Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @TarasKovalenko, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request delivers a comprehensive redesign of the application's user interface and experience. It refactors core layout components, introduces dedicated and feature-rich detail views for various item types, and integrates a global command palette for streamlined interaction. The authentication flow has been made more robust, and all application settings are now centralized in a new dialog. These changes aim to provide users with a more intuitive, efficient, and powerful tool for managing Azure Key Vault resources. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Activity
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This is a massive and impressive redesign of the application. The new UI is much more modern and user-friendly, with excellent additions like the command palette, split-pane detail views, and much-improved loading/error/empty states. The architecture is also significantly improved with better component encapsulation, centralized state management, and a strong focus on security best practices for handling sensitive data. I've left a few comments on potential improvements, including a suggestion for more robust error handling in the bulk delete feature and some notes on code cleanup. Overall, this is a fantastic update.
…or improved styling and structure - Updated SecretsList component to utilize makeStyles for consistent styling and improved readability. - Refactored toolbar and table layout in SecretsList for better alignment and spacing. - Enhanced SettingsDialog with makeStyles for better styling management and layout consistency. - Improved VaultDashboard layout using makeStyles, including grid layouts for better responsiveness. - Added new CSS classes for inline cell helpers in dev-ui.css to streamline component styling.
|
/gemini review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request represents an impressive and comprehensive redesign of the application's UI and architecture, introducing significant improvements such as better componentization, a structured styling approach with makeStyles, and a major UX overhaul including a command palette, dashboard, and cleaner layout. The move to specific components like SecretDetails and reusable common components like SplitPane, EmptyState, and DangerConfirmDialog enhances maintainability and code quality. However, the redesign also introduces significant discrepancies between advertised security guarantees and their actual implementation, particularly regarding secret handling in memory and the re-authentication mechanism, which need to be addressed to prevent misleading users about the application's security posture. My review also includes a couple of suggestions for ensuring consistency across the newly introduced patterns.
| const { isRevealed, secondsLeft, reveal, hide } = useAutoHide({ | ||
| timeoutSeconds: autoHideSeconds, | ||
| onHide: () => {}, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The component claims in the fetch confirmation dialog (lines 271-275) that the secret value will be cleared from memory after the auto-hide timeout. However, the onHide callback passed to useAutoHide is currently empty, meaning the secretValue state is retained in memory and only masked in the UI. This contradicts the security guarantee provided to the user. Implement the onHide callback to clear the secretValue state when the timeout expires.
| const { isRevealed, secondsLeft, reveal, hide } = useAutoHide({ | |
| timeoutSeconds: autoHideSeconds, | |
| onHide: () => {}, | |
| }); | |
| const { isRevealed, secondsLeft, reveal, hide } = useAutoHide({ | |
| timeoutSeconds: autoHideSeconds, | |
| onHide: () => setSecretValue(null), | |
| }); |
| if (requireReauthForReveal && !reauthConfirmed) { | ||
| setFetchError('Re-authentication confirmation required.'); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| setShowFetchConfirm(false); | ||
| await handleFetchValue(); | ||
| }, [handleFetchValue, requireReauthForReveal, reauthConfirmed]); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The 'Require re-auth before fetching values' feature is implemented as a simple UI confirmation button rather than an actual authentication check. The description in the settings (src/components/settings/SettingsDialog.tsx:190) misleadingly suggests that it 'Re-verifies your Azure CLI session'. An attacker with access to the unlocked application can easily bypass this by clicking the confirmation button. Consider implementing a true re-authentication flow or updating the UI text to clarify that this is a confirmation prompt.
| <Text size={100} className={classes.descriptionText}> | ||
| Re-verify your Azure CLI session before any secret value is retrieved. | ||
| </Text> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The description 'Re-verify your Azure CLI session before any secret value is retrieved' is misleading because the current implementation in RevealSecretValue.tsx only requires a button click in the UI and does not perform any actual session verification. Update the text to accurately describe the behavior (e.g., 'Require confirmation before fetching values') or implement actual session verification.
| <Text size={100} className={classes.descriptionText}> | |
| Re-verify your Azure CLI session before any secret value is retrieved. | |
| </Text> | |
| <Text size={100} className={classes.descriptionText}> | |
| Require a confirmation prompt before any secret value is retrieved. | |
| </Text> |
| <Dialog open={showDeleteDialog} onOpenChange={(_, d) => setShowDeleteDialog(d.open)}> | ||
| <DialogSurface> | ||
| <DialogBody> | ||
| <DialogTitle>Delete Secret</DialogTitle> | ||
| <DialogContent> | ||
| <Text size={200} className={classes.dialogContent}> | ||
| Delete <strong className="azv-mono">{item.name}</strong>? If soft-delete is enabled | ||
| on this vault, you can recover it within the retention period. Otherwise, this | ||
| action is permanent. | ||
| </Text> | ||
| </DialogContent> | ||
| <DialogActions> | ||
| <Button appearance="secondary" onClick={() => setShowDeleteDialog(false)}> | ||
| Cancel | ||
| </Button> | ||
| <Button | ||
| appearance="primary" | ||
| onClick={handleDelete} | ||
| disabled={actionLoading} | ||
| className={classes.deleteConfirmButton} | ||
| > | ||
| {actionLoading ? <Spinner size="tiny" /> : 'Delete'} | ||
| </Button> | ||
| </DialogActions> | ||
| </DialogBody> | ||
| </DialogSurface> | ||
| </Dialog> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The confirmation dialog for deleting a secret uses a standard Dialog. This pull request introduces a new DangerConfirmDialog component, which is already used for the "Purge" action. For better consistency and an improved user experience (requiring the user to type to confirm), I suggest replacing this Dialog with the DangerConfirmDialog as well.
<DangerConfirmDialog
open={showDeleteDialog}
title="Delete Secret"
description={
<>
Delete <strong className="azv-mono">{item.name}</strong>? If soft-delete is enabled
on this vault, you can recover it within the retention period. Otherwise, this
action is permanent.
</>
}
confirmText="delete"
confirmLabel="Delete"
dangerLevel="warning"
loading={actionLoading}
onConfirm={handleDelete}
onCancel={() => setShowDeleteDialog(false)}
/>
1 participant
No description provided.