fix(j-s): Missing path for defender API #17566
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
apps/judicial-system/api/infra/judicial-system-api.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
apps/judicial-system/api/infra/judicial-system-api.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/judicial-system/api/infra/judicial-system-api.ts (1)
70-76: Documentation and tests need to be updated.As mentioned in the PR objectives, please ensure:
- Documentation is updated to reflect the new defender endpoint
- Tests are added to validate the endpoint functionality
Would you like me to help create:
- API documentation for the new endpoint?
- Test cases to validate the integration?
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #17566 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 35.57% 35.58%
=======================================
Files 7027 7027
Lines 150434 150421 -13
Branches 42943 42936 -7
=======================================
Hits 53522 53522
+ Misses 96912 96899 -13
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. see 7 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Datadog ReportAll test runs ✅ 10 Total Test Services: 0 Failed, 10 Passed Test ServicesThis report shows up to 10 services
🔻 Code Coverage Decreases vs Default Branch (2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
charts/judicial-system/values.dev.yaml (1)
74-74: LGTM! Consider adding API documentation.The endpoint is properly configured in the judicial system chart. Consider documenting the new endpoint's purpose and usage in the API documentation.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
charts/judicial-system/values.dev.yaml(1 hunks)charts/judicial-system/values.prod.yaml(1 hunks)charts/judicial-system/values.staging.yaml(1 hunks)charts/services/judicial-system-api/values.dev.yaml(1 hunks)charts/services/judicial-system-api/values.prod.yaml(1 hunks)charts/services/judicial-system-api/values.staging.yaml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
charts/services/judicial-system-api/values.dev.yaml (1)
74-74: LGTM! Endpoint addition is consistent with existing configuration.The new
/api/defenderpath follows the established API endpoint pattern and is properly configured with the necessary security settings.Verify that the endpoint is properly secured by checking for authentication middleware in the API implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Endpoint is properly secured with JWT authentication
The
/api/defenderendpoint is protected byJwtInjectBearerAuthGuardat the controller level, ensuring all routes require valid JWT authentication. The implementation follows secure coding practices with proper integration into the authentication system.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for authentication middleware usage rg -A 5 "'/api/defender'" apps/judicial-system/api/src/Length of output: 63
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for defender endpoint and router configurations rg -i "defender" apps/judicial-system/api/src/ rg -i "router.*defender|defender.*router" apps/judicial-system/api/src/ # Search for authentication middleware patterns ast-grep --pattern 'router.use($$$)' apps/judicial-system/api/src/Length of output: 14673
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for authentication guards and middleware ast-grep --pattern '@UseGuards($$$)' apps/judicial-system/api/src/app/modules/defender/ rg -A 5 "implements NestMiddleware" apps/judicial-system/api/src/app/modules/auth/ rg "bootstrap.*configure" apps/judicial-system/api/src/main.tsLength of output: 352
charts/services/judicial-system-api/values.prod.yaml (1)
74-74: LGTM! Production configuration maintains security standards.The endpoint addition is consistent with development environment and maintains production-grade security settings.
charts/services/judicial-system-api/values.staging.yaml (1)
74-74: LGTM! Staging configuration maintains environment parity.The endpoint configuration ensures a smooth deployment pipeline from development through staging to production.
charts/judicial-system/values.staging.yaml (1)
74-74: LGTM! Configuration is complete and consistent.The endpoint addition is properly implemented across all environments and chart configurations, successfully enabling the lawyer registry integration as intended.
charts/judicial-system/values.prod.yaml (2)
74-74: LGTM! The path addition looks correct.The new path
/api/defenderis properly added to the ingress configuration, which aligns with the PR objective of integrating with the lawyer registry. The change follows the existing pattern and is minimal.A few security considerations to note:
- The path is added to the external ALB ingress
- The service has access to
LAWYERS_ICELAND_API_KEY- Authentication is handled via the existing configuration (
AUTH_IDS_*settings)
Line range hint
1-6: Warning: This is an auto-generated file.The file header indicates that manual edits should not be made directly. Instead, use the
yarn chartscommand to regenerate the file.Run this script to check if the changes are consistent across all environments:
What
Added path for defender endpoints
Why
So we can use the lawyer registry from our API layer
Checklist:
Summary by CodeRabbit
/api/defenderendpoint to the Judicial System API