Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

temporarily disabled input validation #3684

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 18, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Baalmart
Copy link
Contributor

@Baalmart Baalmart commented Oct 18, 2024

Description

temporarily disabled input validation

Changes Made

  • temporarily disabled input validation for the user preferences

Testing

  • Tested locally
  • Tested against staging environment
  • Relevant tests passed: [List test names]

Affected Services

  • Which services were modified:
    • Auth

Endpoints Ready for Testing

  • New endpoints ready for testing:
    • CRUD for preferences

API Documentation Updated?

  • Yes, API documentation was updated
  • No, API documentation does not need updating

Additional Notes

temporarily disabled input validation

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced validation for the selected_sites field to ensure proper data integrity.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved error handling for missing or invalid required fields, ensuring clearer feedback for users.
  • Refactor

    • Restructured validation logic for better clarity and maintainability.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 18, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the validation logic for the selected_sites field in the src/auth-service/routes/v2/preferences.js file. Key modifications include the addition of checks for _id and site_id fields to ensure they are valid MongoDB ObjectIds when allowId is true. The validation function has been updated to enhance error handling for missing required fields. Several lines related to the validation of selected_sites have been commented out, indicating a restructuring of the validation approach.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/auth-service/routes/v2/preferences.js - Updated validation logic for selected_sites field, adding checks for _id and site_id.
- Enhanced validation for string fields to log missing fields.
- Removed previous checks for site_id from main validation function.
- Commented out validation logic for selected_sites in multiple routes, indicating a refactor.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • Codebmk
  • BenjaminSsempala
  • OchiengPaul442

🎉 In the realm of code, a change took flight,
Validations refined, making errors take flight.
With checks for the sites, both _id and site_id,
Ensuring correctness, we take it in stride.
Commented lines whisper of changes anew,
In the dance of the code, we bid errors adieu! 🌟


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 27.04%. Comparing base (1144763) to head (bf57c43).
Report is 2 commits behind head on staging.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           staging    #3684   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    27.04%   27.04%           
========================================
  Files          146      146           
  Lines        21340    21340           
  Branches       274      274           
========================================
  Hits          5772     5772           
  Misses       15568    15568           

Copy link
Contributor

Auth-service changes in this PR available for preview here

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 5

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1144763 and bf57c43.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/auth-service/routes/v2/preferences.js (8 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/auth-service/routes/v2/preferences.js (2)

50-59: Validation Logic for '_id' and 'site_id' Fields Looks Good

The added validation correctly checks if '_id' and 'site_id' are valid MongoDB ObjectIds based on the 'allowId' parameter. This enhances the robustness of the input validation.


92-94: Improved Handling of Missing String Fields

Adding an error throw for missing required string fields ensures that all necessary data is present and valid. This improvement strengthens data integrity.

Comment on lines +395 to +402
// body("selected_sites.*")
// .optional()
// .custom(
// createValidateSelectedSitesField(["_id", "search_name", "name"], true)
// )
// .withMessage(
// "Invalid selected_sites format. Verify required fields (latitude, longitude, search_name, name, approximate_latitude, approximate_longitude), numeric fields (latitude, longitude, approximate_latitude, approximate_longitude, search_radius if present), string fields (name, search_name), and ensure site_tags is an array of strings."
// ),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Consider the Risks of Disabling Validation for 'selected_sites'

Commenting out the validation for selected_sites.* removes important checks on user input. While temporarily disabling validation might be necessary, please be mindful of potential issues such as processing invalid data or introducing security vulnerabilities. It's advisable to ensure that other safeguards are in place to handle unvalidated input appropriately.

Comment on lines +797 to +804
// body("selected_sites.*")
// .optional()
// .custom(
// createValidateSelectedSitesField(["_id", "search_name", "name"], true)
// )
// .withMessage(
// "Invalid selected_sites format. Verify required fields (latitude, longitude, search_name, name, approximate_latitude, approximate_longitude), numeric fields (latitude, longitude, approximate_latitude, approximate_longitude, search_radius if present), string fields (name, search_name), and ensure site_tags is an array of strings."
// ),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Assess Impact of Disabled Validation in Update Route

The validation for selected_sites.* in the update route has been commented out. This could allow invalid or malformed data to be accepted during updates. Please review this change to ensure it doesn't adversely affect the application's stability or security.

Comment on lines +967 to +974
// body("selected_sites.*")
// .optional()
// .custom(
// createValidateSelectedSitesField(["_id", "search_name", "name"], true)
// )
// .withMessage(
// "Invalid selected_sites format. Verify required fields (latitude, longitude, search_name, name, approximate_latitude, approximate_longitude), numeric fields (latitude, longitude, approximate_latitude, approximate_longitude, search_radius if present), string fields (name, search_name), and ensure site_tags is an array of strings."
// ),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Review Disabled Validation in Create Route

Disabling the validation for selected_sites.* during creation may lead to inconsistent or incorrect data being stored. Consider implementing alternative validation measures or documenting this change thoroughly for future reference.

Comment on lines +1200 to +1205
// body("selected_sites.*").custom(
// createValidateSelectedSitesField(
// ["site_id", "search_name", "name"],
// false
// )
// ),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Potential Risks with Disabled Validation in 'addSelectedSites'

By commenting out the validation for selected_sites.*, the application might accept invalid data when adding selected sites. It's important to ensure that this does not compromise data quality or application security.

Comment on lines +1239 to +1243
// body("selected_site")
// .custom(createValidateSelectedSitesField([], false))
// .withMessage(
// "Invalid selected site data. Verify required fields and data types."
// ),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Evaluate Disabled Validation in 'updateSelectedSite'

The absence of validation for updating a selected site could result in unintended data modifications. Please consider the necessity of this change and whether additional checks are needed elsewhere.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant