Show error if user didn't give correct Gmail permissions#242
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughA new React component, Changes
Possibly related PRs
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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (19)
apps/web/app/(app)/PermissionsCheck.tsx (2)
10-14: Consider adding error handling to the permissions check.The permissions check and redirection logic are implemented correctly. However, it's advisable to add error handling to the promise chain to gracefully handle any potential errors during the permissions check.
Consider adding a
.catch()block to handle potential errors:useEffect(() => { checkPermissionsAction().then((result) => { if (!result?.hasAllPermissions) router.replace("/permissions/error"); - }); + }).catch((error) => { + console.error("Error checking permissions:", error); + // Consider redirecting to an error page or showing an error message + }); }, [router]);
1-17: Overall, the PermissionsCheck component is well-implemented with a minor suggestion for improvement.The component effectively checks user permissions upon mounting and redirects to an error page if necessary. It's designed to be easily integrated into other parts of the application. The use of React hooks and Next.js routing is appropriate and well-implemented.
To further enhance the robustness of this component, consider implementing error handling for the permissions check as suggested earlier. This will ensure that any unexpected issues during the check are gracefully handled, improving the overall reliability of the application.
As this component is likely to be used across multiple pages, ensure it's placed in a common layout or wrapped around the main content in each relevant page to maintain consistent permission checking throughout the application.
apps/web/utils/actions/permissions.ts (1)
11-26: LGTM: Well-structured implementation with comprehensive error handling.The
checkPermissionsActionfunction is well-implemented with a logical flow of checks (session -> token -> permissions) and comprehensive error handling. The use of early returns for error cases is a good practice.Consider using more specific error types or error codes to make it easier for the client to handle different error scenarios programmatically. For example:
type ErrorResponse = | { error: "NOT_LOGGED_IN" } | { error: "NO_GMAIL_TOKEN" } | { error: "PERMISSION_CHECK_FAILED", details: string }; type SuccessResponse = { hasAllPermissions: boolean }; type ActionResponse = ErrorResponse | SuccessResponse; // Then in the function: if (!session?.user.id) return { error: "NOT_LOGGED_IN" }; // ... if (!token.token) return { error: "NO_GMAIL_TOKEN" }; // ... if (error) return { error: "PERMISSION_CHECK_FAILED", details: error };This approach would provide more structured and type-safe error handling.
apps/web/app/(app)/permissions/error/page.tsx (3)
8-34: LGTM: Component structure is clean and responsive.The component is well-structured and uses flex layout appropriately for centering content. The responsive padding classes (sm:p-20 md:p-32) provide good support for different screen sizes.
Consider adding a
maintag around the content for better semantic structure and accessibility:export default function PermissionsErrorPage() { return ( + <main> <div className="flex flex-col items-center justify-center sm:p-20 md:p-32"> {/* ... content ... */} </div> + </main> ); }
11-18: LGTM: Error message is clear and well-formatted.The error message effectively communicates the issue and necessary actions to the user. The use of custom typography components ensures consistent styling across the application.
Consider extracting the text content into constants or using an internationalization library for easier maintenance and potential future localization:
const ERROR_HEADING = "You are missing permissions 😔"; const ERROR_MESSAGE = "You must sign in and give access to all permissions for Inbox Zero to work."; // Then use these constants in your JSX <PageHeading className="text-center">{ERROR_HEADING}</PageHeading> <TypographyP className="mx-auto mt-4 max-w-prose text-center"> {ERROR_MESSAGE} </TypographyP>
20-22: LGTM: Sign in button is functional and consistent with UI.The button correctly uses the custom Button component and has an appropriate onClick handler.
For clarity, consider renaming the
logOutfunction or adding a comment to explain why logging out is necessary for signing in again:// Log out the user to clear any existing sessions before redirecting to login const handleSignInAgain = () => logOut("/login"); // Then use this in your JSX <Button className="mt-4" onClick={handleSignInAgain}> Sign in again </Button>apps/web/utils/gmail/permissions.ts (3)
1-15: LGTM! Consider enhancing error logging.The function signature, TypeScript types, and initial error handling are well-implemented. Good job on importing SCOPES from a separate file for better maintainability.
Consider using a more descriptive error message for logging:
- console.error("No access token available"); + console.error("checkGmailPermissions: No access token provided");
17-31: LGTM! Consider using a constant for the API URL.The API call and response handling are well-implemented. Good job on proper error handling and use of async/await.
Consider extracting the API URL into a constant at the top of the file for better maintainability:
const GOOGLE_TOKEN_INFO_URL = "https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v1/tokeninfo"; // Then in the fetch call: const response = await fetch(`${GOOGLE_TOKEN_INFO_URL}?access_token=${accessToken}`);
42-49: LGTM! Consider enhancing error logging.The catch block appropriately handles exceptions and returns a safe default response.
Consider adding more context to the error log:
- console.error("Error checking Gmail permissions:", error); + console.error("checkGmailPermissions: Error during API call or response processing:", error);apps/web/components/ErrorDisplay.tsx (3)
47-47: Approved: Simplified component signatureThe removal of the empty props object from the
NotLoggedIncomponent signature is a good improvement. It makes the component more straightforward and easier to understand.Consider using an arrow function with an implicit return for even more conciseness:
export const NotLoggedIn = () => ( <div className="flex flex-col items-center justify-center sm:p-20 md:p-32"> {/* ... component content ... */} </div> );
Line range hint
37-43: Consider renaming the NotFound componentWhile there are no changes to this component, its name "NotFound" might be slightly misleading. It's used for general error display, not just 404 (Not Found) errors.
Consider renaming this component to something more general, such as
ErrorPanelorErrorWrapper, to better reflect its purpose:const ErrorPanel = (props: { children: React.ReactNode }) => { return ( <div className="text-gray-700"> <Panel>{props.children}</Panel> </div> ); };This change would make the component's purpose clearer and improve the overall readability of the code.
ErrorDisplay component lacks the enhanced error handling logic
The current implementation of the
ErrorDisplaycomponent does not include the enhanced error handling logic as described in the AI summary. Please implement the necessary enhancements to ensure consistent error handling.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
9-36: Verify changes to ErrorDisplay componentThe AI summary mentions enhancements to the error handling logic in the
ErrorDisplaycomponent, but these changes are not visible in the provided code. Please verify if these changes have been implemented as described in the summary.To confirm the current state of the
ErrorDisplaycomponent, please run the following script:If the changes described in the AI summary are not present, please update the component to include the enhanced error handling logic.
If the above script still results in an error, please run the following fallback script without specifying the
--type:🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the current implementation of the ErrorDisplay component # Test: Display the content of the ErrorDisplay component rg --type typescript -A 30 'export function ErrorDisplay' apps/web/components/ErrorDisplay.tsxLength of output: 131
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Corrected script to verify the current implementation of the ErrorDisplay component # Test: Display the content of the ErrorDisplay component rg --type typescriptreact -A 30 'export function ErrorDisplay' apps/web/components/ErrorDisplay.tsxLength of output: 141
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Corrected script to verify the current implementation of the ErrorDisplay component using the correct type # Test: Display the content of the ErrorDisplay component rg --type tsx -A 30 'export function ErrorDisplay' apps/web/components/ErrorDisplay.tsxLength of output: 117
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Fallback script to verify the current implementation of the ErrorDisplay component without using --type # Test: Display the content of the ErrorDisplay component rg 'export function ErrorDisplay' apps/web/components/ErrorDisplay.tsx -A 30Length of output: 828
apps/web/app/(app)/cold-email-blocker/page.tsx (1)
8-13: Overall impact: Permissions check successfully implementedThe addition of the
PermissionsCheckcomponent effectively introduces a permissions validation mechanism to theColdEmailBlockerPage, aligning with the PR objective. The implementation is clean and non-intrusive, preserving the existing functionality of the page.As a minor suggestion for improvement:
Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the
PermissionsCheckcomponent, especially if it's being used across multiple pages. This would enhance code readability and maintainability. For example:// Validate user permissions and redirect to error page if necessary <PermissionsCheck />apps/web/app/(app)/mail/page.tsx (1)
Line range hint
62-63: Consider alternative to storing refetch in atomThe current implementation stores the
refetchfunction in an atom for global access. While this works, it might not be the most maintainable or scalable solution. Consider these alternatives:
- Use React Context to provide the
refetchfunction to child components.- If using a state management library like Redux, store the
refetchfunction there.- Create a custom hook that encapsulates the email list fetching logic and provides the
refetchfunction.Example of a custom hook approach:
function useEmailList(query: ThreadsQuery) { const { data, isLoading, error, mutate } = useSWR<ThreadsResponse>( `/api/google/threads?${new URLSearchParams(query as any).toString()}`, { keepPreviousData: true, dedupingInterval: 1_000, } ); const refetch = useCallback( (removedThreadIds?: string[]) => { // ... existing refetch logic ... }, [mutate] ); return { data, isLoading, error, refetch }; }This approach would encapsulate the fetching logic and make it reusable across components.
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/page.tsx (1)
27-28: LGTM: PermissionsCheck component addedThe
PermissionsCheckcomponent is correctly placed at the beginning of the render tree, ensuring permissions are validated before rendering the main content. This implementation aligns well with the PR objective.Consider wrapping the rest of the component tree with an error boundary to gracefully handle any errors that might occur during the permissions check:
<Suspense> <PermissionsCheck /> + <ErrorBoundary fallback={<ErrorFallback />}> <Tabs defaultValue="prompt"> {/* ... rest of the component ... */} </Tabs> + </ErrorBoundary> </Suspense>This would provide a more robust error handling mechanism for any unexpected issues during the permissions check process.
apps/web/utils/auth.ts (4)
Line range hint
85-86: Ensure Consistent JWT Structure When Returning ErrorsIn the
refreshAccessTokenfunction, when no account is found, the function returns:return { error: "MissingAccountError" };Returning only the
errorproperty may lead to issues since other expected properties of theJWTtoken are missing. To maintain consistency and prevent potential errors in the authentication flow, consider spreading the existingtokenobject.Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- return { error: "MissingAccountError" }; + return { ...token, error: "MissingAccountError" };
Line range hint
149-155: Avoid Using 'any' Type Assertion for Prisma AdapterIn the
getAuthOptionsfunction, the adapter is cast toanywith a TODO comment:adapter: PrismaAdapter(prisma) as any, // TODOUsing
anybypasses TypeScript's type checking, which may lead to runtime errors. It's better to address the underlying type incompatibility.Consider importing the correct type for the Prisma Adapter or adjusting the type definitions to match. Here's how you might fix it:
- import { PrismaAdapter } from "@auth/prisma-adapter"; + import { PrismaAdapter } from "@next-auth/prisma-adapter";Ensure that you are importing from the correct package and that the types are properly aligned.
Line range hint
194-198: Review Type Definition ofSession.errorPropertyIn the
Sessioninterface within thenext-authmodule declaration, theerrorproperty is defined as:error?: string | "RefreshAccessTokenError";Since
RefreshAccessTokenErroris a string literal, andstringalready includes all string values, including"RefreshAccessTokenError", specifying both is redundant.Consider updating the type to:
- error?: string | "RefreshAccessTokenError"; + error?: string;Or, if you intend to restrict the
errorto specific values, define a union of string literals:error?: "RefreshAccessTokenError" | "AnotherSpecificError";
Line range hint
201-206: Consider GeneralizingJWT.errorProperty TypeIn the
JWTinterface within the@auth/core/jwtmodule declaration, theerrorproperty is typed as:error?: "RefreshAccessTokenError" | "MissingAccountError";If you anticipate handling additional error types in the future, it might be more flexible to define
erroras a string.Consider updating the type:
- error?: "RefreshAccessTokenError" | "MissingAccountError"; + error?: string;This change allows for greater flexibility in error handling.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
- apps/web/app/(app)/PermissionsCheck.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/app/(app)/automation/page.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/app/(app)/bulk-unsubscribe/page.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/app/(app)/cold-email-blocker/page.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/app/(app)/mail/page.tsx (2 hunks)
- apps/web/app/(app)/permissions/error/page.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/app/(app)/stats/page.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/components/ErrorDisplay.tsx (1 hunks)
- apps/web/utils/actions/permissions.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/web/utils/auth.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/web/utils/gmail/permissions.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (21)
apps/web/app/(app)/stats/page.tsx (1)
1-12: LGTM! The changes align with the PR objective.The addition of the
PermissionsCheckcomponent and its placement in the return statement effectively implements the requirement to show an error if the user didn't give correct Gmail permissions. The existing functionality withcheckAndRedirectForUpgradeis preserved, ensuring a comprehensive check before rendering the main content.To ensure consistency across the application, let's verify the implementation of
PermissionsCheckand its usage in other pages:apps/web/app/(app)/bulk-unsubscribe/page.tsx (3)
1-1: LGTM: New PermissionsCheck component added correctlyThe
PermissionsCheckcomponent has been imported and integrated properly into the page. This addition aligns well with the PR objective of showing an error if the user didn't give correct Gmail permissions.Also applies to: 9-9
7-12: LGTM: Return statement updated correctlyThe return statement has been properly modified to include both the
PermissionsCheckandBulkUnsubscribecomponents. The use of a React fragment is appropriate, and the order of components ensures that permissions are checked before rendering the main content.
1-12: Verify error handling for incorrect permissionsThe addition of
PermissionsCheckaligns with the PR objective. However, it's not immediately clear from this file how errors are displayed if the user hasn't given correct Gmail permissions.Could you please clarify:
- How does
PermissionsCheckhandle and display errors?- Is there any interaction between
checkAndRedirectForUpgradeand the permissions check?To verify the implementation, we can run the following script:
apps/web/app/(app)/PermissionsCheck.tsx (3)
1-6: LGTM: Imports and setup are correct.The "use client" directive and imports are properly set up. The component correctly imports the necessary hooks from React and Next.js, as well as the custom action for checking permissions.
7-9: LGTM: Component declaration and hook initialization are correct.The
PermissionsCheckcomponent is properly exported as a function component, and theuseRouterhook is correctly initialized.
16-16: LGTM: Component correctly returns null.The
PermissionsCheckcomponent appropriately returnsnullas it doesn't need to render any UI elements. Its purpose is solely to perform the permissions check and potential redirection as a side effect.apps/web/utils/actions/permissions.ts (2)
1-7: LGTM: Server-side directive and imports are correctly implemented.The "use server" directive is properly placed at the top of the file, and the imports seem relevant to the file's functionality. The use of
withActionInstrumentationsuggests good practices for monitoring and logging server actions.
8-10: LGTM: Action declaration and instrumentation wrapper.The
checkPermissionsActionis correctly exported and wrapped withwithActionInstrumentation, which is good for monitoring purposes. The action name "checkPermissions" is clear and descriptive.apps/web/app/(app)/permissions/error/page.tsx (1)
1-6: LGTM: Imports and dependencies are well-organized.The "use client" directive is correctly placed, and all necessary dependencies are imported. The imports are logically organized, which enhances code readability.
apps/web/utils/gmail/permissions.ts (1)
33-41: LGTM! Efficient scope comparison logic.The scope comparison logic is well-implemented. Good use of modern JavaScript features like optional chaining and nullish coalescing. The filter method for finding missing scopes is efficient and readable.
apps/web/app/(app)/cold-email-blocker/page.tsx (3)
8-8: LGTM: Import statement for PermissionsCheckThe import statement for the
PermissionsCheckcomponent is correctly implemented and follows React best practices.
13-13: LGTM: Addition of PermissionsCheck componentThe
<PermissionsCheck />component is correctly placed as the first child of theSuspensecomponent. This ensures that permissions are checked before rendering the rest of the page content, which aligns with the PR objective.
13-13: Verify error handling in PermissionsCheck componentWhile the placement of
<PermissionsCheck />is correct, it's important to ensure that it properly handles cases where the user lacks the necessary permissions.Could you please confirm how the
PermissionsCheckcomponent handles errors and redirects users when permissions are insufficient? You can run the following script to inspect thePermissionsCheckcomponent:✅ Verification successful
PermissionsCheck handles permission errors correctly
Verified that the
PermissionsCheckcomponent redirects users to/permissions/errorwhen permissions are insufficient usingrouter.replace.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Inspect the PermissionsCheck component implementation # Test: Search for the PermissionsCheck component definition ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern 'export function PermissionsCheck() { $$$ }' # Test: Search for any error handling or redirection logic within PermissionsCheck rg --type typescript 'router\.push|useRouter|throw|Error' apps/web/app/\(app\)/PermissionsCheck.tsxLength of output: 222
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Re-inspect the PermissionsCheck component implementation with adjusted search parameters # Test: Search for the PermissionsCheck component definition by file extension ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern 'export function PermissionsCheck() { $$$ }' # Test: Search for any error handling or redirection logic within PermissionsCheck using file extension rg 'router\.push|useRouter|throw|Error' 'apps/web/app/(app)/PermissionsCheck.tsx' --glob '*.tsx' -A 2Length of output: 359
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Further inspect the PermissionsCheck component for error handling and redirection logic # Test: Search for usage of checkPermissionsAction within PermissionsCheck rg 'checkPermissionsAction' 'apps/web/app/(app)/PermissionsCheck.tsx' --glob '*.tsx' -A 5 # Test: Search for any redirection methods other than router.push rg 'router\.replace|router\.reload|router\.' 'apps/web/app/(app)/PermissionsCheck.tsx' --glob '*.tsx'Length of output: 592
apps/web/app/(app)/mail/page.tsx (3)
13-13: LGTM: New import for PermissionsCheckThe import statement for the
PermissionsCheckcomponent is correctly added and follows the existing import conventions in the file.
Line range hint
1-87: Summary: Changes align with PR objectivesThe addition of the
PermissionsCheckcomponent to theA few points to consider for future improvements (not directly related to this PR):
- The suggested refactoring of the email list fetching logic into a custom hook.
- Ensuring consistent usage of
PermissionsCheckacross all relevant pages.Overall, the changes achieve the intended goal and maintain the existing functionality of the
74-74: Verify PermissionsCheck implementationThe
PermissionsCheckcomponent has been appropriately placed at the beginning of the JSX, ensuring that permissions are validated before rendering the main content. This aligns with the PR objective of showing an error if the user doesn't have correct Gmail permissions.However, to ensure full functionality:
- Verify that the
PermissionsCheckcomponent correctly redirects to the error page when necessary.- Confirm that it doesn't block the rendering of the main content when permissions are valid.
To verify the implementation, please run the following script:
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/page.tsx (2)
19-19: LGTM: New import for PermissionsCheckThe import statement for the
PermissionsCheckcomponent is correctly added and aligns with the PR objective to implement permission checks.
Line range hint
1-89: Summary: Effective implementation of permissions checkThe changes in this file successfully implement the PR objective of showing an error if the user didn't give correct Gmail permissions. The
PermissionsCheckcomponent is appropriately imported and placed at the beginning of the render tree, ensuring that permissions are validated before rendering the main content of theAutomationPage.These minimal changes effectively integrate the new functionality without disrupting the existing structure of the component. The implementation is clean and aligns well with React best practices.
apps/web/utils/auth.ts (2)
Line range hint
12-18: SCOPES Constant Exported and Defined CorrectlyThe
SCOPESconstant is correctly exported and includes all the necessary Google OAuth scopes. The conditional inclusion of the Contacts API scope based onenv.NEXT_PUBLIC_CONTACTS_ENABLEDis appropriate.
Line range hint
103-104: Ensure Consistent JWT Structure When Refresh Token Is MissingSimilarly, when the refresh token is not found in the database, the function returns:
return { ...token, error: "RefreshAccessTokenError", };This is appropriate as it maintains the existing token properties. Ensure consistency in error handling throughout the function.
| <div className="mt-8"> | ||
| <Image | ||
| src="/images/falling.svg" | ||
| alt="" | ||
| width={400} | ||
| height={400} | ||
| unoptimized | ||
| /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve image accessibility and consider performance optimization.
While using the Next.js Image component is good for performance, there are a few areas that could be improved:
- The empty alt attribute might not be ideal for accessibility. If the image is decorative, consider using
alt=" "(with a space) instead of an empty string. - The
unoptimizedprop bypasses Next.js's image optimization. Unless there's a specific reason for this, consider removing it to leverage Next.js's built-in image optimization.
Apply the following changes to improve accessibility and potentially enhance performance:
<Image
src="/images/falling.svg"
- alt=""
+ alt=" "
width={400}
height={400}
- unoptimized
/>Also, consider using responsive image sizing if appropriate for your design:
<Image
src="/images/falling.svg"
alt=" "
width={400}
height={400}
sizes="(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 400px"
/>This allows the image to adapt to different screen sizes while maintaining the aspect ratio.
| import { SCOPES } from "@/utils/auth"; | ||
|
|
||
| export async function checkGmailPermissions(accessToken: string): Promise<{ | ||
| hasAllPermissions: boolean; | ||
| missingScopes: string[]; | ||
| error?: string; | ||
| }> { | ||
| if (!accessToken) { | ||
| console.error("No access token available"); | ||
| return { | ||
| hasAllPermissions: false, | ||
| missingScopes: SCOPES, | ||
| error: "No access token available", | ||
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| const response = await fetch( | ||
| `https://www.googleapis.com/oauth2/v1/tokeninfo?access_token=${accessToken}`, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| const data = await response.json(); | ||
|
|
||
| if (data.error) { | ||
| console.error("Error checking Gmail permissions:", data.error); | ||
| return { | ||
| hasAllPermissions: false, | ||
| missingScopes: SCOPES, // Assume all scopes are missing if we can't check | ||
| error: data.error, | ||
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const grantedScopes = data.scope?.split(" ") || []; | ||
| const missingScopes = SCOPES.filter( | ||
| (scope) => !grantedScopes.includes(scope), | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| return { | ||
| hasAllPermissions: missingScopes.length === 0, | ||
| missingScopes, | ||
| }; | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| console.error("Error checking Gmail permissions:", error); | ||
| return { | ||
| hasAllPermissions: false, | ||
| missingScopes: SCOPES, // Assume all scopes are missing if we can't check | ||
| error: "Failed to check permissions", | ||
| }; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Security Concern Confirmed: Sanitization of Error Logs Required
The review comment regarding the security implications of error logging has been validated. The checkGmailPermissions function in apps/web/utils/gmail/permissions.ts directly logs error objects, which can potentially expose sensitive information.
Affected Line:
apps/web/utils/gmail/permissions.ts: console.error("Error checking Gmail permissions:", error);
Recommendation:
Implement a sanitization function to ensure that only non-sensitive error messages are logged.
function sanitizeError(error: unknown): string {
if (error instanceof Error) {
return error.message;
}
return String(error);
}
// Usage:
console.error("Error checking Gmail permissions:", sanitizeError(error));🔗 Analysis chain
Great implementation overall. Consider security implications of error logging.
The checkGmailPermissions function is well-implemented, with good error handling, proper use of TypeScript, and efficient logic. It effectively fulfills its purpose of checking Gmail permissions.
However, there's a potential security concern with logging error objects. These might contain sensitive information. Consider sanitizing the error logs:
If the script finds instances of logging error objects, consider implementing a sanitize function:
function sanitizeError(error: unknown): string {
if (error instanceof Error) {
return error.message;
}
return String(error);
}
// Usage:
console.error("Error checking Gmail permissions:", sanitizeError(error));Action Required: Verify Sensitive Error Logging
The previous script encountered an error due to an unrecognized file type. Please use the corrected script below to check for potential sensitive data logging:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential sensitive data logging
rg --type typescript 'console\.(log|error|warn|info).*error' apps/web/
Length of output: 107
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential sensitive data logging
rg --type ts 'console\.(log|error|warn|info).*error' apps/web/
Length of output: 3263
1 participant
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
PermissionsCheckcomponent for validating user permissions before accessing certain pages.PermissionsErrorPageto inform users when they lack necessary permissions.Bug Fixes
ErrorDisplaycomponent to check for specific error messages.Chores