fix(policy): incorrect policy injection for createManyAndReturn when the model contains array fields
#1956
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…n the model contains array fields fixes #1955
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request includes a version update to 2.11.2 in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Finishing Touches
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
tests/regression/tests/issue-1955.test.ts (2)
4-45: LGTM! Consider adding assertions for the array field.The test case effectively verifies the basic functionality of
createManyAndReturn. However, since the issue specifically relates to models with array fields, consider adding assertions for theexpectionsarray field to ensure it's handled correctly.await expect( db.post.createManyAndReturn({ data: [ { name: 'bla', + expections: ['exp1', 'exp2'], }, { name: 'blu', + expections: ['exp3', 'exp4'], }, ], }) ).resolves.toEqual( expect.arrayContaining([ - expect.objectContaining({ name: 'bla' }), - expect.objectContaining({ name: 'blu' }), + expect.objectContaining({ + name: 'bla', + expections: ['exp1', 'exp2'] + }), + expect.objectContaining({ + name: 'blu', + expections: ['exp3', 'exp4'] + }), ]) );
47-96: LGTM! Consider adding test cases for policy enforcement.The test case effectively verifies
createManyAndReturnwith a complex policy. However, consider adding test cases that:
- Verify the policy is actually enforced by attempting to create posts with private comments
- Test the behavior when mixing allowed and disallowed operations in a single batch
it('complex policy', async () => { const dbUrl = await createPostgresDb('issue-1955-2'); let _prisma: any; try { const { enhance, prisma } = await loadSchema( ` model Post { id Int @id @default(autoincrement()) name String expections String[] comments Comment[] @@allow('all', comments^[private]) } model Comment { id Int @id @default(autoincrement()) private Boolean @default(false) postId Int post Post @relation(fields: [postId], references: [id]) } `, { provider: 'postgresql', dbUrl } ); _prisma = prisma; const db = enhance(); + // Test successful creation await expect( db.post.createManyAndReturn({ data: [ { name: 'bla', + comments: { + create: { private: false } + } }, { name: 'blu', + comments: { + create: { private: false } + } }, ], }) ).resolves.toEqual( expect.arrayContaining([ expect.objectContaining({ name: 'bla' }), expect.objectContaining({ name: 'blu' }), ]) ); + + // Test policy enforcement + await expect( + db.post.createManyAndReturn({ + data: [ + { + name: 'bla2', + comments: { + create: { private: true } + } + } + ], + }) + ).rejects.toThrow(); + + // Test mixed allowed/disallowed operations + await expect( + db.post.createManyAndReturn({ + data: [ + { + name: 'bla3', + comments: { + create: { private: false } + } + }, + { + name: 'blu3', + comments: { + create: { private: true } + } + } + ], + }) + ).rejects.toThrow(); } finally { await _prisma.$disconnect(); await dropPostgresDb('issue-1955-2'); } });packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/handler.ts (1)
481-487: LGTM! Consider adding error handling for invalid select fields.The changes correctly ensure that only ID fields are selected for return. However, consider adding validation for cases where the original
selectargument might conflict with the required ID fields.const updatedArgs = { ...args, - select: this.policyUtils.makeIdSelection(this.model), + select: { + ...this.policyUtils.makeIdSelection(this.model), + ...(args.select ? this.validateSelectFields(args.select) : {}), + }, }; +private validateSelectFields(select: any): any { + const idFields = this.policyUtils.makeIdSelection(this.model); + // Ensure required ID fields are not excluded + for (const [field, value] of Object.entries(idFields)) { + if (select[field] === false) { + throw this.policyUtils.validationError( + `Cannot exclude required ID field "${field}" in select` + ); + } + } + return select; +}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (13)
package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/ide/jetbrains/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/language/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/misc/redwood/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/openapi/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/swr/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/tanstack-query/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/trpc/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/runtime/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/schema/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/sdk/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/server/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/testtools/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
packages/ide/jetbrains/build.gradle.kts(1 hunks)packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/handler.ts(1 hunks)tests/regression/tests/issue-1955.test.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- packages/ide/jetbrains/build.gradle.kts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: dependency-review
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: OSSAR-Scan
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
tests/integration/tests/enhancements/with-policy/create-many-and-return.test.ts (1)
95-105: LGTM! Consider strengthening the assertions.The test effectively verifies the field-level policy behavior for
createManyAndReturnwith array fields. It confirms that:
- Both posts are created successfully
- The title field is correctly filtered based on the
publishedstateConsider strengthening the assertions by checking the actual title values:
expect(r.length).toBe(2); -expect(r[0].title).toBeTruthy(); +expect(r[0].title).toBe('post1'); expect(r[1].title).toBeUndefined();
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/handler.ts(1 hunks)tests/integration/tests/enhancements/with-policy/create-many-and-return.test.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/handler.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: OSSAR-Scan
- GitHub Check: dependency-review
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
This was referenced Jan 13, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
fixes #1955