fix: validation of public and private assets #5878
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes focus on enhancing the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
space/helpers/editor.helper.ts (5)
36-36: Simplified URL validation looks good, but consider a more comprehensive check.The change from
checkURLValidity(path)topath?.startsWith("http")simplifies the URL validation process. While this covers both "http" and "https" protocols, it might be less strict than the previous implementation.Consider using a more comprehensive check to ensure URL validity:
const isValidURL = (url: string): boolean => { try { new URL(url); return true; } catch { return false; } }; // Usage if (path && isValidURL(path)) { // ... }This approach will validate the entire URL structure while still being relatively simple.
44-44: Consistent URL validation change, consider applying the same improvement.This change is consistent with the previous one, replacing
checkURLValidity(src)withsrc?.startsWith("http").For consistency, apply the same improvement suggested for the previous change:
if (src && isValidURL(src)) { // ... }This will ensure a uniform and more robust URL validation throughout the file.
51-51: Consistent URL validation change, consider refactoring for better maintainability.This change maintains consistency with the previous two, replacing
checkURLValidity(src)withsrc?.startsWith("http").
- Apply the same improvement suggested for the previous changes:
if (src && isValidURL(src)) { // ... }
- To improve maintainability, consider extracting this repeated logic into a separate function:
const isExternalURL = (url: string): boolean => url && isValidURL(url); // Usage if (isExternalURL(src)) { // ... }This refactoring will centralize the URL validation logic, making it easier to maintain and update in the future.
75-75: Consistent URL validation change, consider creating a shared utility function.This change maintains consistency with the previous ones, replacing
checkURLValidity(path)withpath?.startsWith("http").
- Apply the same improvement suggested for the previous changes:
if (path && isValidURL(path)) { return path; }
- To improve maintainability and reduce code duplication, create a shared utility function for URL validation:
// In a separate utility file (e.g., url-utils.ts) export const isValidURL = (url: string): boolean => { try { new URL(url); return true; } catch { return false; } }; export const isExternalURL = (url: string): boolean => url && isValidURL(url); // Usage in this file import { isExternalURL } from './url-utils'; // ... if (isExternalURL(path)) { return path; }This refactoring will centralize the URL validation logic, making it easier to maintain and update across the entire codebase.
Line range hint
1-82: Overall assessment: Good simplification, but consider improving URL validation and code structure.The changes consistently simplify URL validation across the file, which improves readability. However, there are opportunities for further improvement:
- Implement a more robust URL validation method to ensure security and correctness.
- Create a shared utility function for URL validation to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
- Consider the impact of these changes on the overall security of the application, especially if the previous
checkURLValidityfunction was performing additional checks.To implement these improvements:
- Create a new utility file (e.g.,
url-utils.ts) with robust URL validation functions.- Replace all instances of
path?.startsWith("http")and similar checks with the new utility function.- Review the security implications of the new validation method and ensure it meets the application's requirements.
These changes will enhance the code quality, maintainability, and potentially the security of the URL handling in the editor.
web/helpers/editor.helper.ts (3)
Line range hint
48-58: Simplified URL validation approved, but consider more robust checks.The change from using
checkURLValidityto a simple string check simplifies the code and potentially improves performance. However, it may be less robust in detecting invalid URLs that start with "http" but are not actually valid.Consider using a more robust URL validation method, such as the
URLconstructor:if (path && (path.startsWith("http") || path.startsWith("https"))) { try { new URL(path); return path; } catch { // Invalid URL, fall through to default case } } // ... rest of the codeThis approach maintains simplicity while providing stronger validation.
Line range hint
99-109: Consistent URL check in read-only handler, consider robust validation.The URL validation logic has been simplified consistently with the
getEditorFileHandlersfunction. This change maintains the same behavior for getting asset sources in read-only mode.For consistency with the earlier suggestion, consider implementing the same robust URL validation method here:
if (path && (path.startsWith("http") || path.startsWith("https"))) { try { new URL(path); return path; } catch { // Invalid URL, fall through to default case } } // ... rest of the codeThis approach would provide stronger validation while maintaining consistency across the codebase.
Line range hint
1-280: Overall assessment: Consistent simplification of URL validation.The changes in this file consistently simplify URL validation across multiple methods, aligning with the PR objective of fixing validation of public and private assets. While these modifications improve code readability and potentially performance, they may benefit from more robust URL validation to ensure security and correctness.
Consider implementing a shared, robust URL validation utility function that can be used consistently across all methods in this file. This would centralize the logic, making it easier to maintain and update in the future while ensuring consistent behavior across all asset-related operations.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- packages/editor/src/core/extensions/custom-image/components/image-block.tsx (1 hunks)
- space/helpers/editor.helper.ts (2 hunks)
- web/helpers/editor.helper.ts (4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
web/helpers/editor.helper.ts (2)
Line range hint
62-72: Consistent URL check in delete method.The URL validation logic has been simplified consistently with the
getAssetSrcmethod. This change maintains the same behavior for deleting assets based on their source.
Line range hint
75-80: Consistent URL check in restore method.The URL validation logic has been simplified consistently with the previous methods. This change maintains the same behavior for restoring assets based on their source.
packages/editor/src/core/extensions/custom-image/components/image-block.tsx (1)
251-251: LGTM!The error handling and image restoration logic are correctly implemented. The usage of
awaitis appropriate given the noted type error from Tiptap.
Description
Fixed the validation to get, delete and restore assets
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor