fix: key creation and default prefix

[ogzhanolguncu]

What does this PR do?

Fixes #2814

If there is not an issue for this, please create one first. This is used to tracking purposes and also helps use understand why this PR exists

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Chore (refactoring code, technical debt, workflow improvements)
• Enhancement (small improvements)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How should this be tested?

• Test A
• Test B

Checklist

Required

• Filled out the "How to test" section in this PR
• Read Contributing Guide
• Self-reviewed my own code
• Commented on my code in hard-to-understand areas
• Ran pnpm build
• Ran pnpm fmt
• Checked for warnings, there are none
• Removed all console.logs
• Merged the latest changes from main onto my branch with git pull origin main
• My changes don't cause any responsiveness issues

Appreciated

• If a UI change was made: Added a screen recording or screenshots to this PR
• Updated the Unkey Docs if changes were necessary

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests

  • Added a new test case for creating keys with default prefix and byte length
  • Enhanced test coverage for key creation scenarios

• Improvements

  • Updated key creation route to support dynamic defaults for prefix and byte length
  • Refined error handling for key creation process
  • Improved validation logic for key creation in dashboard interface

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 494ed95

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
engineering	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 14, 2025 4:52pm
play	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 14, 2025 4:52pm
www	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Jan 14, 2025 4:52pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
dashboard	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Jan 14, 2025 4:52pm

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request introduces functionality to use default prefix and byte length when creating keys via the API. The changes span across three files: a test file for key creation, the key creation route, and the client-side key creation component. The primary focus is on implementing default values for key generation when specific parameters are not provided, drawing from the keyAuth table's stored defaults.

Changes

File	Change Summary
apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.happy.test.ts	Added new test case for creating a key with default prefix and bytes from keyAuth
apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.ts	Updated key creation logic to use default prefix and byte length from API configuration
apps/dashboard/app/(app)/apis/[apiId]/keys/[keyAuthId]/new/client.tsx	Refined conditional logic for feature flag-based validation and property deletion

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Use defaults from keyAuth when creating key	✅
Modify key creation route to use defaults	✅
Add test for default key creation	✅

Possibly related PRs

• feat: Add default bytes and prefix #2146: Adds functionality to set default bytes and prefix
• fix: create key toggle issue #2711: Addresses "Limited Use" toggle during key creation
• fix: UI for update and create key #2795: Fixes UI issues for creating and updating keys

Suggested labels

feature, key-management

Suggested reviewers

• mcstepp
• perkinsjr
• chronark

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 017234b and 494ed95.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.happy.test.ts (2 hunks)
• apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.ts (2 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.ts

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (17)

• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/rbac
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/nextjs
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/hono
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/cache
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/api
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/clickhouse
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/resend
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/keys
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/id
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/hash
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/encryption
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/billing
• GitHub Check: Test API / API Test Local
• GitHub Check: Build / Build
• GitHub Check: Test Agent Local / test_agent_local
• GitHub Check: autofix
• GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.happy.test.ts (2)

9-9: LGTM!

The import of KeyV1 from @unkey/keys is appropriate for creating reference keys in tests.

---

38-80: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Consider potential test flakiness and improve test coverage.

Several concerns with the current test implementation:

1. The high byteLength (66) might lead to flaky tests due to base58 encoding variations, as noted in previous reviews.
2. The test coverage is incomplete without cases for partial defaults (only prefix or only bytes set).
3. The key verification using slice(0, 5) might be insufficient for thorough validation.

Consider these improvements:

1. Reduce byteLength to a more reasonable value (e.g., 16 or 32) to avoid potential encoding issues.
2. Add test cases for partial defaults:

+test("creates key with only default prefix", async (t) => {
+  const expectedPrefix = "_prefix";
+  const h = await IntegrationHarness.init(t);
+  const root = await h.createRootKey([`api.${h.resources.userApi.id}.create_key`]);
+
+  await h.db.primary
+    .update(schema.keyAuth)
+    .set({
+      defaultPrefix: expectedPrefix,
+    })
+    .where(eq(schema.keyAuth.id, h.resources.userKeyAuth.id));
+
+  const res = await h.post<V1KeysCreateKeyRequest, V1KeysCreateKeyResponse>({
+    url: "/v1/keys.createKey",
+    headers: {
+      "Content-Type": "application/json",
+      Authorization: `Bearer ${root.key}`,
+    },
+    body: {
+      apiId: h.resources.userApi.id,
+      enabled: true,
+    },
+  });
+
+  expect(res.status).toBe(200);
+  const found = await h.db.primary.query.keys.findFirst({
+    where: (table, { eq }) => eq(table.id, res.body.keyId),
+  });
+  expect(found).toBeDefined();
+  expect(found!.start).toEqual(expectedPrefix + "_");
+});

3. Enhance key validation to check the entire key format:

-expect(found!.start).toEqual(referenceKey.slice(0, 5));
+expect(res.body.key).toMatch(new RegExp(`^${expectedPrefix}_[a-zA-Z0-9]{${expectedBytes * 1.37}}`));

Let's verify the potential flakiness with different byteLengths:

Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

---

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?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[chronark]

Oguzhan Olguncu
could we just set defaults within the test, rather than global for all tests?

it’s not a huge deal but this removes all test coverage for the case where there isn’t a a default, which is the most common

you can just use h.db.update...
to update the keyspace before creating the key

[pullflow-com]

From Oguzhan Olguncu ‣ :ack: I didn't know what to do just put it there. Sounds good.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (3)

apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.happy.test.ts (1)

39-92: Test coverage looks good, consider adding edge cases.

The test effectively validates the default prefix and bytes functionality. However, consider adding these test cases:

1. When keyAuth returns null for both defaults
2. When keyAuth returns invalid values
3. When the API query fails

Would you like me to generate the additional test cases?

apps/dashboard/app/(app)/apis/[apiId]/keys/[keyAuthId]/new/client.tsx (2)

88-92: Consider simplifying the validation condition.

The nested condition checks could be flattened for better readability.

Consider this alternative:

-    if (
-      values.limitEnabled &&
-      values.limit?.refill?.interval !== "none" &&
-      !values.limit?.refill?.amount
-    ) {
+    const shouldValidateRefillAmount = values.limitEnabled && values.limit?.refill?.interval !== "none";
+    if (shouldValidateRefillAmount && !values.limit?.refill?.amount) {

---

99-99: Consider adding a comment for the empty line.

The empty line separates validation logic from cleanup logic, but this separation could be more explicit.

Add a comment to clarify the logical separation:

+    // Clean up form values based on enabled features

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 57615c2 and 017234b.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• apps/api/src/pkg/testutil/harness.ts (2 hunks)
• apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.happy.test.ts (2 hunks)
• apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.ts (3 hunks)
• apps/dashboard/app/(app)/apis/[apiId]/keys/[keyAuthId]/new/client.tsx (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (12)

• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/rbac
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/nextjs
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/hono
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/cache
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./packages/api
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/clickhouse
• GitHub Check: Test Packages / Test ./internal/hash
• GitHub Check: Test API / API Test Local
• GitHub Check: Test Agent Local / test_agent_local
• GitHub Check: Build / Build
• GitHub Check: autofix
• GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)

🔇 Additional comments (4)

apps/api/src/pkg/testutil/harness.ts (2)

20-21: LGTM! Well-defined constants for test data.

The constants are appropriately named and have reasonable values for testing purposes.

---

316-317: LGTM! Consistent usage of default values.

The constants are correctly used to initialize the test data, maintaining consistency across the test suite.

apps/api/src/routes/v1_keys_createKey.ts (2)

346-352: LGTM! Efficient database query for default values.

The query is well-optimized:

• Uses findFirst() for single record retrieval
• Selects only required columns using empty object
• Properly handles deletedAt check

---

363-364: LGTM! Robust fallback mechanism for default values.

The code gracefully handles default values with a clear precedence:

1. Request-provided values
2. Database defaults
3. Hardcoded fallback (16 bytes)

[chronark]

thanks

[chronark]

const apiDefaults = await h.db.readonly.query.apis.findFirst({
    where: (table, { eq }) => eq(table.id, h.resources.userApi.id),
    with: {
      keyAuth: {
        columns: {
          defaultBytes: true,
          defaultPrefix: true,
        },
      },
    },
  });

instead of this, you just update it with your defaults