Skip to content

soo#21

Closed
gdauber1 wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
sso_with_user_id
Closed

soo#21
gdauber1 wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
sso_with_user_id

Conversation

@gdauber1
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@claude
Copy link

claude bot commented Aug 16, 2025

Claude finished @gdauber1's task —— View job


PR Review: Add optional userid parameter to getSsoAccessToken

I've reviewed the changes to src/modules/auth.ts and here's my comprehensive feedback:

Summary

The PR adds an optional userid parameter to the getSsoAccessToken method, allowing it to be passed as a URL query parameter. The implementation is clean and follows good practices.

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

  • Good parameter handling: The implementation correctly uses optional parameters with TypeScript (userid?: string)
  • Clean URL construction: Separates URL path from query parameters properly
  • Consistent with module patterns: Follows the same patterns used by other methods in the auth module
  • Proper JSDoc documentation: Added parameter documentation with correct syntax

✅ No Major Bugs Identified

  • The conditional logic userid ? { userid } : {} correctly handles the optional parameter
  • Empty object {} for params when userid is not provided is the correct approach
  • Axios will properly handle the params object and construct the query string

✅ Performance Considerations

  • No performance concerns - the change is minimal and doesn't introduce any computational overhead
  • The conditional object creation is negligible in terms of performance impact

⚠️ Security Considerations

  • User ID exposure: The userid is passed as a URL query parameter, which means it will be:

    • Visible in server logs
    • Potentially cached by proxies/CDNs
    • Visible in browser history

    Consider if this is sensitive information that should be passed in request headers or body instead.

⚠️ Test Coverage

  • Missing tests: The existing test file (tests/unit/auth.test.js) doesn't include any tests for getSsoAccessToken
  • Recommend adding test cases for:
    • Calling without userid parameter
    • Calling with userid parameter
    • Verifying the correct URL construction with query parameters

📝 Additional Suggestions

  1. PR Title: The current title "soo" appears to be a typo. Consider updating it to something more descriptive like "Add optional userid parameter to getSsoAccessToken"

  2. PR Description: No description was provided. Adding a brief explanation of why this change is needed would help reviewers understand the context.

  3. Consider adding example usage in JSDoc:

    /**
     * Get current user sso access token
     * @param {string} [userid] - Optional user ID to include as URL parameter
     * @returns {Promise<Object>} Current user sso access_token
     * @example
     * // Without userid
     * await auth.getSsoAccessToken()
     * 
     * // With userid
     * await auth.getSsoAccessToken('user-123')
     */

Recommended Tests to Add

describe('getSsoAccessToken()', () => {
  test('should fetch SSO access token without userid', async () => {
    const mockToken = { access_token: 'sso-token-123' };
    
    scope.get(`/api/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken`)
      .reply(200, mockToken);
      
    const result = await base44.auth.getSsoAccessToken();
    expect(result).toEqual(mockToken);
    expect(scope.isDone()).toBe(true);
  });
  
  test('should fetch SSO access token with userid parameter', async () => {
    const mockToken = { access_token: 'sso-token-456' };
    const userid = 'user-123';
    
    scope.get(`/api/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken`)
      .query({ userid })
      .reply(200, mockToken);
      
    const result = await base44.auth.getSsoAccessToken(userid);
    expect(result).toEqual(mockToken);
    expect(scope.isDone()).toBe(true);
  });
});

Overall, the implementation is solid but would benefit from test coverage and clarification on the security implications of passing user IDs in query parameters.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 16, 2025

🚀 Package Preview Available!


Install this PR's preview build with npm:

npm i @base44-preview/sdk@0.5.0-pr.21.09093c1

Prefer not to change any import paths? Install using npm alias so your code still imports @base44/sdk:

npm i "@base44/sdk@npm:@base44-preview/sdk@0.5.0-pr.21.09093c1"

Or add it to your package.json dependencies:

{
  "dependencies": {
    "@base44/sdk": "npm:@base44-preview/sdk@0.5.0-pr.21.09093c1"
  }
}

Preview published to npm registry — try new features instantly!

@claude
Copy link

claude bot commented Aug 16, 2025

Claude finished @gdauber1's task —— View job


PR Review: Add userid parameter to getSsoAccessToken

I've reviewed the changes to src/modules/auth.ts and here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List

  • Read src/modules/auth.ts to understand the changes
  • Analyze code quality and best practices
  • Check for potential bugs or issues
  • Evaluate performance considerations
  • Assess security concerns
  • Review test coverage
  • Provide constructive feedback

Summary

The PR modifies the getSsoAccessToken method to require a userid parameter that's included in the URL path. This is a breaking change that changes the method signature from getSsoAccessToken() to getSsoAccessToken(userid: string).

❌ Breaking Change Concerns

  • Major Issue: This change makes userid a required parameter, which will break all existing code that calls getSsoAccessToken() without arguments
  • Consider making the parameter optional to maintain backward compatibility:
    async getSsoAccessToken(userid?: string) {
      const url = userid 
        ? `/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken/${userid}`
        : `/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken`;
      return axios.get(url);
    }

✅ Code Quality & Best Practices

  • Good documentation: Added JSDoc parameter documentation
  • Clean implementation: Simple and straightforward code change
  • Consistent patterns: Follows the module's existing patterns

⚠️ Potential Bugs

  • Type safety: The parameter is typed as string but there's no validation. Consider if empty strings or special characters need handling
  • Error handling: No specific error handling for invalid user IDs

✅ Performance Considerations

  • No performance concerns - the change is minimal

⚠️ Security Considerations

  • User ID in URL path: Including user IDs in URL paths means they will be:
    • Visible in server access logs
    • Potentially cached by proxies/CDNs
    • Visible in browser developer tools
  • Consider if this aligns with your security requirements

❌ Test Coverage

  • No tests found: The test file tests/unit/auth.test.js doesn't include any tests for getSsoAccessToken
  • Breaking change needs tests: Since this is a breaking change, comprehensive tests are crucial

📝 Recommendations

  1. Make the parameter optional to avoid breaking existing code:

    async getSsoAccessToken(userid?: string) {
      const url = userid 
        ? `/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken/${userid}`
        : `/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken`;
      return axios.get(url);
    }
  2. Update PR title and description:

    • Current title "soo" appears to be incomplete
    • Add a description explaining why this change is needed and that it's a breaking change
  3. Add tests before merging:

    describe('getSsoAccessToken()', () => {
      test('should fetch SSO access token for specific user', async () => {
        const mockToken = { access_token: 'sso-token-123' };
        const userid = 'user-123';
        
        scope.get(`/api/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken/${userid}`)
          .reply(200, mockToken);
          
        const result = await base44.auth.getSsoAccessToken(userid);
        expect(result).toEqual(mockToken);
      });
      
      // If made optional:
      test('should fetch SSO access token for current user', async () => {
        const mockToken = { access_token: 'sso-token-456' };
        
        scope.get(`/api/apps/${appId}/auth/sso/accesstoken`)
          .reply(200, mockToken);
          
        const result = await base44.auth.getSsoAccessToken();
        expect(result).toEqual(mockToken);
      });
    });
  4. Version bump: Since this is a breaking change (if kept as required parameter), it should trigger a major version bump according to semver

⚠️ Critical Decision Required

Before merging, please clarify:

  1. Is this intended to be a breaking change?
  2. Should the method support both use cases (with and without userid)?
  3. What's the migration path for existing users of this SDK?

@gdauber1 gdauber1 closed this Aug 16, 2025
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.

1 participant