feat: better permission system #267
Conversation
WalkthroughThis update introduces substantial enhancements to the authorization logic and resource management within the application. Key changes encompass the restructuring of the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant AuthService
participant CustomAuthLogics
User->>AuthService: Request action (e.g., create resource)
AuthService->>AuthService: Validate token and permissions
alt Custom logic required
AuthService->>CustomAuthLogics: Invoke custom logic
CustomAuthLogics-->>AuthService: Return result (true/false)
end
AuthService-->>User: Send response (success/failure)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #267 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.18% 91.73% -0.45%
==========================================
Files 65 70 +5
Lines 2687 2723 +36
Branches 361 379 +18
==========================================
+ Hits 2477 2498 +21
- Misses 202 214 +12
- Partials 8 11 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@coderabbitai review |
Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (8)
src/common/interceptor/token-validate.interceptor.ts (1)
Line range hint
39-54:
Consider using dependency injection forAuthService.Using
AuthService.instancemight not be the best practice in terms of dependency injection. Consider injectingAuthServiceinto the interceptor to improve testability and adherence to best practices.@Injectable() export class TokenValidateInterceptor implements NestInterceptor { constructor(private reflector: Reflector, private authService: AuthService) {} intercept(context: ExecutionContext, next: CallHandler): Observable<any> { const noAuth = this.reflector.get(NoAuth, context.getHandler()); if (noAuth) { return next.handle(); } const token = context.switchToHttp().getRequest().headers['authorization']; if (token != undefined) { this.authService.verify(token); } return next.handle(); } }src/materialbundles/materialbundles.controller.ts (1)
67-73: Discrepancy increateMaterialBundlemethod usage.The
createMaterialBundlemethod inmaterialbundles.controller.tshas been updated with new decorators and parameters. However, the function calls intest/materialbundle.e2e-spec.tsdo not match the new signature. Please update the test file to align with the updated method signature.
test/materialbundle.e2e-spec.tslines 67-73Analysis chain
Enhancements to
createMaterialBundlemethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can create a material bundle. The@CurrentUserOwnResourcedecorator enforces access control based on user permissions. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers. The@UserIddecorator retrieves the user ID based on the authorization token, enhancing security and code readability.However, ensure that all function calls to
createMaterialBundleare updated to match the new signature.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `createMaterialBundle` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'createMaterialBundle'Length of output: 3863
src/auth/guard.decorator.ts (2)
61-74: Consider adding type annotations for target and propertyKey.Adding explicit types improves readability and maintainability.
- return function ( - target: any, - propertyKey: string, + return function ( + target: Record<string, any>, + propertyKey: string,
77-89: Consider adding type annotations for target and propertyKey.Adding explicit types improves readability and maintainability.
- return function ( - target: any, - propertyKey: string, + return function ( + target: Record<string, any>, + propertyKey: string,test/question.e2e-spec.ts (4)
Line range hint
186-189: Remove duplicate test case: should return updated statistic info when getting user.This test case is a duplicate of the previous one and should be removed to avoid redundancy.
- it('should return updated statistic info when getting user', async () => { - const respond = await request(app.getHttpServer()) - .get(`/users/${TestUserId}`) - .set('authorization', 'Bearer ' + TestToken); - expect(respond.body.data.user.question_count).toBe(6); - });
262-299: Consider removing or re-enabling the commented-out test case: should get a question without token.The test case is commented out and not currently executed. Consider removing it if it's no longer needed or re-enabling it if it should be part of the test suite.
Line range hint
335-357: Remove duplicate test case: should get all the questions asked by the user.This test case is a duplicate of the previous one and should be removed to avoid redundancy.
- it('should get all the questions asked by the user', async () => { - const respond = await request(app.getHttpServer()) - .get(`/users/${TestUserId}/questions`) - .set('Authorization', `Bearer ${TestToken}`) - .query({ - page_start: questionIds[1], - page_size: 1000, - }) - .send(); - expect(respond.body.message).toBe('Query asked questions successfully.'); - expect(respond.body.code).toBe(200); - expect(respond.status).toBe(200); - expect(respond.body.data.page.page_size).toBe(questionIds.length - 1); - expect(respond.body.data.page.page_start).toBe(questionIds[1]); - expect(respond.body.data.page.has_prev).toBe(true); - expect(respond.body.data.page.prev_start).toBe(questionIds[0]); - expect(respond.body.data.page.has_more).toBe(false); - expect(respond.body.data.page.next_start).toBe 0); - expect(respond.body.data.questions.length).toBe(questionIds.length - 1); - for (let i = 1; i < questionIds.length; i++) { - expect(respond.body.data.questions[i - 1].id).toBe(questionIds[i]); - } - });
Line range hint
380-409: Remove duplicate test case: should get paged questions asked by the user.This test case is a duplicate of the previous one and should be removed to avoid redundancy.
- it('should get paged questions asked by the user', async () => { - const respond = await request(app.getHttpServer()) - .get(`/users/${TestUserId}/questions`) - .set('Authorization', `Bearer ${TestToken}`) - .query({ - page_start: questionIds[2], - page_size: 2, - }) - .send(); - expect(respond.body.message).toBe('Query asked questions successfully.'); - expect(respond.body.code).toBe(200); - expect(respond.status).toBe(200); - expect(respond.body.data.page.page_size).toBe(2); - expect(respond.body.data.page.page_start).toBe(questionIds[2]); - expect(respond.body.data.page.has_prev).toBe(true); - expect(respond.body.data.page.prev_start).toBe(questionIds[0]); - expect(respond.body.data.page.has_more).toBe(true); - expect(respond.body.data.page.next_start).toBe(questionIds[4]); - expect(respond.body.data.questions.length).toBe(2); - expect(respond.body.data.questions[0].id).toBe(questionIds[2]); - expect(respond.body.data.questions[1].id).toBe(questionIds[3]); - });
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (2)
jest.config.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonsrc/auth/token-payload.schema.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
Files selected for processing (38)
- src/answer/answer.controller.ts (8 hunks)
- src/answer/answer.service.ts (1 hunks)
- src/app.module.ts (2 hunks)
- src/attachments/attachments.controller.ts (3 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.error.ts (2 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.service.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.spec.ts (8 hunks)
- src/auth/definitions.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/guard.decorator.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/session.service.ts (4 hunks)
- src/auth/user-id.decorator.ts (1 hunks)
- src/avatars/avatars.controller.ts (4 hunks)
- src/comments/comment.controller.ts (6 hunks)
- src/common/interceptor/ensure-guard.interceptor.ts (1 hunks)
- src/common/interceptor/token-validate.interceptor.ts (1 hunks)
- src/groups/groups.controller.ts (10 hunks)
- src/main.ts (1 hunks)
- src/materialbundles/materialbundles.controller.ts (7 hunks)
- src/materialbundles/materialbundles.service.ts (1 hunks)
- src/materials/materials.controller.ts (4 hunks)
- src/questions/questions.controller.ts (18 hunks)
- src/questions/questions.error.ts (1 hunks)
- src/questions/questions.service.ts (1 hunks)
- src/topics/topics.controller.ts (3 hunks)
- src/users/users-permission.service.ts (2 hunks)
- src/users/users.controller.ts (18 hunks)
- src/users/users.service.ts (3 hunks)
- test/answer.e2e-spec.ts (10 hunks)
- test/attachments.e2e-spec.ts (5 hunks)
- test/avatars.e2e-spec.ts (5 hunks)
- test/comment.e2e-spec.ts (2 hunks)
- test/groups.e2e-spec.ts (2 hunks)
- test/materialbundle.e2e-spec.ts (12 hunks)
- test/materials.e2e-spec.ts (5 hunks)
- test/question.e2e-spec.ts (35 hunks)
- test/topic.e2e-spec.ts (6 hunks)
- test/user.follow.e2e-spec.ts (6 hunks)
- test/user.profile.e2e-spec.ts (3 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- src/main.ts
- src/questions/questions.error.ts
- src/questions/questions.service.ts
Additional context used
Biome
src/auth/guard.decorator.ts
[error] 33-33: Don't use 'Object' as a type.
Prefer explicitly define the object shape. This type means "any non-nullable value", which is slightly better than 'unknown', but it's still a broad type.
(lint/complexity/noBannedTypes)
[error] 48-48: Don't use 'Object' as a type.
Prefer explicitly define the object shape. This type means "any non-nullable value", which is slightly better than 'unknown', but it's still a broad type.
(lint/complexity/noBannedTypes)
Additional comments not posted (140)
src/auth/user-id.decorator.ts (2)
1-13: LGTM!The file header is clear and informative.
15-17: LGTM!The import statements are relevant and necessary.
src/common/interceptor/ensure-guard.interceptor.ts (2)
1-8: LGTM!The file header is clear and informative.
10-20: LGTM!The import statements are relevant and necessary.
src/common/interceptor/token-validate.interceptor.ts (3)
Line range hint
1-13:
LGTM!The file header is clear and informative.
Line range hint
15-29:
LGTM!The import statements are relevant and necessary.
35-35: LGTM!The
NoAuthdecorator implementation is appropriate and aligns with the broader authentication mechanism.src/auth/auth.error.ts (2)
11-11: Simplified import statement.The removal of
authorizedActionToStringand the retention ofAuthorizedActionsuggest a streamlined approach to handling authorized actions.
40-40: Simplified error message construction.The error message now directly uses the
actionparameter, improving readability and maintainability.src/app.module.ts (2)
3-3: New imports for error handling and request validation.The addition of
BaseErrorExceptionFilter,EnsureGuardInterceptor, andTokenValidateInterceptorenhances error handling and request validation mechanisms.Also applies to: 10-12
44-55: Enhanced error handling and request interception.The new providers for
BaseErrorExceptionFilter,TokenValidateInterceptor, andEnsureGuardInterceptorimprove centralized error handling and security.src/attachments/attachments.controller.ts (2)
42-46: Enhanced security with@Guardand@AuthTokendecorators.The
@Guarddecorator enforces authorization checks, and the@AuthTokendecorator simplifies token extraction and validation, enhancing security.
62-65: Enhanced security with@Guardand@AuthTokendecorators.The
@Guarddecorator enforces authorization checks, and the@AuthTokendecorator simplifies token extraction and validation, enhancing security.src/auth/definitions.ts (4)
49-54: LGTM! ClassAuthorizedResourceis well-defined.The class provides a clear structure for filtering resources based on ownership, types, and resource IDs. The comments are detailed and helpful.
57-60: LGTM! ClassPermissionis well-defined.The class provides a clear structure for defining permissions on resources. The comments are clear and helpful.
62-65: LGTM! ClassAuthorizationis well-defined.The class provides a clear structure for defining user permissions. The comments are clear and helpful.
67-70: LGTM! ClassTokenPayloadis well-defined.The class provides a clear structure for defining token payloads. The comments are clear and helpful.
src/materials/materials.controller.ts (3)
45-50: LGTM! MethoduploadMaterialis well-defined with appropriate decorators.The method now uses
@AuthTokenand@UserId(true)decorators, which streamline the process of extracting authentication tokens and user IDs.
67-73: LGTM! MethodgetMaterialDetailis well-defined with appropriate decorators.The method now uses
@AuthToken,@ResourceId, and@UserIddecorators, which streamline the process of extracting authentication tokens, resource IDs, and user IDs.
91-91: MethoddeleteMaterialis correctly defined with a placeholder for future implementation.The method is not implemented yet, but the commented-out code indicates potential future integration of authorization handling.
src/topics/topics.controller.ts (3)
42-47: LGTM! MethodsearchTopicsis well-defined with appropriate decorators.The method now uses
@Guardand@UserIddecorators, which streamline the process of enforcing access control and extracting user IDs.
70-74: LGTM! MethodaddTopicis well-defined with appropriate decorators.The method now uses
@Guard,@AuthToken, and@UserId(true)decorators, which streamline the process of enforcing access control, extracting authentication tokens, and user IDs.
87-91: LGTM! MethodgetTopicis well-defined with appropriate decorators.The method now uses
@Guard,@ResourceId,@AuthToken, and@UserIddecorators, which streamline the process of enforcing access control, extracting resource IDs, authentication tokens, and user IDs.src/avatars/avatars.controller.ts (5)
30-30: Import statement looks good.The new decorators (
AuthToken,Guard,ResourceId) are appropriately imported for enhancing authentication and authorization mechanisms.
54-58: Enhancements togetDefaultAvatarmethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can query the default avatar. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers, enhancing security.However, ensure that all function calls to
getDefaultAvatarare updated to match the new signature.Verification successful
Verification successful.
There are no function calls to
getDefaultAvatarthat need to be updated to match the new signature.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getDefaultAvatar` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'getDefaultAvatar'Length of output: 1972
120-123: Enhancements togetAvailableAvatarIdsmethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can enumerate avatar IDs. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers, enhancing security.However, ensure that all function calls to
getAvailableAvatarIdsare updated to match the new signature.Verification successful
All function calls to
getAvailableAvatarIdshave been verified to match the new signature. No additional occurrences were found in the codebase.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getAvailableAvatarIds` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'getAvailableAvatarIds'Length of output: 517
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getAvailableAvatarIds` match the new signature. # Test: Search for all occurrences of `getAvailableAvatarIds` in the codebase. rg --type ts 'getAvailableAvatarIds'Length of output: 101
38-41: Enhancements tocreateAvatarmethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can create an avatar. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers, enhancing security.However, ensure that all function calls to
createAvatarare updated to match the new signature.Verification successful
No instances of
createAvatarmethod calls found.The
createAvatarmethod appears to be defined but not called anywhere in the codebase. Ensure that any future calls to this method match the updated signature.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `createAvatar` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'createAvatar'Length of output: 492
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for all instances where `createAvatar` is called in the codebase. # Test: Search for function calls to `createAvatar`. Expect: Occurrences of the function being called with the new signature. rg --type ts 'createAvatar('Length of output: 107
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for all instances where `createAvatar` is called in the codebase. # Test: Search for function calls to `createAvatar`. Expect: Occurrences of the function being called with the new signature. rg --type ts 'createAvatar\('Length of output: 87
87-90: Enhancements togetAvatarmethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can query avatars. The@ResourceIddecorator provides a structured approach to handling resource identifiers. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers, enhancing security.However, ensure that all function calls to
getAvatarare updated to match the new signature.Verification successful
All function calls to
getAvatarare verified and match the new signature.The search did not reveal any direct calls to the
getAvatarmethod, indicating that no updates are necessary for function calls to match the new signature.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getAvatar` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'getAvatar'Length of output: 1721
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getAvatar` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts 'getAvatar('Length of output: 98
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getAvatar` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts 'getAvatar\('Length of output: 81
src/users/users-permission.service.ts (5)
2-2: Import statement looks good.The
Authorizationdefinition is appropriately imported for defining the structure of the authorization object.
13-22: Enhancements toauthorizedActionsarray are approved.The expanded
authorizedActionsarray enhances the functionality of the permissions system by allowing a broader set of operations.
24-33: Changes toauthorizedResourceproperties are approved.Setting the
ownedByUserfield toundefinedin the first permission entry implies a more generalized permission model. Setting it touserIdin the second permission entry restricts actions based on ownership.
38-49: Enhancements toauthorizedActionsarray andauthorizedResourceproperties are approved.The expanded
authorizedActionsarray and new resource types enhance the functionality of the permissions system. Restricting actions based on ownership ensures that only authorized users can perform certain actions.
55-149: Enhancements toauthorizedActionsarray andauthorizedResourceproperties are approved.The expanded
authorizedActionsarray and new resource types enhance the functionality of the permissions system. Setting theownedByUserfield toundefinedin several cases implies a more generalized permission model.src/materialbundles/materialbundles.controller.ts (4)
26-39: Import statements look good.The new decorators and services are appropriately imported for enhancing authentication and authorization mechanisms.
57-64: NewgetMaterialBundleOwnermethod is approved.The method encapsulates the logic for retrieving the creator's ID, enhancing code readability and maintainability.
Line range hint
91-103: Enhancements togetMaterialBundleListmethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can enumerate material bundles. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers. The@UserIddecorator retrieves the user ID based on the authorization token, enhancing security and code readability.However, ensure that all function calls to
getMaterialBundleListare updated to match the new signature.Verification successful
The search results did not show any other occurrences of
getMaterialBundleList, which might indicate that the method is not used elsewhere. To ensure comprehensive verification, let's expand the search to include more lines of context and check for indirect references or usages of the method.
Verification successful: No issues found with the
getMaterialBundleListmethod.The
getMaterialBundleListmethod is not referenced or called elsewhere in the codebase, so no additional updates are needed to match the new signature.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getMaterialBundleList` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'getMaterialBundleList'Length of output: 2503
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getMaterialBundleList` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage with more context lines to capture indirect references. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 10 $'getMaterialBundleList'Length of output: 4251
124-130: Enhancements togetMaterialBundleDetailmethod are approved.The
@Guarddecorator ensures that only authorized users can query material bundle details. The@ResourceIddecorator provides a structured approach to handling resource identifiers. The@AuthTokendecorator extracts the authorization token from the request headers. The@UserIddecorator retrieves the user ID based on the authorization token, enhancing security and code readability.However, ensure that all function calls to
getMaterialBundleDetailare updated to match the new signature.#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getMaterialBundleDetail` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts <details> <summary>Verification successful</summary> --- <!-- [monologue] [task review_file_3/3 segment_5/6] Conclude the verification of the `getMaterialBundleDetail` method. [observations] The search results show that the `getMaterialBundleDetail` method is only defined in `src/materialbundles/materialbundles.controller.ts` and referenced in `design/API.yml` as an operation ID. There are no other function calls to `getMaterialBundleDetail` found in the codebase. [analysis] Since there are no other instances of `getMaterialBundleDetail` being called elsewhere in the codebase, it confirms that no external calls need to be updated to match the new signature. The method definition and its usage in the API documentation are consistent with the changes made. [actions] Generate the final response indicating that the verification is successful and no issues are found. --> **Verification successful: No issues found.** The `getMaterialBundleDetail` method is only defined in `src/materialbundles/materialbundles.controller.ts` and referenced in `design/API.yml` as an operation ID. There are no other function calls to `getMaterialBundleDetail` that need to be updated to match the new signature. </details> <details> <summary>Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getMaterialBundleDetail` match the new signature. # Search for all instances of `getMaterialBundleDetail` and include 5 lines of context to check parameters. rg 'getMaterialBundleDetail' -A 5 -B 2 --type tsLength of output: 799
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `getMaterialBundleDetail` match the new signature. # Search for all instances of `getMaterialBundleDetail` across the entire codebase with more context lines. rg 'getMaterialBundleDetail' -A 10 -B 2Length of output: 1754
src/comments/comment.controller.ts (7)
44-47: LGTM!The method correctly retrieves the owner of a comment.
50-57: LGTM!The method correctly retrieves comments with the necessary authorization checks.
84-89: LGTM!The method correctly updates the user's attitude towards a comment with the necessary authorization checks.
106-114: LGTM!The method correctly creates a new comment with the necessary authorization checks.
132-136: LGTM!The method correctly deletes a comment with the necessary authorization checks.
142-146: LGTM!The method correctly retrieves the details of a comment with the necessary authorization checks.
166-170: LGTM!The method correctly updates a comment with the necessary authorization checks.
src/auth/session.service.ts (3)
44-44: LGTM!The method correctly returns the authorization for refreshing a session.
95-95: LGTM!The method correctly refreshes a session and returns new tokens.
175-175: LGTM!The method correctly revokes a session.
src/auth/auth.service.ts (2)
25-28: Verify the singleton pattern implementation.The
AuthServiceclass now includes a static instance property. Ensure that this pattern is implemented correctly and that the instance is used properly throughout the codebase.Verification successful
The singleton pattern implementation has been verified and is used correctly.
The
AuthServiceclass's static instance property is properly assigned in the constructor and utilized appropriately in various parts of the codebase.
src/common/interceptor/token-validate.interceptor.tssrc/auth/user-id.decorator.tssrc/auth/guard.decorator.tsScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the static instance property. # Test: Search for the usage of `AuthService.instance`. Expect: Correct usage of the static instance. rg --type python 'AuthService.instance'Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the static instance property. # Test: Search for the usage of `AuthService.instance`. Expect: Correct usage of the static instance. rg --type typescript 'AuthService.instance'Length of output: 78
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the static instance property. # Test: Search for the usage of `AuthService.instance`. Expect: Correct usage of the static instance. rg --type ts 'AuthService.instance'Length of output: 527
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract relevant lines around the usages of `AuthService.instance` to verify the singleton pattern implementation. # Extract lines around the usage of `AuthService.instance` to verify the context. rg --type ts 'AuthService.instance' -A 3 -B 3Length of output: 2734
21-21: Verify the usage of new imports.Ensure that
Authorization,AuthorizedAction, andTokenPayloadfrom./definitionsare correctly defined and used in this file.Verification successful
The new imports are correctly defined and used.
The imports
Authorization,AuthorizedAction, andTokenPayloadfrom./definitionsare properly defined and utilized insrc/auth/auth.service.ts.
Authorizationis used in thesignandverifymethods.TokenPayloadis used in thedecodePayload,encodePayload,sign, anddecodemethods.AuthorizedActionis used in a method parameter.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the definitions of the new imports. # Test: Search for the definitions. Expect: Correct definitions for the imports. rg --type-add 'json' --files-with-matches --glob '!node_modules' 'Authorization|AuthorizedAction|TokenPayload' | xargs -I {} cat {}Length of output: 195
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the definitions of the new imports. # Test: Search for the definitions. Expect: Correct definitions for the imports. rg 'Authorization|AuthorizedAction|TokenPayload' --glob '*.ts' -A 5Length of output: 139139
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the new imports in src/auth/auth.service.ts. # Test: Search for the usage of Authorization, AuthorizedAction, and TokenPayload in src/auth/auth.service.ts. rg 'Authorization|AuthorizedAction|TokenPayload' src/auth/auth.service.ts -A 5Length of output: 2216
src/answer/answer.controller.ts (5)
53-59: Verify the usage of@Guarddecorator and method signature modifications.Ensure that the
@Guard('enumerate-answers', 'question')decorator is used correctly and that the method signature modifications are appropriate.Verification successful
The usage of the
@Guarddecorator and the method signature modifications in thegetQuestionAnswersmethod are correct.
- The
@Guarddecorator is used appropriately.- The method signature modifications align with the expected inputs for fetching question answers.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@Guard` decorator and method signature modifications. # Test: Search for the usage of `@Guard` decorator. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type python '@Guard'Length of output: 56
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@Guard` decorator and method signature modifications. # Test: Search for the usage of `@Guard` decorator in TypeScript files. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type typescript '@Guard' # Test: Search for the `getQuestionAnswers` method to verify the method signature modifications. rg --type typescript 'async getQuestionAnswers'Length of output: 149
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@Guard` decorator and method signature modifications. # Test: Search for the usage of `@Guard` decorator in TypeScript files. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type ts '@Guard' # Test: Search for the `getQuestionAnswers` method to verify the method signature modifications. rg --type ts 'async getQuestionAnswers'Length of output: 4039
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract and review the implementation of the `getQuestionAnswers` method in `src/answer/answer.controller.ts`. # Extract the implementation of the `getQuestionAnswers` method. rg --type ts 'async getQuestionAnswers' -A 20Length of output: 2594
82-88: Verify the usage of@Guardand@CurrentUserOwnResourcedecorators and method signature modifications.Ensure that the
@Guard('create', 'answer')and@CurrentUserOwnResource()decorators are used correctly and that the method signature modifications are appropriate.
42-45: Verify the usage of@ResourceOwnerIdGetterdecorator.Ensure that the
@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('answer')decorator is used correctly and that the method returns the correct owner ID.Verification successful
The usage of
@ResourceOwnerIdGetterdecorator is correct.The
@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('answer')decorator is used correctly in thegetAnswerOwnermethod, and the method returns the correct owner ID by callinggetCreatedByIdAcrossQuestionsin theAnswerService.
src/answer/answer.controller.ts:@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('answer')decorator ongetAnswerOwnermethod.src/answer/answer.service.ts: Implementation ofgetCreatedByIdAcrossQuestions.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type python '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter'Length of output: 72
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type typescript '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter'Length of output: 80
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter' | grep '\.ts'Length of output: 625
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract code blocks where `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` is used in `src/answer/answer.controller.ts`. # Extract code blocks with `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` in `src/answer/answer.controller.ts` rg --context 5 '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter' src/answer/answer.controller.tsLength of output: 616
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract the implementation of `getCreatedByIdAcrossQuestions` in the `AnswerService` class. # Extract the implementation of `getCreatedByIdAcrossQuestions` in the `AnswerService` class rg 'getCreatedByIdAcrossQuestions' -A 10Length of output: 1359
16-23: Verify the usage of new imports.Ensure that the new decorators (
AuthToken,CurrentUserOwnResource,Guard,ResourceId,ResourceOwnerIdGetter,UserId) are correctly defined and used in this file.Verification successful
Verify the usage of new imports.
The decorators
AuthToken,CurrentUserOwnResource,Guard,ResourceId,ResourceOwnerIdGetter, andUserIdare correctly defined and used insrc/answer/answer.controller.ts.
@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('answer')@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('question')@Guard('enumerate-answers', 'question')@Param('question_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() questionId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId() userId: number | undefined@Guard('create', 'answer')@CurrentUserOwnResource()@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId(true) userId: number@Guard('query', 'answer')@Param('answer_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() answerId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId() userId: number | undefined@Guard('modify', 'answer')@Param('answer_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() answerId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId(true) userId: number@Guard('delete', 'answer')@Param('answer_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() answerId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId(true) userId: number@Guard('attitude', 'answer')@Param('answer_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() answerId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId(true) userId: number@Guard('favorite', 'answer')@Param('answer_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() answerId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId(true) userId: number@Guard('unfavorite', 'answer')@Param('answer_id', ParseIntPipe) @ResourceId() answerId: number@Headers('Authorization') @AuthToken() auth: string | undefined@UserId(true) userId: numberScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the definitions of the new imports. # Test: Search for the definitions. Expect: Correct definitions for the imports. rg --type-add 'json' --files-with-matches --glob '!node_modules' 'AuthToken|CurrentUserOwnResource|Guard|ResourceId|ResourceOwnerIdGetter|UserId' | xargs -I {} cat {}Length of output: 230
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the definitions of the new imports. # Test: Search for the definitions. Expect: Correct definitions for the imports. rg --glob '!node_modules' 'AuthToken|CurrentUserOwnResource|Guard|ResourceId|ResourceOwnerIdGetter|UserId'Length of output: 36322
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the new imports in answer.controller.ts. # Test: Search for the usage of the decorators in answer.controller.ts. rg --glob '!node_modules' '@AuthToken|@CurrentUserOwnResource|@Guard|@ResourceId|@ResourceOwnerIdGetter|@UserId' src/answer/answer.controller.tsLength of output: 1832
47-50: Verify the usage of@ResourceOwnerIdGetterdecorator.Ensure that the
@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('question')decorator is used correctly and that the method returns the correct owner ID.Verification successful
The usage of the
@ResourceOwnerIdGetterdecorator is correct.The
@ResourceOwnerIdGetter('question')decorator is correctly implemented and used in thegetQuestionOwnermethod. The metadata set by the decorator is appropriately retrieved and utilized.
src/answer/answer.controller.ts: Lines 47-50Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type python '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter'Length of output: 72
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type typescript '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter'Length of output: 80
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct usage of the decorator. rg --type ts '@ResourceOwnerIdGetter'Length of output: 621
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate the implementation of the `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the implementation of `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. Expect: Correct implementation of the decorator. rg --type ts 'function ResourceOwnerIdGetter' -A 10Length of output: 653
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate the usage of `Reflect.getMetadata` to verify the correct implementation of the `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter` decorator. # Test: Search for the usage of `Reflect.getMetadata`. Expect: Correct retrieval of metadata set by `@ResourceOwnerIdGetter`. rg --type ts 'Reflect.getMetadata' -A 10Length of output: 1436
src/auth/auth.spec.ts (2)
17-18: Verify the impact of the removal ofauthorizedActionToStringfunction.Ensure that the removal of the
authorizedActionToStringfunction and its associated tests does not affect the overall test coverage.Verification successful
The removal of the
authorizedActionToStringfunction does not affect the overall test coverage.The
authorizedActionToStringfunction is not used anywhere in the.tsfiles, confirming its complete removal from the codebase.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of the removal of `authorizedActionToString` function. # Test: Search for the usage of `authorizedActionToString` function. Expect: No usage of the function. rg --type python 'authorizedActionToString'Length of output: 74
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of the removal of `authorizedActionToString` function. # Test: Search for the usage of `authorizedActionToString` function. Expect: No usage of the function. rg --type typescript 'authorizedActionToString'Length of output: 82
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of the removal of `authorizedActionToString` function. # Test: Search for the usage of `authorizedActionToString` function. Expect: No usage of the function. rg 'authorizedActionToString' --glob '*.ts'Length of output: 43
76-76: Verify the usage of string literals for authorized actions.Ensure that the string literals for authorized actions are used correctly and that the test cases are still valid.
Also applies to: 98-98, 121-121, 130-130, 134-139, 152-152, 168-168
Verification successful
Verified the usage of string literals for authorized actions.
The string literals for authorized actions are used correctly within the context of
authorizedActionsin the test cases.
- Verified instances of
authorizedActions: ['create'],authorizedActions: ['delete'],authorizedActions: ['other'], andauthorizedActions: ['query'].Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of string literals for authorized actions. # Test: Search for the usage of string literals for authorized actions. Expect: Correct usage of string literals. rg --type python "'create'|'delete'|'other'|'query'"Length of output: 109
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of string literals for authorized actions in TypeScript files. # Test: Search for the usage of string literals for authorized actions. Expect: Correct usage of string literals. rg --type typescript "'create'|'delete'|'other'|'query'"Length of output: 117
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of string literals for authorized actions in TypeScript files. # Find all TypeScript files and search for the usage of string literals for authorized actions within them. fd --extension ts --exec rg "'create'|'delete'|'other'|'query'"Length of output: 1996
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of string literals for authorized actions in TypeScript files within the context of `authorizedActions`. # Find all TypeScript files and search for the usage of string literals for authorized actions within the context of `authorizedActions`. fd --extension ts --exec rg -A 3 "authorizedActions: \['create'|'delete'|'other'|'query'"Length of output: 5983
src/groups/groups.controller.ts (9)
53-53: Verify access control policy forcreateGroupmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thecreateGroupmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might expose group creation to unauthorized users.
78-78: Verify access control policy forgetGroupsmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thegetGroupsmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might expose group information to unauthorized users.
111-111: Verify access control policy forgetGroupDetailmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thegetGroupDetailmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might expose detailed group information to unauthorized users.
138-138: Verify access control policy forupdateGroupmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to theupdateGroupmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might allow unauthorized users to update group information.
159-159: Verify access control policy fordeleteGroupmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thedeleteGroupmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might allow unauthorized users to delete groups.
169-169: Verify access control policy forgetGroupMembersmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thegetGroupMembersmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might expose member information to unauthorized users.
202-202: Verify access control policy forjoinGroupmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thejoinGroupmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might allow unauthorized users to join groups.
222-222: Verify access control policy forquitGroupmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thequitGroupmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might allow unauthorized users to quit groups.
237-237: Verify access control policy forgetGroupQuestionsmethod.The
@NoAuth()decorator allows unauthenticated access to thegetGroupQuestionsmethod. Ensure this aligns with the intended access control policies, as it might expose group questions to unauthorized users.
test/avatars.e2e-spec.ts (6)
28-68: LGTM! Comprehensive test case for email verification and user registration.The test case covers the email verification process and user registration comprehensively. The mock email service is correctly configured, and the assertions are valid.
70-88: LGTM! Comprehensive test case for avatar upload with authorization checks.The test case covers both successful and unauthorized upload scenarios comprehensively. The authorization checks are correctly implemented, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
89-120:
LGTM! Comprehensive test case for avatar retrieval with authorization checks.The test case covers successful retrieval, not found, and unauthorized scenarios comprehensively. The authorization checks are correctly implemented, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
121-142:
LGTM! Comprehensive test case for default avatar retrieval with authorization checks.The test case covers both successful and unauthorized retrieval scenarios comprehensively. The authorization checks are correctly implemented, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
143-172:
LGTM! Comprehensive test case for retrieving available avatar IDs with authorization checks.The test case covers successful retrieval, invalid type, and unauthorized scenarios comprehensively. The authorization checks are correctly implemented, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
1-173:
LGTM! Robust test suite for the Avatar Module with comprehensive authorization checks.The test suite covers various scenarios comprehensively and ensures proper authorization checks. The overall structure and setup are correct.
test/attachments.e2e-spec.ts (4)
Line range hint
28-68:
LGTM! Comprehensive test case for email verification and user registration.The test case covers the email verification process and user registration comprehensively. The mock email service is correctly configured, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
69-101:
LGTM! Comprehensive test case for attachment upload with authorization checks.The test case covers successful uploads, invalid types, and MIME mismatches comprehensively. The authorization checks are correctly implemented, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
102-196:
LGTM! Comprehensive test case for attachment retrieval with authorization checks.The test case covers successful retrieval and not found scenarios comprehensively. The authorization checks are correctly implemented, and the assertions are valid.
Line range hint
1-196:
LGTM! Robust test suite for the Attachment Module with comprehensive authorization checks.The test suite covers various scenarios comprehensively and ensures proper authorization checks. The overall structure and setup are correct.
test/user.profile.e2e-spec.ts (4)
92-104: Reintroduced avatar upload test case looks good.The test case correctly includes an authorization header and verifies the response status, message, and presence of
avatarId.
169-187: Verify the intention behind commenting out the test case.The test case for retrieving a modified user profile without a token has been commented out. Is this intentional, and are there plans to re-enable it?
189-191: New test case forUserIdNotFoundErrorlooks good.The test case correctly verifies the error handling for an invalid user ID.
196-203: New test case forAuthenticationRequiredErrorlooks good.The test case correctly ensures that unauthorized access is properly handled.
test/materials.e2e-spec.ts (3)
148-156: New test case forAuthenticationRequiredErrorwhen posting a material looks good.The test case correctly verifies the error handling for unauthenticated material posting.
162-162: Modified test cases to includeAuthorizationheader look good.The modifications ensure that the tests simulate authenticated requests, which is necessary for validating authorization handling.
Also applies to: 175-175, 192-192, 205-205
223-230: New test case forAuthenticationRequiredErrorwhen retrieving a material looks good.The test case correctly ensures that unauthorized access is properly handled.
src/materialbundles/materialbundles.service.ts (1)
332-340: New methodgetMaterialBundleCreatorIdlooks good.The method is correctly implemented, ensuring proper error handling and retrieval of the
creatorId.
src/questions/questions.controller.ts (17)
77-80: LGTM!The
getQuestionOwnermethod correctly retrieves the question owner ID using the service.
Line range hint
112-138: LGTM!The
addQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to add a question.
Line range hint
139-162: LGTM!The
getQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to retrieve a question.
Line range hint
163-182: LGTM!The
updateQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to update a question.
184-191: LGTM!The
deleteQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to delete a question.
Line range hint
193-222: LGTM!The
getQuestionFollowersmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to retrieve the followers of a question.
Line range hint
223-238: LGTM!The
followQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to follow a question.
Line range hint
240-255: LGTM!The
unfollowQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to unfollow a question.
Line range hint
257-276: LGTM!The
updateAttitudeToQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to update the attitude towards a question.
Line range hint
279-316: LGTM!The
getQuestionInvitationsmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to retrieve the invitations for a question.
Line range hint
319-336: LGTM!The
inviteUserAnswerQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to invite a user to answer a question.
Line range hint
339-354: LGTM!The
cancelInvitionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to cancel an invitation.
Line range hint
356-382: LGTM!The
getRecommendationsmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to retrieve recommendations for a question.
Line range hint
384-407: LGTM!The
getInvitationDetailmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to retrieve the details of an invitation.
Line range hint
410-421: LGTM!The
setBountymethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to set a bounty on a question.
424-431: LGTM!The
acceptAnswermethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the logic to accept an answer for a question.
Line range hint
83-109: LGTM! But verify the function usage in the codebase.The
searchQuestionmethod correctly applies the decorators and handles the search logic.However, ensure that all function calls to
searchQuestionmatch the new signature.Verification successful
Function usage verification successful.
The
searchQuestionmethod is defined inquestions.controller.tsand is not called elsewhere in the codebase. The new signature is correctly applied.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `searchQuestion` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts -A 5 $'searchQuestion'Length of output: 1283
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `searchQuestion` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts 'searchQuestion('Length of output: 113
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all function calls to `searchQuestion` match the new signature. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new signature. rg --type ts 'searchQuestion\('Length of output: 95
test/topic.e2e-spec.ts (8)
163-163: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
183-183: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
221-221: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
261-261: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
278-278: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
297-297: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
305-305: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
323-323: LGTM!The test case correctly includes the authorization header, ensuring that the requests are authenticated.
src/users/users.controller.ts (1)
89-92: LGTM!The
getUserOwnermethod correctly retrieves the user owner ID.
src/answer/answer.service.ts (1)
569-579: LGTM! But verify the function usage in the codebase.The code changes are approved.
However, ensure that all function calls to
getCreatedByIdAcrossQuestionsare correctly implemented in the codebase.
test/user.follow.e2e-spec.ts (3)
184-186: LGTM!The test case correctly checks if the user statistics are updated.
420-427: LGTM!The test case correctly checks if the
AuthenticationRequiredErroris returned when accessing followers without proper authorization.
Line range hint
282-305:
LGTM!The test case correctly checks if the user statistics are updated.
test/materialbundle.e2e-spec.ts (3)
192-202: LGTM!The test case correctly checks if the
AuthenticationRequiredErroris returned when creating a material bundle without proper authentication.
208-213: LGTM!The test case correctly checks if all material bundles are retrieved with proper authentication.
389-395: LGTM!The test case correctly checks if the
AuthenticationRequiredErroris returned when getting material bundle details without proper authentication.
src/users/users.service.ts (2)
23-24: LGTM! Import removal is appropriate.The removal of
AuthorizedActionaligns with the shift to string literals for authorization actions.
485-485: LGTM! Simplified authorization actions.The changes to use string literals instead of the
AuthorizedActionenum simplify the code. Ensure consistency in using string literals throughout the file.Also applies to: 526-526
Verification successful
LGTM! Simplified authorization actions.
The changes to use string literals instead of the
AuthorizedActionenum simplify the code. The usage of string literals is consistent throughout the codebase.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent usage of string literals for authorization actions. # Test: Search for the usage of authorization actions. Expect: Only occurrences of string literals. rg --type ts -A 5 $'authorizedActions: 'Length of output: 8848
test/comment.e2e-spec.ts (2)
350-356: Good addition!The new test case correctly verifies that a GET request to retrieve a comment by its ID returns an
AuthenticationRequiredErrorand a 401 status code if the user is not authenticated.
588-595: Good addition!The new test case correctly verifies that a PATCH request to update a comment returns an
AuthenticationRequiredErrorand a 401 status code if the user is not authenticated.
test/groups.e2e-spec.ts (1)
129-143: Good reintroduction!The reintroduced test case for uploading avatars now includes an authorization header, ensuring the operation is authenticated. This aligns with the API's security requirements.
test/answer.e2e-spec.ts (5)
250-252: Ensure consistent usage of authorization headers.The authorization header is correctly added to the request. Ensure this pattern is consistently applied across all relevant tests.
308-335: Clarify the reason for commenting out the test case.The test case for fetching an answer without a token is commented out. Ensure this is intentional and document the reason for future reference.
349-359: LGTM!The test case correctly checks for
AuthenticationRequiredErrorwhen the authorization header is missing.
482-507: Clarify the reason for commenting out the test case.The test case for fetching answers by question ID without a token is commented out. Ensure this is intentional and document the reason for future reference.
853-866: Clarify the reason for commenting out the test case.The test case for getting answer DTO with attitude statistics is commented out. Ensure this is intentional and document the reason for future reference.
test/question.e2e-spec.ts (14)
Line range hint
53-80: Test case approved: should send an email and register a user.The test case correctly verifies the email sending and user registration process, including authentication checks.
Line range hint
81-94: Test case approved: should create some topics.The test case correctly verifies the topic creation process, including authentication checks.
Line range hint
95-97: Test case approved: should create an auxiliary user.The test case correctly verifies the auxiliary user creation process, including authentication checks.
Line range hint
98-117: Test case approved: should create some questions.The test case correctly verifies the question creation process, including authentication checks.
182-185: Test case approved: should return updated statistic info when getting user.The test case correctly verifies that user statistics are updated correctly after creating questions, including authentication checks.
Line range hint
190-195: Test case approved: should return AuthenticationRequiredError.The test case correctly verifies that an error is returned when authentication is required but not provided.
Line range hint
196-201: Test case approved: should return TopicNotFoundError.The test case correctly verifies that an error is returned when a non-existent topic is specified.
Line range hint
202-236: Test case approved: should get a question.The test case correctly verifies the process of retrieving a question, including authentication checks.
Line range hint
300-305: Test case approved: should return QuestionNotFoundError.The test case correctly verifies that an error is returned when a non-existent question is requested.
308-314: Test case approved: should return AuthenticationRequiredError.The test case correctly verifies that an error is returned when authentication is required but not provided.
315-320: Test case approved: should return UserIdNotFoundError.The test case correctly verifies that an error is returned when a non-existent user ID is specified.
Line range hint
321-334: Test case approved: should get all the questions asked by the user.The test case correctly verifies the process of retrieving all questions asked by a user, including authentication checks.
Line range hint
358-379: Test case approved: should get paged questions asked by the user.The test case correctly verifies the process of retrieving paged questions asked by a user, including authentication checks.
429-435: Test case approved: should return AuthenticationRequiredError.The test case correctly verifies that an error is returned when authentication is required but not provided.
|
@coderabbitai review |
Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
Line range hint
103-179:
Improve error handling and logging inauditmethod.The
auditmethod should include error handling and logging to provide better insights into authorization failures.- for (const permission of authorization.permissions) { + try { + for (const permission of authorization.permissions) { + let actionMatches = false; + for (const authorizedAction of permission.authorizedActions) { + if (authorizedAction === action) { + actionMatches = true; + } + } + if (actionMatches == false) continue; + // Now, action matches. + + if ( + (permission.authorizedResource.ownedByUser === undefined || + permission.authorizedResource.ownedByUser === resourceOwnerId) !== + true + ) + continue; + // Now, owner matches. + + let typeMatches = + permission.authorizedResource.types === undefined ? true : false; + if (permission.authorizedResource.types !== undefined) { + for (const authorizedType of permission.authorizedResource.types) { + if (authorizedType === resourceType) { + typeMatches = true; + } + } + } + if (typeMatches == false) continue; + // Now, type matches. + + let idMatches = + permission.authorizedResource.resourceIds === undefined ? true : false; + if (permission.authorizedResource.resourceIds !== undefined) { + for (const authorizedId of permission.authorizedResource.resourceIds) { + if (authorizedId === resourceId) { + idMatches = true; + } + } + } + if (idMatches == false) continue; + // Now, id matches. + + if (permission.customLogic !== undefined) { + const result = await this.customAuthLogics.invoke( + permission.customLogic, + action, + resourceOwnerId, + resourceType, + resourceId, + ); + if (result !== true) continue; + } + // Now, custom logic matches. + + // Action, owner, type and id matches, so the operaton is permitted. + return; + } + } catch (error) { + // Log the error or handle it as needed + throw new PermissionDeniedError( + action, + resourceOwnerId, + resourceType, + resourceId, + ); + }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/auth/token-payload.schema.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
Files selected for processing (7)
- src/auth/auth.service.ts (3 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.spec.ts (7 hunks)
- src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/definitions.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/guard.decorator.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/session.service.ts (4 hunks)
- src/users/users.service.ts (3 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/users/users.service.ts
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- src/auth/definitions.ts
- src/auth/session.service.ts
Additional context used
Biome
src/auth/guard.decorator.ts
[error] 33-33: Don't use 'Object' as a type.
Prefer explicitly define the object shape. This type means "any non-nullable value", which is slightly better than 'unknown', but it's still a broad type.
(lint/complexity/noBannedTypes)
[error] 48-48: Don't use 'Object' as a type.
Prefer explicitly define the object shape. This type means "any non-nullable value", which is slightly better than 'unknown', but it's still a broad type.
(lint/complexity/noBannedTypes)
Additional comments not posted (16)
src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts (2)
3-8: LGTM!The type definition for
CustomAuthLogicHandleris clear and well-typed.
13-15: LGTM!The
registermethod is straightforward and correctly registers a custom authorization logic handler.src/auth/guard.decorator.ts (3)
62-74: LGTM!The
ResourceOwnerIdGetterdecorator is clear and well-typed.
77-89: LGTM!The
CurrentUserOwnResourcedecorator is clear and well-typed.
162-167: LGTM!The
SetMetadatadecorator is clear and well-typed.src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
26-27: LGTM!The addition of the static instance property follows the singleton pattern and is a good practice for service classes.
src/auth/auth.spec.ts (10)
17-17: LGTM! Import statement forAuthService.The import statement is necessary for the test cases.
18-18: LGTM! Import statement forAuthorizedAction.The import statement is necessary for the test cases.
20-20: LGTM! Import statement forCustomAuthLogicHandler.The import statement is necessary for the test cases.
77-77: LGTM! Transition to string literals forauthorizedActions.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
99-99: LGTM! Transition to string literals forauthorizedActions.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
121-123: LGTM! Transition to string literals forauditmethod call.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
130-132: LGTM! Transition to string literals forauditmethod call.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
135-140: LGTM! Transition to string literals forauditmethod call.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
Line range hint
148-162:
LGTM! Transition to string literals forauditmethod call.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
Line range hint
169-283:
LGTM! Transition to string literals forauditmethod call.The change simplifies the representation of authorized actions and enhances readability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
Line range hint
103-180: Audit Method Needs RefinementThe
auditmethod now incorporates custom logic evaluation, which is a significant enhancement. However, the method is complex and could benefit from further refinement to improve readability and error handling. Consider breaking down the method into smaller, more manageable functions.+ private async evaluatePermissions(token: string, action: AuthorizedAction, resourceOwnerId?: number, resourceType?: string, resourceId?: number): Promise<void> { + // Implementation of permission evaluation logic + } + + public async audit(token: string, action: AuthorizedAction, resourceOwnerId?: number, resourceType?: string, resourceId?: number): Promise<void> { + const authorization = this.verify(token); + await this.evaluatePermissions(token, action, resourceOwnerId, resourceType, resourceId); + }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/auth/token-payload.schema.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
Files selected for processing (4)
- src/auth/auth.service.ts (3 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.spec.ts (7 hunks)
- src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/definitions.ts (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (10)
src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts (2)
3-9: Type Definition ApprovedThe
CustomAuthLogicHandlertype is well-defined and suitable for handling asynchronous custom logic for authorization.
11-16: Registration Method ApprovedThe
registermethod inCustomAuthLogicsclass correctly registers custom logic handlers using a map, ensuring efficient retrieval and management.src/auth/definitions.ts (4)
11-22: Important Notice for Schema UpdatePlease ensure to follow the instructions provided in the notice to update the schema file whenever changes are made to this file. This is crucial for maintaining consistency in schema validation.
26-54: Class Definition Approved with Important WarningThe
AuthorizedResourceclass is well-defined and includes important warnings about the potential dangers of undefined conditions. This helps prevent misuse and ensures that developers are aware of the implications.+ // WARNING: Be cautious with undefined conditions as they can lead to overly broad permissions.
55-62: Permission Class Definition ApprovedThe
Permissionclass is well-structured and supports a comprehensive range of authorization scenarios, including optional custom logic.
63-67: Authorization Class Definition ApprovedThe
Authorizationclass effectively links user IDs with their respective permissions, facilitating clear and manageable user authorizations.src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
26-30: Singleton Pattern and Custom Logic Handling ApprovedThe introduction of the
AuthServicestatic instance and thecustomAuthLogicsproperty are well-implemented. The constructor's setup for token payload validation is also commendable.src/auth/auth.spec.ts (3)
77-77: Refactor: Transition from enum to string literals for authorized actions.The changes from enum values to string literals for
authorizedActionssimplify the code and potentially enhance its flexibility. This modification aligns with the PR's goal of improving the permission system by making it easier to manage and understand.Also applies to: 99-99, 153-153, 169-169, 216-216, 271-271
121-123: Enhancement: Implement asynchronous testing patterns.The introduction of
awaitin test cases is a significant improvement, ensuring that asynchronous operations are properly handled. This change is crucial for accurately testing the AuthService's asynchronous methods and aligns with modern JavaScript practices.Also applies to: 130-132, 135-140, 162-162, 179-180, 225-226, 252-253, 280-284, 315-320
228-254: Feature: Custom authorization logic testing.The addition of tests for custom authorization logic is a robust enhancement. These tests ensure that custom logic handlers are correctly registered and invoked, which is vital for a flexible and secure permission system. The tests also validate the behavior when custom logic fails, ensuring robust error handling.
Also applies to: 286-321
src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts
Outdated
| invoke( | ||
| name: string, | ||
| action: AuthorizedAction, | ||
| resourceOwnerId?: number, | ||
| resourceType?: string, | ||
| resourceId?: number, | ||
| customLogicData?: any, | ||
| ): Promise<boolean> { | ||
| const handler = this.logics.get(name); | ||
| if (!handler) { | ||
| throw new Error(`Custom auth logic '${name}' not found.`); | ||
| } | ||
| return handler( | ||
| action, | ||
| resourceOwnerId, | ||
| resourceType, | ||
| resourceId, | ||
| customLogicData, | ||
| ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve Error Handling in Invoke Method
The invoke method currently throws an error if the custom logic is not found, which is good. However, it lacks error handling for the execution of the handler itself. Consider adding a try-catch block around the handler invocation to manage exceptions gracefully.
return handler(
action,
resourceOwnerId,
resourceType,
resourceId,
customLogicData,
);
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Error invoking custom auth logic '${name}': ${error.message}`);
+ }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| authorizedActionToString, | ||
| } from './auth.service'; | ||
| import { AuthService } from './auth.service'; | ||
| import { Authorization, AuthorizedAction } from './definitions'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Refactor: Simplify import statements.
The import statement for AuthorizedAction is no longer necessary due to the shift from enum to string literals for representing authorized actions. This change aligns with the PR's objective to simplify the permission system.
Consider removing the unused import to clean up the code:
- import { Authorization, AuthorizedAction } from './definitions';
+ import { Authorization } from './definitions';Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| import { Authorization, AuthorizedAction } from './definitions'; | |
| import { Authorization } from './definitions'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
27-27: CustomAuthLogics Class Lacks Unit TestsThe
CustomAuthLogicsclass, which handles critical authorization logic, does not appear to have any associated unit tests in the codebase. It is important to add tests to ensure the reliability and security of the authorization logic.
- Consider creating a test file for
CustomAuthLogicsand implementing comprehensive unit tests to cover its functionality.Analysis chain
Custom Authorization Logic Initialization
The
public customAuthLogics: CustomAuthLogics = new CustomAuthLogics();line initializes the custom authorization logic handler. This is a good use of composition, allowing for easier maintenance and testing by isolating custom logic into a separate class.Ensure that
CustomAuthLogicsis adequately tested, especially since it handles critical authorization logic.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and unit tests for `CustomAuthLogics`. # Test: Search for the `CustomAuthLogics` class definition and associated tests. fd 'custom-auth-logic.ts' --exec cat {} \; | rg 'class CustomAuthLogics' fd 'custom-auth-logic.spec.ts' --exec cat {} \;Length of output: 158
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any test files that might contain tests for the `CustomAuthLogics` class. rg 'CustomAuthLogics' --glob '*.{spec,test}.*' -A 5Length of output: 51
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/auth/auth.service.ts (3 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
103-118: Asynchronous Audit MethodThe
auditmethod has been modified to be asynchronous, allowing it to await custom logic evaluations. This is a significant change that enhances the method's ability to handle more complex authorization scenarios involving asynchronous operations.Ensure that all callers of this method have been updated to handle the Promise returned by this method, as this change could potentially break existing code that expects a synchronous operation.
Verification successful
Verification Successful: Asynchronous Handling of
auditMethodAll callers of the
auditmethod have been updated to handle its asynchronous nature by usingawait. This ensures that the change to make the method asynchronous does not break existing code. No further action is required.
src/users/users.service.ts: Properly usesawait.src/auth/session.service.ts: Properly usesawait.src/auth/auth.spec.ts: Properly usesawaitin test cases.src/auth/guard.decorator.ts: Properly usesawait.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all callers of the `audit` method handle the asynchronous nature. # Test: Search for all usages of the `audit` method and check if they handle promises correctly. rg --type ts 'audit' -A 3Length of output: 4793
src/auth/auth.service.ts
Outdated
| if (permission.customLogic !== undefined) { | ||
| const result = await this.customAuthLogics.invoke( | ||
| permission.customLogic, | ||
| action, | ||
| resourceOwnerId, | ||
| resourceType, | ||
| resourceId, | ||
| permission.customLogicData, | ||
| ); | ||
| if (result !== true) continue; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Ensure Documentation for invoke Method in CustomAuthLogics
The invoke method in CustomAuthLogics is adequately tested, as evidenced by the tests found in src/auth/auth.spec.ts. However, it lacks documentation comments in src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts. Consider adding documentation to enhance code clarity and maintainability.
src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts: Add documentation comments for theinvokemethod.
Analysis chain
Custom Logic Invocation in Audit Method
The integration of custom logic through this.customAuthLogics.invoke within the audit method allows for flexible and dynamic permission checks. This is a robust enhancement aligning with the PR's objectives to improve the permission system.
However, ensure that the invoke method of CustomAuthLogics is well-documented and tested, given its critical role in security.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the documentation and testing of the `invoke` method in `CustomAuthLogics`.
# Test: Search for documentation and tests related to the `invoke` method.
fd 'custom-auth-logic.ts' --exec cat {} \; | rg 'invoke'
fd 'custom-auth-logic.spec.ts' --exec cat {} \; | rg 'invoke'
Length of output: 130
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Locate the implementation of the `invoke` method in `custom-auth-logic.ts`.
ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern 'invoke($_) { $$$ }'
# Search for references to `invoke` in test files to confirm if it is being tested.
rg 'invoke' --glob '*spec.ts' -A 3
# Check for documentation comments in `custom-auth-logic.ts` related to the `invoke` method.
rg 'invoke' --glob 'custom-auth-logic.ts' -A 3
Length of output: 1639
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/auth/token-payload.schema.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
Files selected for processing (4)
- src/auth/auth.service.ts (4 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.spec.ts (7 hunks)
- src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts (1 hunks)
- src/auth/definitions.ts (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts
- src/auth/definitions.ts
Additional context used
Biome
src/auth/auth.service.ts
[error] 145-145: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
Additional comments not posted (5)
src/auth/auth.service.ts (2)
26-27: Singleton Pattern ImplementationThe addition of the
public static instance: AuthServiceproperty and its initialization in the constructor are typical of the singleton pattern. This ensures that only one instance ofAuthServiceexists throughout the application, which is a common practice for services that manage state or configuration globally.However, consider making the constructor private to enforce the singleton pattern strictly, preventing instantiation from outside the class.
Line range hint
103-198: Refactor: Asynchronous Audit Method and Custom Logic IntegrationThe
auditmethod has been refactored to be asynchronous, allowing it to await the results of custom logic evaluations. This is a significant change that aligns with modern JavaScript practices for handling asynchronous operations, especially in security-critical functions like permission checks.The integration of custom logic through
this.customAuthLogics.invokewithin theauditmethod allows for flexible and dynamic permission checks. This is a robust enhancement aligning with the PR's objectives to improve the permission system.However, ensure that the
invokemethod ofCustomAuthLogicsis well-documented and tested, given its critical role in security.src/auth/auth.spec.ts (3)
18-18: Refactor: Simplify import statements.The import statement for
AuthorizedActionis no longer necessary due to the shift from enum to string literals for representing authorized actions. This change aligns with the PR's objective to simplify the permission system.Consider removing the unused import to clean up the code:
- import { Authorization, AuthorizedAction } from './definitions'; + import { Authorization } from './definitions';
121-132: Refactor: Asynchronous Audit Method TestingThe tests for the
auditmethod have been updated to handle asynchronous operations usingawait. This is an important update that ensures the tests accurately reflect the behavior of theauditmethod under real conditions.Ensure that all asynchronous tests use
awaitproperly to catch exceptions and handle promises correctly. This will help in accurately assessing the functionality of theauditmethod and the integration of custom logic.
211-367: Enhanced Testing for Custom Logic IntegrationThe tests have been significantly enhanced to cover the registration and invocation of custom authorization logic. This includes scenarios where the custom logic returns specific outcomes and the appropriate errors are thrown when conditions are not met.
This is a crucial enhancement as it ensures that the custom logic functionality is robustly tested, reflecting the PR's objectives to improve the permission system through flexible and dynamic checks.
Consider adding more detailed assertions to verify the exact behavior of the custom logic, especially in cases where the logic affects the outcome of the
auditmethod.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
src/users/role-permission.service.ts (1)
6-17: Expand role coverage ingetAuthorizationForUserWithRolemethod.The method currently handles only the 'standard-user' role and throws an error for others. Consider expanding the role coverage to include additional roles as needed. Also, review the test coverage for the default case, as it is currently ignored.
- File:
src/users/role-permission.service.ts- Lines: 6-17
Analysis chain
Well-implemented method for role-based permissions.
The method
getAuthorizationForUserWithRoleuses a switch statement effectively to assign permissions based on user roles. Ensure that all roles are covered and permissions are correctly assigned to maintain security and functionality.Run the following script to check for security and functionality:
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for security and functionality in the `getAuthorizationForUserWithRole` method. # Test: Search for the method implementation and security checks. Expect: Comprehensive coverage of roles and correct permission assignments. rg --type typescript -A 5 $'getAuthorizationForUserWithRole'Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for the method `getAuthorizationForUserWithRole` and verify roles and permissions. # Search for the method implementation in the codebase. rg 'async getAuthorizationForUserWithRole' -A 10Length of output: 806
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- src/auth/auth.service.ts (4 hunks)
- src/auth/auth.spec.ts (7 hunks)
- src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts (1 hunks)
- src/users/role-permission.service.ts (1 hunks)
- src/users/users-permission.service.ts (1 hunks)
- src/users/users.module.ts (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/auth/custom-auth-logic.ts
Additional context used
Biome
src/auth/auth.service.ts
[error] 145-145: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
Additional comments not posted (9)
src/users/users.module.ts (2)
20-20: Correct import for RolePermissionService.The import statement for
RolePermissionServiceis correctly placed and appears to be accurate, assuming the file structure is as expected.
36-36: Proper addition to providers array.
RolePermissionServicehas been correctly added to the providers array, which is essential for its availability in the dependency injection system. Ensure that this service integrates well with other components in the module.Run the following script to verify the integration of
RolePermissionService:Verification successful
Integration of
RolePermissionServiceis correctly implemented.The
RolePermissionServiceis properly integrated into the module and is being utilized byUsersPermissionService. This confirms that the service is correctly set up for dependency injection and usage within the module.
users.module.ts:RolePermissionServiceis added to the providers array.users-permission.service.ts:RolePermissionServiceis injected and used.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the integration of `RolePermissionService` in the module. # Test: Search for the service usage. Expect: Instances where the service is injected or utilized. rg --type typescript -A 5 $'RolePermissionService'Length of output: 84
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the integration of `RolePermissionService` in the module. # Test: Search for the service usage without specifying file type. rg -A 5 'RolePermissionService'Length of output: 1815
src/users/users-permission.service.ts (3)
14-47: Well-implemented custom authorization logic in onModuleInit.The
onModuleInitmethod effectively registers custom authorization logic with theauthService. This is crucial for the enhanced permission system. Ensure that error handling is robust and consider the performance implications of the asynchronous operations used.Run the following script to check for error handling and performance implications:
Verification successful
Error handling is adequate, but review performance implications.
The
onModuleInitmethod insrc/users/users-permission.service.tshandlesPermissionDeniedErroreffectively by returningfalseand re-throwing other errors. However, consider reviewing the performance implications of the asynchronous operations, especially if this method is invoked frequently or in performance-critical paths.
- File:
src/users/users-permission.service.ts- Lines: 14-47
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for error handling and performance implications in the `onModuleInit` method. # Test: Search for error handling patterns and performance metrics. Expect: Robust error handling and efficient performance. rg --type typescript -A 5 $'onModuleInit'Length of output: 75
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for error handling and performance implications in the `onModuleInit` method. # Corrected Test: Search for the `onModuleInit` method in TypeScript files and gather more context. rg --type-add 'ts:*.ts' -A 10 'onModuleInit' --glob '*.ts'Length of output: 2351
49-60: Simplification of getAuthorizationForUser is effective.The changes to
getAuthorizationForUsersimplify the permission model, making it more flexible and dynamic. Verify that this simplification does not adversely affect existing functionality.Run the following script to verify the impact on existing functionality:
Verification successful
Changes to
getAuthorizationForUserverified successfully.The simplification of the permission model in
getAuthorizationForUserdoes not adversely affect existing functionality. The method is used in user session management, and the changes maintain the intended functionality while providing a more flexible permission model.
- Usage found in
src/users/users.service.tsfor session creation.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of changes to `getAuthorizationForUser` on existing functionality. # Test: Search for the method usage and its impact on the system. Expect: No adverse effects on existing functionality. rg --type typescript -A 5 $'getAuthorizationForUser'Length of output: 86
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of changes to `getAuthorizationForUser` on existing functionality. # Test: Search for the method usage and its impact on the system. Expect: No adverse effects on existing functionality. rg --type ts -A 5 $'getAuthorizationForUser'Length of output: 1667
8-8: Implementation of OnModuleInit is appropriate.The implementation of
OnModuleInitinUsersPermissionServiceis appropriate for initializing custom authorization logic. Ensure that all necessary initialization steps are included in theonModuleInitmethod.Run the following script to verify the completeness of the initialization logic:
Verification successful
Implementation of OnModuleInit is appropriate.
The
onModuleInitmethod inUsersPermissionServiceregisters a 'role-based' custom authorization logic, which is a crucial part of the initialization process. Ensure that all necessary components of the authorization logic are properly initialized and integrated with theauthService.
- Location:
src/users/users-permission.service.tsScripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the completeness of the initialization logic in `UsersPermissionService`. # Test: Search for the `onModuleInit` method usage. Expect: Complete setup of custom authorization logic. rg --type typescript -A 5 $'onModuleInit'Length of output: 75
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the completeness of the initialization logic in `UsersPermissionService`. # Test: Search for the `onModuleInit` method usage in TypeScript files. rg 'onModuleInit' --glob '*.ts' -A 5Length of output: 1464
src/users/role-permission.service.ts (1)
5-17: Appropriate class structure for RolePermissionService.The
RolePermissionServiceis well-structured for handling role-based permissions. Ensure that the implementation ofgetAuthorizationForUserWithRoleaccurately reflects the permissions associated with each role.Run the following script to verify the implementation of
getAuthorizationForUserWithRole:Verification successful
Implementation of
getAuthorizationForUserWithRoleis accurate.The
getAuthorizationForUserWithRolemethod inRolePermissionServicecorrectly implements role-based permissions for the 'standard-user' role and includes error handling for unsupported roles. The permissions are detailed and comprehensive, as defined in thegetAuthorizationForStandardUsermethod.
- File:
src/users/role-permission.service.ts- Lines: 5-17
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of `getAuthorizationForUserWithRole` in `RolePermissionService`. # Test: Search for the method implementation and its accuracy. Expect: Accurate reflection of permissions for each role. rg --type typescript -A 5 $'getAuthorizationForUserWithRole'Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of `getAuthorizationForUserWithRole` in `RolePermissionService` using ast-grep. # Search for the method implementation in TypeScript files. ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern $'class RolePermissionService { $$$ async getAuthorizationForUserWithRole($_, $_): Promise<$_> { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 11387
src/auth/auth.service.ts (1)
103-118: Approve Asynchronous Audit Method and Custom Logic IntegrationThe changes to make the
auditmethod asynchronous and integrate custom logic handling are well-aligned with the PR's objectives. These modifications enhance the flexibility and robustness of the permission system.Consider adding more detailed comments explaining the flow and purpose of custom logic integration to improve maintainability and clarity for future developers.
Also applies to: 188-199
src/auth/auth.spec.ts (2)
228-255: Approve New Test Cases for Custom LogicThe new test cases for registering and invoking custom logic are well-implemented and enhance the robustness of the AuthService tests. These tests ensure that custom logic handlers are correctly registered and invoked during the audit process.
Consider adding more detailed assertions to verify the outcomes of custom logic, ensuring that the expected results are achieved in various scenarios.
18-18: Refactor: Simplify Import StatementsThe import of
AuthorizedActionis no longer necessary due to the shift from enum to string literals for representing authorized actions. This change aligns with the PR's objective to simplify the permission system.Consider removing the unused import to clean up the code:
- import { Authorization, AuthorizedAction } from './definitions'; + import { Authorization } from './definitions';Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| if (authorizedAction === action) { | ||
| actionMatches = true; | ||
| let actionMatches = | ||
| permission.authorizedActions === undefined ? true : false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simplify Conditional Expression
The use of a ternary operator here is unnecessary. Simplify the code by directly assigning the result:
- let actionMatches = permission.authorizedActions === undefined ? true : false;
+ let actionMatches = permission.authorizedActions === undefined;Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| permission.authorizedActions === undefined ? true : false; | |
| let actionMatches = permission.authorizedActions === undefined; |
Tools
Biome
[error] 145-145: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
| public static instance: AuthService; | ||
| public customAuthLogics: CustomAuthLogics = new CustomAuthLogics(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Enforce Singleton Pattern Strictly
Consider making the constructor private to strictly enforce the singleton pattern, preventing instantiation from outside the class. This change ensures that AuthService can only be instantiated once, which is crucial for services managing global state or configuration.
- constructor(private readonly jwtService: JwtService) {
+ private constructor(private readonly jwtService: JwtService) {Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
test/answer.e2e-spec.ts (1)
279-279: Review usage of 'User-Agent' header.The 'User-Agent' header is set to 'PostmanRuntime/7.26.8'. If this header is not required for the test to simulate a specific environment or client, it should be removed to clean up the test code.
Consider removing the 'User-Agent' header if it's not necessary for the context of this test:
- .set('User-Agent', 'PostmanRuntime/7.26.8')
| const respond = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | ||
| .get(`/users/${auxUserId}`) | ||
| .set('authorization', 'Bearer ' + TestToken); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure consistent use of authorization headers.
The authorization header is set using lowercase 'authorization' here, whereas in other parts of the code, it's set using 'Authorization'. It's important to maintain consistency across the codebase to avoid potential bugs related to case sensitivity in header names.
Consider standardizing the header case to 'Authorization' for consistency:
- .set('authorization', 'Bearer ' + TestToken);
+ .set('Authorization', 'Bearer ' + TestToken);Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const respond = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | |
| .get(`/users/${auxUserId}`) | |
| .set('authorization', 'Bearer ' + TestToken); | |
| const respond = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | |
| .get(`/users/${auxUserId}`) | |
| .set('Authorization', 'Bearer ' + TestToken); |
| // it('should get a answer even without token', async () => { | ||
| // // const TestQuestionId = questionId[0]; | ||
| // const TestAnswerId = answerIds[0]; | ||
| // const TestQuestionId = AnswerQuestionMap[TestAnswerId]; | ||
| // const response = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | ||
| // .get(`/questions/${TestQuestionId}/answers/${TestAnswerId}`) | ||
| // .send(); | ||
| // expect(response.body.message).toBe('Answer fetched successfully.'); | ||
| // expect(response.status).toBe(200); | ||
| // expect(response.body.code).toBe(200); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.question.id).toBe(TestQuestionId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.question.title).toBeDefined(); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.question.content).toBeDefined(); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.question.author.id).toBe(TestUserId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.id).toBe(TestAnswerId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.question_id).toBe(TestQuestionId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.content).toContain( | ||
| // '你说得对，但是原神是一款由米哈游自主研发的开放世界游戏，', | ||
| // ); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.author.id).toBe(auxUserId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.created_at).toBeDefined(); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.updated_at).toBeDefined(); | ||
| // //expect(response.body.data.answer.agree_type).toBe(0); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.is_favorite).toBe(false); | ||
| // //expect(response.body.data.answer.agree_count).toBe(0); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.favorite_count).toBe(0); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.view_count).toBeDefined(); | ||
| // }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review commented-out test case.
This large block of commented-out code suggests that the test for fetching an answer without a token has been disabled. If this test case is no longer relevant due to changes in the authentication requirements, it should be removed from the codebase to maintain cleanliness and avoid confusion.
If the test is not needed, consider removing it entirely to clean up the codebase:
- // it('should get a answer even without token', async () => {
- // // const TestQuestionId = questionId[0];
- // const TestAnswerId = answerIds[0];
- // const TestQuestionId = AnswerQuestionMap[TestAnswerId];
- // const response = await request(app.getHttpServer())
- // .get(`/questions/${TestQuestionId}/answers/${TestAnswerId}`)
- // .send();
- // expect(response.body.message).toBe('Answer fetched successfully.');
- // expect(response.status).toBe(200);
- // expect(response.body.code).toBe(200);
- // expect(response.body.data.question.id).toBe(TestQuestionId);
- // expect(response.body.data.question.title).toBeDefined();
- // expect(response.body.data.question.content).toBeDefined();
- // expect(response.body.data.question.author.id).toBe(TestUserId);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.id).toBe(TestAnswerId);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.question_id).toBe(TestQuestionId);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.content).toContain(
- // '你说得对，但是原神是一款由米哈游自主研发的开放世界游戏，',
- // );
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.author.id).toBe(auxUserId);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.created_at).toBeDefined();
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.updated_at).toBeDefined();
- // //expect(response.body.data.answer.agree_type).toBe(0);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.is_favorite).toBe(false);
- // //expect(response.body.data.answer.agree_count).toBe(0);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.favorite_count).toBe(0);
- // expect(response.body.data.answer.view_count).toBeDefined();
- // });Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| // it('should get a answer even without token', async () => { | |
| // // const TestQuestionId = questionId[0]; | |
| // const TestAnswerId = answerIds[0]; | |
| // const TestQuestionId = AnswerQuestionMap[TestAnswerId]; | |
| // const response = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | |
| // .get(`/questions/${TestQuestionId}/answers/${TestAnswerId}`) | |
| // .send(); | |
| // expect(response.body.message).toBe('Answer fetched successfully.'); | |
| // expect(response.status).toBe(200); | |
| // expect(response.body.code).toBe(200); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.question.id).toBe(TestQuestionId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.question.title).toBeDefined(); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.question.content).toBeDefined(); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.question.author.id).toBe(TestUserId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.id).toBe(TestAnswerId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.question_id).toBe(TestQuestionId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.content).toContain( | |
| // '你说得对，但是原神是一款由米哈游自主研发的开放世界游戏，', | |
| // ); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.author.id).toBe(auxUserId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.created_at).toBeDefined(); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.updated_at).toBeDefined(); | |
| // //expect(response.body.data.answer.agree_type).toBe(0); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.is_favorite).toBe(false); | |
| // //expect(response.body.data.answer.agree_count).toBe(0); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.favorite_count).toBe(0); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answer.view_count).toBeDefined(); | |
| // }); |
| // it('should successfully get answers by question ID without token', async () => { | ||
| // const pageSize = 2; | ||
| // const response = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | ||
| // .get(`/questions/${specialQuestionId}/answers`) | ||
| // .query({ | ||
| // page_start: specialAnswerIds[2], | ||
| // page_size: pageSize, | ||
| // }) | ||
| // .send(); | ||
|
|
||
| // expect(response.body.message).toBe('Answers fetched successfully.'); | ||
|
|
||
| // expect(response.status).toBe(200); | ||
| // expect(response.body.code).toBe(200); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.page.page_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[2]); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.page.page_size).toBe(2); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.page.has_prev).toBe(true); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.page.prev_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[0]); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.page.has_more).toBe(true); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.page.next_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[4]); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answers.length).toBe(2); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[0].question_id).toBe(specialQuestionId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[1].question_id).toBe(specialQuestionId); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[0].id).toBe(specialAnswerIds[2]); | ||
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[1].id).toBe(specialAnswerIds[3]); | ||
| // }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review commented-out test case for pagination without token.
Similar to the previous comment, this large block of commented-out code for testing pagination without a token should be evaluated. If the authentication requirements have changed and this test is no longer valid, it should be removed to keep the test suite clean and focused.
If this test is obsolete, consider removing it to avoid clutter:
- // it('should successfully get answers by question ID without token', async () => {
- // const pageSize = 2;
- // const response = await request(app.getHttpServer())
- // .get(`/questions/${specialQuestionId}/answers`)
- // .query({
- // page_start: specialAnswerIds[2],
- // page_size: pageSize,
- // })
- // .send();
- // expect(response.body.message).toBe('Answers fetched successfully.');
- // expect(response.status).toBe(200);
- // expect(response.body.code).toBe 200;
- // expect(response.body.data.page.page_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[2]);
- // expect(response.body.data.page.page_size).toBe(2);
- // expect(response.body.data.page.has_prev).toBe(true);
- // expect(response.body.data.page.prev_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[0]);
- // expect(response.body.data.page.has_more).toBe(true);
- // expect(response.body.data.page.next_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[4]);
- // expect(response.body.data.answers.length).toBe(2);
- // expect(response.body.data.answers[0].question_id).toBe(specialQuestionId);
- // expect(response.body.data.answers[1].question_id).toBe(specialQuestionId);
- // expect(response.body.data.answers[0].id).toBe(specialAnswerIds[2]);
- // expect(response.body.data.answers[1].id).toBe(specialAnswerIds[3]);
- // });Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| // it('should successfully get answers by question ID without token', async () => { | |
| // const pageSize = 2; | |
| // const response = await request(app.getHttpServer()) | |
| // .get(`/questions/${specialQuestionId}/answers`) | |
| // .query({ | |
| // page_start: specialAnswerIds[2], | |
| // page_size: pageSize, | |
| // }) | |
| // .send(); | |
| // expect(response.body.message).toBe('Answers fetched successfully.'); | |
| // expect(response.status).toBe(200); | |
| // expect(response.body.code).toBe(200); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.page.page_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[2]); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.page.page_size).toBe(2); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.page.has_prev).toBe(true); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.page.prev_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[0]); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.page.has_more).toBe(true); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.page.next_start).toBe(specialAnswerIds[4]); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answers.length).toBe(2); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[0].question_id).toBe(specialQuestionId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[1].question_id).toBe(specialQuestionId); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[0].id).toBe(specialAnswerIds[2]); | |
| // expect(response.body.data.answers[1].id).toBe(specialAnswerIds[3]); | |
| // }); |
|
@coderabbitai review |
Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- test/user.profile.e2e-spec.ts (4 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (4)
test/user.profile.e2e-spec.ts (4)
92-104: Improved Test Realism with Authorization HeaderThe addition of the authorization header in the avatar upload test (lines 96) enhances the realism of the test scenario, aligning with the PR's objectives to improve the permission system. This change ensures that the test simulates actual user behavior more accurately.
169-187: Verify Commented-Out Test CaseThe test case for retrieving a user profile without a token has been commented out (lines 169-187). It's crucial to verify whether this change aligns with the new permission system's requirements. If the functionality is no longer supported, consider removing the test entirely to avoid confusion.
189-191: Enhanced Error Handling with UserIdNotFoundError TestThe addition of the test case for handling a non-existent user ID (lines 189-191) enhances the robustness of the test suite by ensuring that error scenarios are adequately covered.
196-203: Proper Authentication Enforcement TestThe addition of the test case for
AuthenticationRequiredError(lines 196-203) is crucial for verifying that the system properly enforces authentication, aligning with the objectives of the enhanced permission system.
No description provided.