merge dev to main (v2.11.6) #1981
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… policies if the corresponding fields are selected (#1979)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request contains three distinct updates. The first change bumps the version number in the JetBrains IDE build configuration from 2.11.5 to 2.11.6. The second change updates the PolicyUtil class in the runtime package by modifying the signature of getFieldReadCheckSelector and refining its field-level merging logic. Finally, a new regression test is added to verify that the permission logic for accessing a user's secret field based on the publication status of associated posts is enforced correctly. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant PolicyUtil
Caller->>PolicyUtil: injectReadCheckSelect(args)
Note right of PolicyUtil: Extract fieldSelection from args.select
PolicyUtil->>PolicyUtil: Call getFieldReadCheckSelector(model, fieldSelection)
loop Process each field in fieldLevel selectors
alt Field is selected
PolicyUtil->>PolicyUtil: Merge selector for field
else Field not selected
PolicyUtil->>PolicyUtil: Skip merging for field
end
end
PolicyUtil-->>Caller: Return merged selectors
Possibly related PRs
✨ Finishing Touches
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.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
tests/regression/tests/issue-1978.test.ts (1)
32-40: Consider adding more test cases.While the current test cases verify the basic functionality, consider adding:
- A user with an unpublished post
- A user with multiple posts (some published, some unpublished)
const user1 = await prisma.user.create({ data: { id: 1, secret: 'secret', posts: { create: { id: 1, published: true } } }, }); const user2 = await prisma.user.create({ data: { id: 2, secret: 'secret' }, }); +const user3 = await prisma.user.create({ + data: { id: 3, secret: 'secret', posts: { create: { id: 2, published: false } } }, +}); +const user4 = await prisma.user.create({ + data: { + id: 4, + secret: 'secret', + posts: { + create: [ + { id: 3, published: true }, + { id: 4, published: false } + ] + } + }, +}); const db = enhance(); await expect(db.user.findFirst({ where: { id: 1 } })).resolves.toMatchObject({ secret: 'secret' }); await expect(db.user.findFirst({ where: { id: 1 }, select: { id: true } })).resolves.toEqual({ id: 1 }); let r = await db.user.findFirst({ where: { id: 2 } }); expect(r.secret).toBeUndefined(); r = await db.user.findFirst({ where: { id: 2 }, select: { id: true } }); expect(r.secret).toBeUndefined(); +r = await db.user.findFirst({ where: { id: 3 } }); +expect(r.secret).toBeUndefined(); + +r = await db.user.findFirst({ where: { id: 4 } }); +expect(r.secret).toBeDefined();packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/policy-utils.ts (1)
1164-1196: Consider adding error handling for invalid field selections.The
injectReadCheckSelectmethod should validate thefieldSelectionparameter before passing it togetFieldReadCheckSelector.injectReadCheckSelect(model: string, args: any) { + // Validate field selection + if (args.select && typeof args.select !== 'object') { + throw new Error('Invalid field selection: expected an object'); + } + // we need to recurse into relation fields before injecting the current level, because // injection into current level can result in relation being selected/included, which // can then cause infinite recursion when we visit relation later
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (13)
package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/ide/jetbrains/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/language/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/misc/redwood/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/openapi/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/swr/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/tanstack-query/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/plugins/trpc/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/runtime/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/schema/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/sdk/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/server/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonpackages/testtools/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
packages/ide/jetbrains/build.gradle.kts(1 hunks)packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/policy-utils.ts(2 hunks)tests/regression/tests/issue-1978.test.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- packages/ide/jetbrains/build.gradle.kts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
- GitHub Check: OSSAR-Scan
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: dependency-review
- GitHub Check: build-test (20.x)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
tests/regression/tests/issue-1978.test.ts (2)
7-21: LGTM! Well-structured schema definition.The schema clearly defines the relationship between
UserandPostmodels, with appropriate permissions:
User.secretis only readable when associated posts are published- Both models allow all operations by default
25-30: LGTM! Good test data setup.Test data covers both scenarios:
- User1 with a published post
- User2 without any posts
packages/runtime/src/enhancements/node/policy/policy-utils.ts (1)
1314-1332: LGTM! Improved field selection logic.The changes to
getFieldReadCheckSelectoroptimize the field-level read checks by:
- Only merging selectors for fields that are explicitly selected
- Preventing unnecessary selector merging for unselected fields
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.