail's Secrets link gated on secrets:manage, the policy the page itself enforces

docs/plans/2026-08-11-dashboard-ui-sweeps.md

@@ -350,3 +350,40 @@ margins). Bumped for family-pin alignment.
 **Verification.** Build 0 warnings / 0 errors; suite **879/879**; `staticwebassets.build.json`
 resolves `zb.mom.ww.theme/0.4.1`. No stale-HTTP-cache clear was needed — restore picked 0.4.1
 directly.
+
+## 8. Follow-up: role-gate the side rail's Secrets link (family-wide nav task)
+
+Requested as a family-wide sweep: every app's UI should link to the Secrets management page, visible
+to Administrator-role users only.
+
+**Found state.** The link already existed — `MainLayout.razor`, Admin section, `/admin/secrets`. What
+did not exist was any gate: the rail rendered every item for every visitor, including a Viewer and
+the anonymous-localhost read-only identity. The premise that there was an "existing role-gated nav
+pattern" to follow was false; the rail's only `AuthorizeView` was the footer's signed-in/signed-out
+split, so this introduces the pattern rather than extending it.
+
+Not an access hole — the mounted page carries `[Authorize(Policy = "secrets:manage")]`, so a Viewer
+clicking through was denied. It was a dead link presented as a live one.
+
+**Gate chosen: the policy, not the role.** `<AuthorizeView Policy="@SecretsAuthorization.ManagePolicy">`,
+i.e. the same policy the page itself enforces, so nav visibility cannot drift from page access. The
+sweep asked for a role literal (`DashboardRoles.Admin` = `"Administrator"`), and in this host the two
+are equivalent: `GatewayOptionsValidator` constrains `Dashboard:GroupToRole` values to
+`Administrator` or `Viewer`, so the shared library's other manage-granting roles (`secrets-manager`,
+`secrets-reveal`) are unreachable here. The policy form was preferred because it stays correct if
+that constraint ever relaxes — a role literal would then hide the link from users who can use the
+page.
+
+**Deliberate asymmetry — API Keys stays ungated.** Its sibling item looks like the same case and is
+not. `ApiKeysPage` renders for a Viewer with write affordances hidden (`@if (CanManageApiKeys)`), so
+hiding its nav item would remove legitimate read access. The secrets page has no read-only mode. The
+rule is "gate the link when the page denies the role outright", not "gate everything under Admin".
+
+**Coverage.** Three tests pin the policy's verdict per principal (Administrator admitted, Viewer
+refused, unauthenticated refused) in `SecretsNavGateTests`, and `/admin/secrets` joins the canonical
+route list in `GatewayApplicationTests` — it is the one nav destination mounted from an RCL rather
+than declared here, so a routing regression could remove it without touching this repo's pages.
+Not a rendering test: the suite has no component-testing harness, and adding one to assert a single
+`AuthorizeView` would be a large dependency for a small claim.
+
+**Verification.** Build 0 warnings / 0 errors; suite **895/895** (892 + 3).

src/ZB.MOM.WW.MxGateway.Server/Dashboard/Components/Layout/MainLayout.razor

@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 @inherits LayoutComponentBase
+@using ZB.MOM.WW.Secrets.Ui
 
 @* Thin layout: delegates the side-rail chassis (hamburger, brand, responsive
    collapse) to the shared ZB.MOM.WW.Theme <ThemeShell>. The nav is reproduced
@@ -19,7 +20,20 @@
         </NavRailSection>
         <NavRailSection Title="Admin" Key="admin">
             <NavRailItem Href="/apikeys" Text="API Keys" />
+            @* Gated on the SAME policy the mounted /admin/secrets page enforces, not on a role
+               literal, so nav visibility cannot drift from page access. In this host the two are
+               equivalent — GatewayOptionsValidator constrains Dashboard:GroupToRole values to
+               Administrator or Viewer, so the shared library's other manage-granting roles
+               (secrets-manager, secrets-reveal) are unreachable here — but the policy form stays
+               correct if that ever relaxes. Deliberately NOT applied to the API Keys item above:
+               that page renders read-only for Viewers, so hiding its link would remove legitimate
+               read access, whereas the secrets page denies a Viewer outright and its link would be
+               a dead end. *@
+            <AuthorizeView Policy="@SecretsAuthorization.ManagePolicy">
+                <Authorized>
                     <NavRailItem Href="/admin/secrets" Text="Secrets" />
+                </Authorized>
+            </AuthorizeView>
             <NavRailItem Href="/settings" Text="Settings" />
         </NavRailSection>
     </Nav>

src/ZB.MOM.WW.MxGateway.Tests/Dashboard/SecretsNavGateTests.cs

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+using System.Security.Claims;
+using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization;
+using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Builder;
+using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection;
+using ZB.MOM.WW.Auth.AspNetCore;
+using ZB.MOM.WW.MxGateway.Server;
+using ZB.MOM.WW.MxGateway.Server.Dashboard;
+using ZB.MOM.WW.Secrets.Ui;
+
+namespace ZB.MOM.WW.MxGateway.Tests.Dashboard;
+
+/// <summary>
+/// Covers the authorization decision behind the side rail's Secrets link.
+/// </summary>
+/// <remarks>
+/// <para>
+/// The rail gates that item with <c>&lt;AuthorizeView Policy="secrets:manage"&gt;</c> — the same
+/// policy the mounted <c>/admin/secrets</c> page enforces — rather than a role literal, so nav
+/// visibility cannot drift from page access. These tests pin the policy's verdict per principal,
+/// which is the behaviour the gate delegates to.
+/// </para>
+/// <para>
+/// This is deliberately not a rendering test: the suite has no component-testing harness, and
+/// adding one to assert a single <c>AuthorizeView</c> would be a large dependency for a small
+/// claim. What is asserted here is the part that can actually be wrong — which principals the
+/// policy admits. The link's presence in <c>MainLayout.razor</c> and the route's existence are
+/// covered separately (see <c>GatewayApplicationTests</c>, which asserts <c>/admin/secrets</c> is
+/// mapped), so an unmapped route cannot masquerade as a working link.
+/// </para>
+/// </remarks>
+public sealed class SecretsNavGateTests
+{
+    /// <summary>An Administrator sees the Secrets link, because the policy admits that role.</summary>
+    /// <returns>A task that represents the asynchronous operation.</returns>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ManagePolicy_AdmitsAdministrator()
+    {
+        await using WebApplication app = GatewayApplication.Build([]);
+        IAuthorizationService authorization = app.Services.GetRequiredService<IAuthorizationService>();
+
+        AuthorizationResult result = await authorization.AuthorizeAsync(
+            PrincipalWithRoles(DashboardRoles.Admin),
+            resource: null,
+            SecretsAuthorization.ManagePolicy);
+
+        Assert.True(result.Succeeded);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// A Viewer does not. This is the case the gate exists for: the secrets page denies a Viewer
+    /// outright, so an ungated link would be a dead end rather than a degraded-but-useful view —
+    /// which is why the sibling API Keys item is deliberately left ungated (that page does render
+    /// read-only for Viewers).
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <returns>A task that represents the asynchronous operation.</returns>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ManagePolicy_RefusesViewer()
+    {
+        await using WebApplication app = GatewayApplication.Build([]);
+        IAuthorizationService authorization = app.Services.GetRequiredService<IAuthorizationService>();
+
+        AuthorizationResult result = await authorization.AuthorizeAsync(
+            PrincipalWithRoles(DashboardRoles.Viewer),
+            resource: null,
+            SecretsAuthorization.ManagePolicy);
+
+        Assert.False(result.Succeeded);
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>
+    /// An unauthenticated principal does not. Covers the anonymous-localhost path, which grants a
+    /// read-only identity without authenticating it.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <returns>A task that represents the asynchronous operation.</returns>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task ManagePolicy_RefusesUnauthenticated()
+    {
+        await using WebApplication app = GatewayApplication.Build([]);
+        IAuthorizationService authorization = app.Services.GetRequiredService<IAuthorizationService>();
+
+        AuthorizationResult result = await authorization.AuthorizeAsync(
+            new ClaimsPrincipal(new ClaimsIdentity()),
+            resource: null,
+            SecretsAuthorization.ManagePolicy);
+
+        Assert.False(result.Succeeded);
+    }
+
+    // Mirrors what DashboardAuthenticator issues: roles as ZbClaimTypes.Role (== ClaimTypes.Role),
+    // with the identity told to treat that claim as its role type. Constructing the identity with
+    // an authentication type is what makes it authenticated — without one, every policy that
+    // requires an authenticated user fails for the wrong reason and the role assertions above
+    // would pass vacuously.
+    private static ClaimsPrincipal PrincipalWithRoles(params string[] roles)
+    {
+        var identity = new ClaimsIdentity(
+            roles.Select(role => new Claim(ZbClaimTypes.Role, role)),
+            authenticationType: "Test",
+            nameType: ZbClaimTypes.Name,
+            roleType: ZbClaimTypes.Role);
+
+        return new ClaimsPrincipal(identity);
+    }
+}

src/ZB.MOM.WW.MxGateway.Tests/Gateway/GatewayApplicationTests.cs

@@ -205,6 +205,12 @@ public sealed class GatewayApplicationTests
             "/galaxy",
             "/apikeys",
             "/sessions/{SessionId}",
+
+            // Mounted from the ZB.MOM.WW.Secrets.Ui RCL rather than declared here, so it is the
+            // one nav destination that a routing regression could remove without touching this
+            // repo's own pages. The side rail links to it (role-gated), which makes an unmapped
+            // route a visible dead link rather than a silent absence.
+            "/admin/secrets",
         ];
         foreach (string canonical in canonicalRoutes)
         {