Skip to content

Conversation

@prateekshourya29
Copy link
Member

@prateekshourya29 prateekshourya29 commented Jan 8, 2025

Description

Updated few auth related methods to use { validateStatus: null } for bypassing interceptors handling unauthorized errors.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Improvement (change that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Code refactoring
  • Performance improvements
  • Documentation update

Screenshots and Media (if applicable)

Test Scenarios

References

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Enhanced error handling across authentication, instance, and user services
    • Improved request validation for unauthorized errors by bypassing interceptors
  • Documentation

    • Added clarifying remarks for service methods regarding error handling strategies

The changes focus on refining service-level error management to provide more robust and predictable API interactions.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 8, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a consistent modification across multiple service classes (AuthService, InstanceService, and UserService) to handle API request error handling. The primary change involves adding the { validateStatus: null } option to get method calls, which allows bypassing interceptors for unauthorized errors. This modification enhances error handling by providing more granular control over how unauthorized responses are processed across different service methods.

Changes

File Change Summary
packages/services/src/auth/auth.service.ts Added documentation and validateStatus: null option to requestCSRFToken method
packages/services/src/instance/instance.service.ts Updated info and admins methods with validateStatus: null option and added @remarks documentation
packages/services/src/user/user.service.ts Modified adminDetails method to include validateStatus: null option in API request

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • sriramveeraghanta
  • rahulramesha

Poem

🐰 Tokens and requests, oh what a dance!
Interceptors bypassed with just a glance
Null status, our error's new friend
Smooth API calls that smoothly descend
A rabbit's code, precise and bright! 🚀


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 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.

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: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
packages/services/src/instance/instance.service.ts (2)

32-35: LGTM! Consider enhancing the documentation.

The implementation correctly adds validateStatus: null to bypass interceptors for unauthorized errors. This aligns with similar changes in AuthService.

Consider adding a brief explanation of why bypassing interceptors is necessary for this endpoint. This would help future maintainers understand the rationale behind this configuration.


59-62: LGTM! Consider a more centralized approach for interceptor bypassing.

The implementation correctly adds validateStatus: null to bypass interceptors for unauthorized errors, maintaining consistency with other auth-related endpoints.

Since we're seeing a pattern of bypassing interceptors for multiple auth-related endpoints, consider:

  1. Creating a base configuration object for these endpoints
  2. Adding a utility method in APIService that automatically applies this configuration to specified endpoints
  3. Maintaining a list of endpoints that require interceptor bypassing in a central configuration

This would make the code more maintainable and reduce repetition. Would you like me to provide an example implementation?

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bb71e60 and e80345d.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • packages/services/src/auth/auth.service.ts (1 hunks)
  • packages/services/src/instance/instance.service.ts (2 hunks)
  • packages/services/src/user/user.service.ts (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
  • GitHub Check: lint-admin
  • GitHub Check: lint-web
  • GitHub Check: lint-space
  • GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
  • GitHub Check: Analyze (python)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/services/src/user/user.service.ts (2)

25-25: LGTM! Clear documentation of the new behavior.

The added JSDoc remark clearly documents the use of validateStatus: null and its purpose.


Line range hint 28-33: Verify error handling in consuming code.

The implementation looks good and aligns with the PR objective to bypass interceptors for unauthorized errors. However, since this changes how errors are handled, we should verify the impact.

Let's check how this method is used across the codebase:

✅ Verification successful

Error handling verification completed successfully

The consuming code in user.store.ts properly handles errors using try-catch blocks around the adminDetails() call, ensuring that the modified error handling won't cause any issues.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for uses of adminDetails() to verify error handling expectations
rg -A 5 "adminDetails\(\)" --type ts

Length of output: 971


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the error handling in user.store.ts
rg -B 5 -A 10 "adminDetails\(\)" admin/core/store/user.store.ts

# Check git history for the specific changes
git log -L :adminDetails:packages/services/src/user/user.service.ts

# Look for test files that might be testing this functionality
fd -e test.ts -e spec.ts | xargs rg "adminDetails"

Length of output: 824

packages/services/src/auth/auth.service.ts (2)

25-25: LGTM! Clear documentation of the interceptor bypass.

The added remark clearly documents the purpose of using validateStatus: null.


28-28: LGTM! Correctly bypasses interceptors for CSRF token requests.

The addition of validateStatus: null aligns with the PR objective and is particularly relevant for CSRF token requests that might occur during unauthorized states.

Let's verify if this pattern is consistently applied across other auth-related endpoints in the codebase:

✅ Verification successful

Verified: validateStatus: null is consistently implemented across auth-related endpoints

The pattern is properly applied and documented across all endpoints that need to handle unauthorized states, including user info, instance info, and CSRF token endpoints.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for other auth-related GET endpoints that might need similar treatment
ast-grep --pattern 'class $service extends APIService {
  $$$
  $method($$$) {
    $$$
    this.get($$$)
    $$$
  }
  $$$
}'

# Search for existing validateStatus usage patterns
rg "validateStatus" --type ts

Length of output: 1474

packages/services/src/instance/instance.service.ts (1)

Line range hint 35-39: Verify consistent error handling across auth-related endpoints.

Let's ensure all auth-related endpoints follow the same pattern of bypassing interceptors.

Also applies to: 62-66

✅ Verification successful

Error handling is consistent across auth-related endpoints

The codebase shows consistent error handling patterns:

  • validateStatus: null is correctly used in all endpoints that need to bypass interceptors (auth, instance, and user services)
  • Error handling follows a uniform pattern of throwing response data across these services
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for all auth-related API calls in the codebase
echo "Searching for auth-related API endpoints..."
rg -t typescript "this\.(get|post|put|patch|delete)\(.*api.*auth.*\)" packages/

# Search for existing uses of validateStatus
echo -e "\nChecking existing uses of validateStatus..."
rg -t typescript "validateStatus.*null" packages/

# Look for similar service classes
echo -e "\nChecking for other service classes..."
fd -e ts -e tsx --full-path ".*service\.ts" packages/

Length of output: 1872


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for auth-related API endpoints and their error handling
echo "Checking auth.service.ts content..."
cat packages/services/src/auth/auth.service.ts

echo -e "\nSearching for validateStatus usage across services..."
rg "validateStatus" packages/services/src/

echo -e "\nSearching for error handling patterns in services..."
rg "\.catch\(\s*(error|err)\s*=>" packages/services/src/

Length of output: 5917

@sriramveeraghanta sriramveeraghanta merged commit 71ebe5c into preview Jan 8, 2025
13 of 14 checks passed
@sriramveeraghanta sriramveeraghanta deleted the chore/bypass-interceptor branch January 8, 2025 07:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants