Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Check SimpleFIN access key format #485

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

psybers
Copy link
Contributor

@psybers psybers commented Oct 26, 2024

Adds a check to ensure the SimpleFIN accessKey is in the expected format. Helps avoid silent errors if the key was invalid (e.g., if CloudFlare blocked the call).

@actual-github-bot actual-github-bot bot changed the title Check SimpleFIN access key format [WIP] Check SimpleFIN access key format Oct 26, 2024
@psybers psybers changed the title [WIP] Check SimpleFIN access key format Check SimpleFIN access key format Oct 26, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 26, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a validation mechanism within the parseAccessKey function located in src/app-simplefin/app-simplefin.js. This validation checks whether the provided access key adheres to a specific format. In cases where the access key is deemed invalid, the function logs an error message and throws an error with the message "Invalid access key". This modification aims to enhance the error handling process by preventing the function from executing further operations with an improperly formatted access key, which could potentially lead to additional errors. The changes do not affect the overall logic, error handling, or control flow of the application, and there are no modifications to the declarations of exported or public entities. The primary focus of this update is on improving the robustness of the access key parsing process while maintaining the existing structure and functionality of the application.


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
🪧 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 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 3

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between c9e6d78 and 851f99d.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • upcoming-release-notes/485.md is excluded by !**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/app-simplefin/app-simplefin.js (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/app-simplefin/app-simplefin.js (1)

265-268: Verify the impact on error handling flow

The error thrown here is caught in multiple places. Ensure consistent error handling across all code paths.

Let's verify the error handling paths:

✅ Verification successful

Error handling for invalid access key is properly implemented

The error handling for invalid access keys is consistent across the codebase:

  • The validation occurs in the access key parsing logic, throwing an "Invalid access key" error
  • This error is caught within the higher-level handleError wrapper function (as seen in the try-catch blocks)
  • Different error scenarios are handled appropriately:
    • Invalid access key format triggers the validation error
    • Forbidden (403) responses are handled separately
    • JSON parsing errors are caught and processed
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check error handling for invalid access keys
# Look for catch blocks handling parseAccessKey errors
rg -A 5 "catch.*{" src/app-simplefin/

Length of output: 119


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's fix the regex and search for catch blocks
rg -A 5 "catch\s*\{" src/app-simplefin/

# Also search for any error handling related to access key validation
rg -B 3 -A 3 "Invalid.*access key" src/app-simplefin/

# Look for try blocks that might be related to access key handling
rg -B 3 -A 3 "try\s*\{" src/app-simplefin/

Length of output: 2897

Comment on lines +265 to +268
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
console.log(`Invalid SimpleFIN access key: ${accessKey}`);
throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Enhance error messages for better debugging

The current error message "Invalid access key" doesn't provide enough context about what specifically is wrong with the format.

Consider providing more specific error messages:

-    throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
+    throw new Error('Invalid access key format. Expected format: https://username:[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.

Suggested change
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
console.log(`Invalid SimpleFIN access key: ${accessKey}`);
throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
}
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
console.log(`Invalid SimpleFIN access key: ${accessKey}`);
throw new Error('Invalid access key format. Expected format: https://username:[email protected]');
}

⚠️ Potential issue

Security: Remove sensitive data from error logs

The current implementation logs the full access key which contains credentials. This poses a security risk as credentials could be exposed in log files.

Apply this change to remove sensitive data from logs:

-    console.log(`Invalid SimpleFIN access key: ${accessKey}`);
+    console.log('Invalid SimpleFIN access key format');
📝 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.

Suggested change
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
console.log(`Invalid SimpleFIN access key: ${accessKey}`);
throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
}
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
console.log('Invalid SimpleFIN access key format');
throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
}

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Strengthen the access key validation

The current regex pattern (^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$) is too permissive and could allow malformed URLs. Consider these improvements:

  1. Validate scheme is 'http://' or 'https://'
  2. Ensure username and password are not empty
  3. Validate the base URL format

Consider applying this improved validation:

-  if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
+  if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^https?:\/\/[^:]+:[^@]+@[^/]+$/)) {
     console.log('Invalid SimpleFIN access key format');
     throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
   }
+  // Additional validation after splitting
+  [scheme, rest] = accessKey.split('//');
+  if (!['http:', 'https:'].includes(scheme)) {
+    throw new Error('Invalid scheme: must be http or https');
+  }
+  [auth, rest] = rest.split('@');
+  [username, password] = auth.split(':');
+  if (!username || !password) {
+    throw new Error('Missing credentials');
+  }
+  if (!rest || !rest.includes('.')) {
+    throw new Error('Invalid base URL');
+  }
📝 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.

Suggested change
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^.*\/\/.*:.*@.*$/)) {
console.log(`Invalid SimpleFIN access key: ${accessKey}`);
throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
}
if (!accessKey || !accessKey.match(/^https?:\/\/[^:]+:[^@]+@[^/]+$/)) {
console.log('Invalid SimpleFIN access key format');
throw new Error(`Invalid access key`);
}
// Additional validation after splitting
[scheme, rest] = accessKey.split('//');
if (!['http:', 'https:'].includes(scheme)) {
throw new Error('Invalid scheme: must be http or https');
}
[auth, rest] = rest.split('@');
[username, password] = auth.split(':');
if (!username || !password) {
throw new Error('Missing credentials');
}
if (!rest || !rest.includes('.')) {
throw new Error('Invalid base URL');
}

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant