[usernane]

Summary

Persist the session user across resume and protect internal session keys from being modified through the public variable API.

Motivation

The per-key session migration stopped persisting the session user. It was kept only as an in-memory property, so setUser() did not survive a close() + resume round-trip: persistMeta() writes only the _meta key, and start() reset the user to null. This was also untested (the only getUser() assertions were on brand-new sessions, two of them commented out).

Changes

• Store the SessionUser under a new reserved _user key, serialized and encrypted via encryptValue() so it honors encryption-at-rest when SESSION_KEY is defined.
  • Written on setUser() and on close() (to capture info modified after setUser()); removed when the user is null.
  • Restored in start() via a new restoreUser() helper.
• Add Session::RESERVED_KEYS = ['_meta', '_user'] and an assertNotReserved() guard.
  • Mutating operations (set(), remove(), pull()) now throw SessionException on a reserved key.
  • Read operations (get(), has()) remain allowed.
• getVars(), refresh() and start()'s snapshot loop now skip all reserved keys (not just _meta), so _user never leaks into user-visible variables.

UI Changes

Not applicable.

How to Test / Verify

Unit tests in tests/WebFiori/Framework/Tests/Session/SessionTest.php:

• testUserIsPersistedAcrossResume — sets a user, modifies its email/display name, closes, resumes with the same session ID, and asserts id/username/email/displayName all survive.
• testReservedKeysRejectMutation — set/remove/pull on _meta/_user throw SessionException.
• testReservedKeysAllowRead — get/has on reserved keys do not throw.

Session test group: 135 tests / 342 assertions passing (19 pre-existing skips).

Breaking Changes and Migration Steps

None. _meta and _user were never valid application variable names in practice; using them now surfaces an explicit SessionException instead of silently colliding with internal state.

Checklist

• I reviewed my own diff before requesting review
• My commits follow Conventional Commits
• I added/updated tests (or explained why not)
• I updated docs (if needed) Docs Repo
• I ran lint/cs-fixer (if applicable) (composer fix-cs)
• I considered backward compatibility
• I considered security

Related issues

Closes #418

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 90.62500% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81.73%. Comparing base (d3fd28e) to head (ea4946e).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
WebFiori/Framework/Session/Session.php	90.62%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #419      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     81.68%   81.73%   +0.05%     
- Complexity     3279     3287       +8     
============================================
  Files           106      106              
  Lines          9685     9714      +29     
============================================
+ Hits           7911     7940      +29     
  Misses         1774     1774              

Flag	Coverage Δ
php-8.1	80.57% <89.65%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
php-8.2	80.57% <89.65%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
php-8.3	88.95% <90.62%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
php-8.4	88.95% <90.62%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
php-8.5	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.