-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Feat/93 add api key #95
Conversation
Warning Rate limit exceeded@amindadgar has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 9 minutes and 33 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance the FastAPI application by implementing API key validation for specific endpoints. The Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant API
participant Validator
participant Database
Client->>API: POST /ask with API key
API->>Validator: Validate API key
Validator->>Database: Check API key
Database-->>Validator: Return validation result
Validator-->>API: Return validation status
API->>Client: Return task ID and status
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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (12)
routers/http.py (2)
Line range hint
29-35
: Add error handling for payload persistence.The persistence operation could fail but there's no error handling. Consider wrapping it in a try-except block similar to the one in the
/status
endpoint.# persisting the payload persister = PersistPayload() - persister.persist_http(payload_http) + try: + persister.persist_http(payload_http) + except Exception as e: + logging.error(f"Failed to persist initial payload: {e}") + # Continue execution as this is non-critical
Line range hint
44-51
: Add type validation for task.result access.The code assumes task.result contains specific keys ('community_id', 'question', 'response') without validation. This could raise KeyError if the task result structure is different.
if task.status == "SUCCESS": + result = task.result + if not all(key in result for key in ['community_id', 'question', 'response']): + logging.error(f"Invalid task result structure: {result}") + return {"id": task.id, "status": "ERROR", "message": "Invalid result structure"} + http_payload = HTTPPayload( - communityId=task.result["community_id"], - question=QuestionModel(message=task.result["question"]), - response=ResponseModel(message=task.result["response"]), + communityId=result["community_id"], + question=QuestionModel(message=result["question"]), + response=ResponseModel(message=result["response"]), taskId=task.id, )tests/integration/test_validate_token.py (2)
5-7
: Remove extra empty lineThere's an unnecessary extra empty line between imports and the class definition.
from services.api_key import ValidateAPIKey - class TestValidateToken(TestCase):
21-75
: Enhance test coverage with additional test casesThe current test suite could be improved with:
- Additional test cases for edge cases:
- Invalid API key formats
- Empty API key
- Very long API keys
- Special characters in API keys
- Validation of error messages
- Reusable test data fixtures
Here's a suggested implementation for additional test methods:
def test_invalid_api_key_formats(self): test_cases = [ "", # empty " ", # whitespace "a" * 1000, # very long "!@#$%^&*()", # special chars ] for api_key in test_cases: with self.subTest(api_key=api_key): valid = self.validator.validate(api_key) self.assertFalse(valid) @staticmethod def _create_token_doc(token_id: int, token: str) -> dict: return { "id": token_id, "token": token, "options": {}, } def test_validate_with_error_message(self): api_key = "invalid_key" result = self.validator.validate(api_key) self.assertFalse(result) # Assuming validate method returns tuple(bool, str) # self.assertEqual(error_message, "Invalid API key format")Also, consider refactoring the existing test data creation:
- self.client[self.validator.db][self.validator.tokens_collection].insert_many( - [ - { - "id": 1, - "token": "1111", - "options": {}, - }, - { - "id": 2, - "token": "2222", - "options": {}, - }, - { - "id": 3, - "token": "3333", - "options": {}, - }, - ] - ) + test_tokens = [ + self._create_token_doc(1, "1111"), + self._create_token_doc(2, "2222"), + self._create_token_doc(3, "3333"), + ] + self.client[self.validator.db][self.validator.tokens_collection].insert_many(test_tokens)services/api_key.py (8)
3-3
: Remove unused import 'List' from 'typing'.The
List
import is not used anywhere in the code and can be safely removed to clean up the imports.Apply this diff to remove the unused import:
-from typing import List
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
3-3:
typing.List
imported but unusedRemove unused import:
typing.List
(F401)
53-53
: Simplify the return statement in thevalidate
method.You can simplify the return statement by directly returning the boolean evaluation of
document
using thebool()
function.Apply this diff to simplify the return statement:
- return True if document else False + return bool(document)🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
53-53: Use
bool(...)
instead ofTrue if ... else False
Replace with `bool(...)
(SIM210)
28-33
: Externalize database configuration parameters.The database name and collection (
"hivemind"
and"tokens"
) are hardcoded. Consider fetching these values from a configuration file or environment variables to enhance flexibility and maintainability.Apply this diff as an example of how to externalize configuration:
+import os class ValidateAPIKey: def __init__(self) -> None: self.client = MongoSingleton.get_instance().get_client() - self.db = "hivemind" - self.tokens_collection = "tokens" + self.db = os.getenv("MONGODB_DATABASE", "hivemind") + self.tokens_collection = os.getenv("TOKENS_COLLECTION", "tokens")
35-48
: Improve the docstring for clarity and consistency.The docstring in the
validate
method can be improved for better readability and to follow standard conventions.Here is a revised docstring:
def validate(self, api_key: str) -> bool: """ Check if the API key is available in MongoDB. Parameters ---------- api_key : str The provided API key to check in the database. Returns ------- bool True if the key is valid (exists in the collection), False otherwise. """
6-6
: Handle potential exceptions when connecting to MongoDB.When obtaining the MongoDB client, there may be connection errors that could cause unhandled exceptions. Consider adding error handling to manage potential connection issues gracefully.
Example modification:
from pymongo.errors import ConnectionFailure class ValidateAPIKey: def __init__(self) -> None: try: self.client = MongoSingleton.get_instance().get_client() except ConnectionFailure: raise HTTPException( status_code=HTTP_401_UNAUTHORIZED, detail="Database connection failed" ) self.db = os.getenv("MONGODB_DATABASE", "hivemind") self.tokens_collection = os.getenv("TOKENS_COLLECTION", "tokens")
18-20
: Consider generalizing error messages for unauthorized access.Providing specific details in authentication error messages can aid malicious users. It's a security best practice to use generic error messages for authentication failures.
Apply this diff to generalize the error message:
raise HTTPException( - status_code=HTTP_401_UNAUTHORIZED, detail="No API key provided" + status_code=HTTP_401_UNAUTHORIZED, detail="Unauthorized" )
23-23
: Consider generalizing error messages for invalid API keys.Similar to the previous point, it's advisable to avoid revealing whether an API key is invalid. Using a generic message can enhance security.
Apply this diff to generalize the error message:
raise HTTPException( - status_code=HTTP_401_UNAUTHORIZED, detail="Invalid API key" + status_code=HTTP_401_UNAUTHORIZED, detail="Unauthorized" )
14-25
: Optimize the instantiation ofValidateAPIKey
.Creating a new instance of
ValidateAPIKey
on every request may be inefficient. Consider instantiating it once at the module level or using dependency injection with FastAPI.Example modification:
Instantiate
validator
at the module level:validator = ValidateAPIKey() async def get_api_key(api_key_header: str = Security(api_key_header)): - validator = ValidateAPIKey()
Alternatively, use FastAPI's dependency injection:
from fastapi import Depends validator = ValidateAPIKey() async def get_api_key( api_key_header: str = Security(api_key_header), validator: ValidateAPIKey = Depends(ValidateAPIKey), ): # Rest of the code
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
routers/http.py
(3 hunks)services/api_key.py
(1 hunks)tests/integration/test_validate_token.py
(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
services/api_key.py
3-3: typing.List
imported but unused
Remove unused import: typing.List
(F401)
53-53: Use bool(...)
instead of True if ... else False
Replace with `bool(...)
(SIM210)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
routers/http.py (4)
4-4
: LGTM! Clean dependency management.
The new imports are well-organized and follow good separation of concerns by keeping API key validation logic in a separate service.
Also applies to: 9-9
20-20
: LGTM! Proper implementation of API key validation.
The API key validation is correctly implemented using FastAPI's dependency injection system.
40-40
: LGTM! Proper implementation of API key validation.
The API key validation is correctly implemented using FastAPI's dependency injection system.
20-20
: Verify API key protection coverage.
Let's ensure all endpoints that need protection have the API key validation dependency.
Also applies to: 40-40
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can generate the final response as we have clear evidence that all endpoints in the codebase (/ask
and /status
) are properly protected with the API key validation dependency.
API key protection is properly implemented across all endpoints ✅
Both existing endpoints have the required API key validation dependency:
/ask
(POST) is protected/status
(GET) is protected
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all router endpoints in the codebase and verify API key protection
# Search for all FastAPI router endpoints
echo "Searching for all FastAPI router endpoints..."
rg "@router\.(get|post|put|delete|patch)" -A 2
# Search for endpoints with API key validation
echo -e "\nSearching for endpoints with API key validation..."
rg "@router\.(get|post|put|delete|patch).*dependencies=\[Depends\(api_key_header\)\]"
Length of output: 874
tests/integration/test_validate_token.py (1)
1-75
: Verify test infrastructure and similar test cases
Since this is an integration test depending on MongoDB:
- Ensure CI/CD pipeline has MongoDB available
- Check for similar test cases to prevent duplication
✅ Verification successful
MongoDB integration is properly configured and test setup is appropriate
The verification shows that:
- MongoDB is properly configured in both development (
docker-compose.dev.yml
) and test (docker-compose.test.yml
) environments - The test uses a separate test database (
hivemind_test
) to avoid conflicts with production data - Other integration tests (
test_data_source_selector.py
,test_fetch_community_id.py
,test_persist_payload.py
) follow similar patterns for MongoDB testing - The test is not duplicated as it's the only test specifically for token validation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar test files and CI configuration
# Look for similar test files
echo "Searching for similar test files..."
fd -e py test_.*token test_.*api_key tests/
# Check for CI/CD MongoDB configuration
echo "Checking CI/CD configuration..."
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows | xargs rg -l mongodb
Length of output: 367
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check CI configuration and similar tests
# Check for any CI/CD configuration files
echo "=== CI/CD Configuration Files ==="
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/
# Look for MongoDB setup in any configuration
echo -e "\n=== MongoDB Configuration ==="
rg -i "mongo" -A 5 -B 5
# Search for similar test patterns
echo -e "\n=== Similar Test Patterns ==="
rg -l "ValidateAPIKey|MongoSingleton" tests/
rg "class Test.*Token" tests/
# Check the actual ValidateAPIKey implementation
echo -e "\n=== ValidateAPIKey Implementation ==="
rg -l "class ValidateAPIKey" .
Length of output: 25182
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
/ask
and/status
endpoints to enhance security.Bug Fixes
Tests