Update Swagger Docs from #370 #376
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces significant updates to the Swagger API documentation across multiple files, enhancing the clarity and functionality of various API endpoints. Key modifications include the addition of required path parameters for maintenance-related endpoints, support for file uploads via Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
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: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
backend/app/api/static/docs/swagger.yaml (2)
1255-1259: Security: Consider additional access controls for maintenance operationsWhile the endpoint is protected by Bearer authentication, consider adding:
- Rate limiting for maintenance operations
- Audit logging for tracking maintenance changes
- Role-based access control (RBAC) for maintenance operations
Add security scheme documentation:
security: - Bearer: [] - RateLimit: [] x-audit-logged: true x-required-roles: ["maintenance_admin", "maintenance_user"]
Line range hint
1-1: Security: Enhance error response documentationThe API would benefit from standardized error responses that don't leak sensitive information. Consider documenting:
- Rate limit exceeded responses (429)
- Authentication errors (401)
- Authorization errors (403)
- Input validation errors (400)
Add standard error responses to all endpoints:
responses: "401": description: Unauthorized - Invalid or missing authentication token schema: $ref: "#/definitions/validate.ErrorResponse" "403": description: Forbidden - Insufficient permissions schema: $ref: "#/definitions/validate.ErrorResponse" "429": description: Too Many Requests - Rate limit exceeded schema: $ref: "#/definitions/validate.ErrorResponse"backend/app/api/static/docs/swagger.json (1)
Line range hint
923-936: Add rate limiting and authorization specifications for maintenance endpointsThe maintenance endpoints lack important security controls in the documentation:
- No rate limiting specifications
- No explicit authorization level requirements
- No audit logging requirements
Add security specifications:
"tags": [ "Item Maintenance" ], +"x-security-controls": { + "rateLimit": { + "requests": 100, + "per": "hour" + }, + "authorization": { + "roles": ["admin", "maintainer"], + "auditLog": true + } +}Also applies to: 972-978, 1450-1456, 1489-1497
backend/app/api/static/docs/docs.go (1)
Swagger documentation process needs documentation and protection
The verification revealed:
- ✅ Swagger generation command
task swagexists in the Taskfile- ❌ Swagger generation process is not documented in README.md
- ❌ No pre-commit hook to prevent direct edits to docs.go
Security recommendations:
- Add pre-commit hook to prevent accidental modifications to auto-generated files
- Document the swagger generation process in README.md to prevent manual edits
- Consider adding git attributes (create .gitattributes) to mark docs.go as generated
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-3: Verify swagger documentation generation processThis is an auto-generated file. Ensure that:
- The swagger generation command
task -f swagis included in the CI/CD pipeline- The generation process is documented in the README
- A pre-commit hook is set up to prevent direct edits to this file
Let me check the CI/CD pipeline configuration to complete the verification.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if swagger generation is documented echo "Checking for swagger generation documentation..." rg -l "task -f swag|swag init" README.md || echo "Swagger generation process not documented in README.md" # Check for pre-commit hook echo "Checking for pre-commit hook..." if [ -f .git/hooks/pre-commit ]; then grep -l "docs\.go" .git/hooks/pre-commit || echo "No pre-commit hook found for docs.go" fiLength of output: 376
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check CI/CD pipeline configurations echo "Checking CI/CD configurations..." fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows/ -x cat {} # Check for Taskfile echo -e "\nChecking Taskfile for swagger generation..." fd Taskfile -x cat {}Length of output: 24330
🛑 Comments failed to post (4)
backend/app/api/static/docs/swagger.yaml (2)
1140-1141:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: Add file upload restrictions
The file upload endpoint lacks critical security controls:
- No maximum file size limit specified
- No explicit file type restrictions
- No virus/malware scanning mentioned
Consider adding these security controls to prevent malicious file uploads.
Add the following security controls:
- Add
maxLengthfor file size- Specify allowed MIME types
- Document virus scanning requirements
- Add file extension whitelist
Example addition:
parameters: - in: formData name: file type: file required: true maxLength: 10485760 # 10MB limit description: | Allowed file types: jpg, png, pdf Maximum file size: 10MB Files will be scanned for malware
732-737:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: Use non-privileged example credentials
The example values "admin" and "[email protected]" could potentially reveal default credentials or encourage weak passwords. Consider using more generic examples that don't suggest privileged access.
Apply this diff to use more secure examples:
- example: admin + example: MySecureP@ssw0rd type: string stayLoggedIn: type: boolean username: - example: [email protected] + example: [email protected]📝 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.example: MySecureP@ssw0rd type: string stayLoggedIn: type: boolean username: example: [email protected]backend/app/api/static/docs/swagger.json (2)
562-564:
⚠️ Potential issueEnhance security measures for file upload endpoints
The file upload endpoints need additional security specifications in the documentation:
For
/v1/items/import:
- Missing file size limits
- No specification of allowed file types (CSV)
- No mention of virus scanning requirements
For
/v1/items/{id}/attachments:
- Missing file size limits
- Allowed file types not restricted
- No mention of virus scanning requirements
Consider adding these security-related specifications to the documentation:
"consumes": [ "multipart/form-data" ], +"x-security-considerations": { + "maxFileSize": "10MB", + "allowedMimeTypes": ["text/csv"], + "securityChecks": ["virusScan", "malwareDetection"], + "inputValidation": ["fileExtension", "contentType"] +}Also applies to: 736-738
3061-3069:
⚠️ Potential issueRevise example credentials in login form documentation
The current example values use "admin" credentials which could promote poor security practices:
- Username example: "[email protected]"
- Password example: "admin"
Suggest using more secure examples:
"password": { "type": "string", - "example": "admin" + "example": "StrongP@ssw0rd123!" }, "username": { "type": "string", - "example": "[email protected]" + "example": "[email protected]" }📝 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."type": "string", "example": "StrongP@ssw0rd123!" }, "stayLoggedIn": { "type": "boolean" }, "username": { "type": "string", "example": "[email protected]"
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
task -f swagWhich issue(s) this PR fixes:
In #370 I had some questions about if I needed to check in the swagger generated docs or not. After the PR was merged in, I discovered that I did indeed need to generate them and commit them.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Testing
This will also serve as a test of the swagger validation workflow.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation