fix: #289 Corrects the asset ID to always be correct for the descript… #351
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces modifications to the Swagger API documentation and related structures, primarily enhancing the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
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.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
frontend/lib/api/types/data-contracts.ts (1)
Security Review: Access Controls Present, Rate Limiting Missing
Based on the code analysis:
✅ Access control is properly implemented:
- All item operations verify group ownership via
auth.GID- Repository methods enforce group-based access (
GetOneByGroup,UpdateByGroup, etc.)
⚠️ Missing rate limiting:
- No rate limiting implementation found for API endpoints
- Could lead to potential DoS vulnerabilities
🔒 Recommendations:
- Implement rate limiting middleware for API endpoints
- Add request throttling for endpoints returning sensitive data
- Consider adding logging for access to sensitive fields
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-500: Security Advisory: Review Data ExposureThe interfaces in this file define the shape of data exchanged between frontend and backend. Consider the following security recommendations:
- Ensure sensitive fields (e.g.,
purchasePrice,serialNumber,warrantyDetails) are properly sanitized before transmission- Implement rate limiting on API endpoints that return these data structures
- Add proper access control checks in the backend for each field
- Consider implementing field-level permissions to restrict access to sensitive data
Let's verify the exposure of sensitive fields in API responses:
Let me verify the access control implementation with one more check:
This will help verify if there are proper access controls and rate limiting in place before generating the final response about the security concerns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential sensitive data exposure in API endpoints # Search for API endpoint handlers that return ItemOut or ItemSummary rg -A 5 "func.*Item(Out|Summary)" # Search for access control checks around sensitive fields rg -B 3 "purchasePrice|serialNumber|warrantyDetails"Length of output: 29702
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for authentication and authorization checks in API handlers and services # Look for authentication middleware and group-based access control rg -B 3 "func.*Items.*Group" backend/ rg -B 3 "auth.*GID" backend/ # Check for rate limiting implementation rg -B 3 "rate.*limit|throttle" backend/Length of output: 16587
frontend/pages/reports/label-generator.vue (1)
Line range hint
11-11: Security: Add URL validation for QR codesThe baseURL is used to generate QR codes but lacks validation. This could lead to malicious redirects if not properly sanitized.
Add URL validation:
const api = useUserApi(); +const urlValidator = new RegExp('^https?:\\/\\/[\\w\\-]+(\\.[\\w\\-]+)+[/#?]?.*$'); function getQRCodeUrl(assetID: string): string { let origin = displayProperties.baseURL.trim(); + if (!urlValidator.test(origin)) { + notifier.error('Invalid base URL format'); + return ''; + } // remove trailing slash if (origin.endsWith("/")) { origin = origin.slice(0, -1); } const data = `${origin}/a/${assetID}`; return route(`/qrcode`, { data: encodeURIComponent(data) }); }Also applies to: 73-73, 146-146
backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.go (1)
Security: Potential unauthorized item access vulnerability in GetOne method
The code analysis reveals a security concern in the item access implementation:
- The
GetOnemethod allows direct item access without group ID validation:func (e *ItemsRepository) GetOne(ctx context.Context, id uuid.UUID) (ItemOut, error) { return e.getOne(ctx, item.ID(id)) // No group validation! }
- While other methods like
GetOneByGroupproperly validate group membership:func (e *ItemsRepository) GetOneByGroup(ctx context.Context, gid, id uuid.UUID) (ItemOut, error) { return e.getOne(ctx, item.ID(id), item.HasGroupWith(group.ID(gid))) }Security recommendations:
- Deprecate the unsafe
GetOnemethod and enforce usage ofGetOneByGroup- Add group validation in the
getOnehelper method as a required parameter- Consider adding middleware to validate group membership for all item operations
- Add integration tests to verify group-based access control
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-824: Security: Review SQL injection vectors and access controlsWhile reviewing the changes for the asset ID fix, I noticed some security considerations that should be addressed:
- Input Validation: Ensure that
AssetIDvalues are properly validated before database operations- Access Control: Verify that the
gid(group ID) check is consistently applied across all item operations- SQL Injection: Although using an ORM (ent) provides some protection, verify that all user inputs are properly escaped
Let me analyze the security concerns by checking the group ID validation implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for potential missing group ID checks in item operations echo "Checking for item operations without group ID validation..." rg -A 5 "func.*Repository.*Item" | rg -v "HasGroupWith|group\.ID" # Check for direct SQL operations that might bypass ORM safety echo "Checking for direct SQL operations..." rg "Raw|Exec.*\(.*\$|Query.*\(.*\$"Length of output: 111167
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check GetOne implementation for group ID validation echo "Checking GetOne implementation..." ast-grep --pattern 'func (e *ItemsRepository) GetOne(ctx context.Context, id uuid.UUID) (ItemOut, error) { $$$ }' # Check for group ID validation in getOne helper echo -e "\nChecking getOne helper implementation..." ast-grep --pattern 'func (e *ItemsRepository) getOne(ctx context.Context, where ...predicate.Item) (ItemOut, error) { $$$ }' # Check for direct item access without group validation echo -e "\nChecking for direct item access patterns..." rg "item\.ID\(" -A 3 backend/internal/data/repo/repo_items.goLength of output: 3289
backend/app/api/static/docs/swagger.json (2)
2282-2285: Enhance field documentationThe
assetIdfield would benefit from additional documentation:
- Add description field explaining the purpose and format
- Document any constraints (e.g., format requirements, uniqueness)
- Include examples of valid asset IDs
"assetId": { "type": "string", - "example": "0" + "description": "Unique identifier for the asset in the system", + "example": "ASSET-001", + "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9-]+$", + "minLength": 1, + "maxLength": 50 },
2282-2285: Add validation rules for asset IDsConsider adding OpenAPI validation rules to ensure consistent asset ID format:
- Pattern validation for allowed characters
- Length constraints
- Required/optional status
docs/docs/api/openapi-2.0.json (1)
2282-2285: Enhance API security for asset ID operationsThe API endpoints handling asset IDs should implement rate limiting and access controls to prevent enumeration attacks.
Consider:
- Adding rate limiting headers to the API specification
- Implementing pagination for endpoints that list assets
- Adding proper authorization scopes for asset ID operations
- Logging all asset ID access attempts for security auditing
backend/app/api/static/docs/docs.go (1)
Line range hint
1-2500: Security Review: Authentication and Authorization ImplementationThe API security implementation looks solid with proper Bearer token authentication. However, here are some security recommendations:
- Consider implementing rate limiting for authentication endpoints
- Add CORS configuration to protect against unauthorized cross-origin requests
- Consider implementing token revocation for enhanced security
🛑 Comments failed to post (5)
frontend/pages/reports/label-generator.vue (2)
222-228: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Fix off-by-one error in loop range
The loop range adjustment introduces potential confusion with the
-1offsets. Consider making the indexing more explicit.- for (let i = displayProperties.assetRange - 1; i < displayProperties.assetRangeMax - 1; i++) { + const startIndex = displayProperties.assetRange - 1; + const endIndex = displayProperties.assetRangeMax - 1; + for (let i = startIndex; i < endIndex; i++) { const item = allFields?.value?.items?.[i]; if (item?.location) { items.push(getItem(i, item as { assetId: string; location: { name: string }; name: string })); } else { items.push(getItem(i, null)); } }📝 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.const startIndex = displayProperties.assetRange - 1; const endIndex = displayProperties.assetRangeMax - 1; for (let i = startIndex; i < endIndex; i++) { const item = allFields?.value?.items?.[i]; if (item?.location) { items.push(getItem(i, item as { assetId: string; location: { name: string }; name: string })); } else { items.push(getItem(i, null)); }
186-195:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: Validate and sanitize item properties
The
getItemfunction accepts external data that's displayed in labels. While the current implementation uses safe defaults, we should add input validation.Add property validation:
function getItem(n: number, item: { assetId: string; name: string; location: { name: string } } | null): LabelData { const assetID = fmtAssetID(n + 1); + // Sanitize and validate input + const sanitizedName = item?.name ? DOMPurify.sanitize(item.name) : "_______________"; + const sanitizedLocation = item?.location?.name ? DOMPurify.sanitize(item.location.name) : "_______________"; + const sanitizedAssetId = item?.assetId ? DOMPurify.sanitize(item.assetId) : assetID; return { url: getQRCodeUrl(assetID), - assetID: item?.assetId ?? assetID, - name: item?.name ?? "_______________", - location: item?.location?.name ?? "_______________", + assetID: sanitizedAssetId, + name: sanitizedName, + location: sanitizedLocation, }; }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/app/api/static/docs/swagger.json (1)
2282-2285: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Ensure consistency across related models
The
assetIdfield is added toItemSummary, but it should be consistently represented across related models. Consider adding it to:
ItemCreate(for creating items with specific asset IDs)ItemPatch(for updating asset IDs)docs/docs/api/openapi-2.0.json (2)
2282-2285: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider making assetId a required field
Since the asset ID is crucial for the label generator functionality, consider making it a required field to ensure data consistency.
Add the field to the required array:
"repo.ItemSummary": { "type": "object", + "required": ["assetId"], "properties": {Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
2282-2285:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd validation constraints for the assetId property
While adding the
assetIdproperty is a good step towards fixing the label generator issue, consider enhancing the specification with validation rules to prevent potential security issues.Consider adding these constraints to the property definition:
"assetId": { "type": "string", - "example": "0" + "example": "000-001", + "pattern": "^[0-9]{3}-[0-9]{3}$", + "minLength": 7, + "maxLength": 7, + "description": "Unique identifier for the asset in format XXX-XXX where X is a digit" }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
Resolves the issue with item descriptions not matching the asset ids in the label generator
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes: #289
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
assetIdproperty to item summaries, enhancing item identification.assetId, improving data handling.Bug Fixes
Documentation
assetIdproperty in item summaries.