added find by url endpoints for models #357
Conversation
erenfn
commented
Dec 4, 2024
erenfn
commented
- Added find by url endpoints for models
- Added accessGuard for link endpoints
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@swoopertr has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 26 minutes and 58 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several changes to the backend codebase, primarily focusing on enhancing the routing structure and permissions for various controllers and services. New methods are added to multiple controllers to retrieve resources based on a URL, along with corresponding routes in the routing files. Additionally, new permissions for Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 19
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
backend/src/service/hint.service.js (1)
Line range hint
58-79: There's code duplication on his sweater already! 🍝I notice similar URL-based retrieval patterns across all three services. Consider the following architectural improvements:
- Create a shared URL validation utility
- Implement rate limiting for URL-based queries
- Consider implementing a base service class with common URL retrieval logic
- Add request IP logging for security monitoring
Example shared utility:
// utils/urlValidator.js const validateAndSanitizeUrl = (url) => { if (!url || typeof url !== 'string') { throw new Error('Invalid URL provided'); } // Add URL sanitization logic return url.trim().toLowerCase(); }; module.exports = { validateAndSanitizeUrl };backend/index.js (2)
Line range hint
34-43: Yo! CRITICAL SECURITY ISSUE: Database sync with force:true will drop all tables! 🚨The
force: trueoption in sequelize.sync() will drop and recreate all tables on every server restart. This is extremely dangerous in production!- .sync({ force: true }) + .sync()Also, the database connection error handling needs improvement:
sequelize .authenticate() .then(() => console.log('Database connected...')) - .catch((err) => console.log('Error: ' + err)); + .catch((err) => { + console.error('Unable to connect to the database:', err); + process.exit(1); // Fail fast if DB connection fails + });
Line range hint
29-30: Heads up! Security concern with commented out file size validator 🛡️The file size validator middleware is commented out, which could expose the server to large file upload attacks.
- // app.use(fileSizeValidator); + app.use(fileSizeValidator);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
backend/config/settings.js(1 hunks)backend/index.js(3 hunks)backend/src/controllers/banner.controller.js(7 hunks)backend/src/controllers/guide.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/hint.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/link.controller.js(2 hunks)backend/src/controllers/popup.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/tour.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/banner.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/guide.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/hint.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/link.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/popup.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/tour.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/service/banner.service.js(1 hunks)backend/src/service/hint.service.js(1 hunks)backend/src/service/link.service.js(1 hunks)backend/src/service/popup.service.js(1 hunks)backend/src/service/tour.service.js(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- backend/src/routes/hint.routes.js
🔇 Additional comments (7)
backend/config/settings.js (1)
26-27: Yo, these permission changes look tight! 🔒
The addition of links and tours permissions for admin role follows the existing pattern and maintains proper access control.
Let's make sure these permissions are used consistently:
✅ Verification successful
Yo dawg, these permission checks are straight fire! 🔥
The permissions are properly locked down in both route files:
linkspermission guards all write operations (POST/PUT/DELETE) inlink.routes.jstourspermission guards all write operations (POST/PUT/DELETE) intour.routes.js- Read operations are only behind JWT auth, which is the right move
The implementation is consistent with the permission settings, no spaghetti code here!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of these permissions in middleware
rg -l "teamPermissions\.(links|tours)"
Length of output: 108
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check how these permissions are actually used in the route files
rg "teamPermissions\.(links|tours)" -A 3 backend/src/routes/tour.routes.js backend/src/routes/link.routes.js
Length of output: 1795
backend/src/routes/tour.routes.js (1)
10-12: These security upgrades are fire! 🔥
Solid addition of access guards to all modify operations (add/edit/delete). This aligns perfectly with the principle of least privilege.
backend/src/routes/popup.routes.js (1)
16-16: Yo dawg, we need to talk about security! 🍝
The new /get_popup_by_url endpoint is wide open like mom's spaghetti - no authentication required! While this might be intentional for public access, we should verify if this aligns with the business requirements. If not, consider adding authentication middleware like the other routes.
backend/src/routes/link.routes.js (2)
10-15: Access guards looking tight! 💪
The write operations (add/edit/delete) are properly secured with both authentication and access guards. That's the way to keep it clean!
16-16: Same security vibe check as popup routes 🤔
Like the popup routes, this endpoint is also publicly accessible. Let's make sure this is intentional and consistent across all URL-based endpoints.
✅ Verification successful
The previous pattern didn't work well with ast-grep, so I'm using ripgrep to get a broader view of the routing patterns and authentication setup. This will help us verify if the endpoint's public accessibility is intentional and consistent with other similar endpoints.
Public URL-based endpoints are consistent with the application's design pattern
Looking at the codebase, I can see that all URL-based endpoints (get_*_by_url) are intentionally public:
/get_popup_by_url/get_banner_by_url/get_link_by_url/get_guides_by_url
This appears to be a deliberate architectural decision where these specific endpoints need to be publicly accessible, while other operations (add, edit, delete) are properly secured with authenticateJWT and accessGuard middleware.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential sensitive data exposure in URL-based endpoints
ast-grep --pattern 'router.get("/get_$_by_url"'
Length of output: 49
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check all router endpoints to understand the security pattern
rg "router\.(get|post|put|delete)" -A 2
# Also check for any authentication middleware usage
rg "auth.*middleware"
Length of output: 9013
backend/src/controllers/banner.controller.js (1)
166-182: Same issues as in LinkController, fam!
This method has the same problems as getLinkByUrl:
- Missing response in error handling
- URL validation needs to check for empty strings after trim
- No 404 handling when banner not found
Please apply the same fixes as suggested in the LinkController review.
backend/src/controllers/popup.controller.js (1)
192-208: Same issues as other controllers, plus we need to talk architecture!
This method has the same problems as getLinkByUrl and getBannerByUrl.
Please apply the same fixes as suggested in the LinkController review.
Since we're implementing the same URL-based retrieval pattern across multiple controllers, consider:
- Creating a base controller class with common URL validation and error handling
- Using a middleware for URL validation
- Creating a common response formatter
Example base controller:
class BaseController {
validateUrl(url, res) {
if (!url || typeof url !== 'string' || !url.trim()) {
res.status(400).json({ errors: [{ msg: "URL is missing or invalid" }] });
return false;
}
return true;
}
handleNotFound(entity, res) {
if (!entity) {
res.status(404).json({ errors: [{ msg: "Resource not found" }] });
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
|
@coderabbitai resolve |
|
adding popup doesnt work. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
backend/Dockerfile(1 hunks)frontend/Dockerfile(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- backend/Dockerfile
|
|
||
| WORKDIR /app | ||
|
|
||
| COPY package*.json ./ | ||
|
|
||
| RUN npm install | ||
| RUN rm -rf package-lock.json && npm install |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mom's spaghetti alert: Removing package-lock.json is risky business!
Removing package-lock.json before npm install:
- Breaks dependency version locking
- Can lead to inconsistent builds across environments
- May introduce unexpected package version updates
Remove this practice and instead use:
-RUN rm -rf package-lock.json && npm install
+RUN npm ciThe npm ci command is designed for CI/CD environments and:
- Uses package-lock.json strictly
- Provides faster, reliable installations
- Ensures consistent dependencies across builds
📝 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.
| RUN rm -rf package-lock.json && npm install | |
| RUN npm ci |
| @@ -2,9 +1,11 @@ | |||
| FROM node:22-alpine3.20 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo dawg, we need to reconsider that base image choice!
The node:22 version is still in development and not stable yet. Consider using the latest LTS version (like node:20-alpine3.20) to avoid potential stability issues.
Apply this diff for a more stable base:
-FROM node:22-alpine3.20
+FROM node:20-alpine3.20📝 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.
| FROM node:22-alpine3.20 | |
| FROM node:20-alpine3.20 |
|
|
||
| WORKDIR /app | ||
|
|
||
| COPY package*.json ./ | ||
|
|
||
| RUN npm install | ||
| RUN rm -rf package-lock.json && npm install | ||
| RUN npm install formik |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Yo, drop that spaghetti code: Remove redundant formik install!
Mom's spaghetti confirms that formik (v2.4.6) is already cookin' in the package.json dependencies. This explicit installation in the Dockerfile is as redundant as bringing extra pasta to an Italian restaurant!
- Remove this line from frontend/Dockerfile:
-RUN npm install formik🔗 Analysis chain
Knees weak, arms heavy: Redundant formik installation detected!
If formik is listed in package.json (which it should be), this explicit installation is redundant and could potentially cause version conflicts.
Remove this line if formik is already in package.json:
-RUN npm install formikLet's check if formik is already in package.json:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if formik is already listed in package.json
cat package.json | jq '.dependencies.formik, .devDependencies.formik'
Length of output: 116
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find the package.json file first
fd package.json
# Then check its content for formik
fd package.json --exec cat {} \; | grep -i formik
Length of output: 139
