-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
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
fieldKeyParser: handle bad url-encoded prefix key #1267
Conversation
@@ -53,7 +57,7 @@ const fieldKeyParser = (request, response, next) => { | |||
request.originalUrl = `/v1/key/${token.replace(/\//g, '%2F')}${request.originalUrl.slice(3)}`; | |||
}); | |||
|
|||
request.fieldKey = Option.of(prefixKey.orElse(queryKey)); | |||
request.fieldKey = Option.of(Option.of(prefixKey).orElse(queryKey)); |
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.
@matthew-white is there a more idiomatic way to write this than nesting calls to Option.of()
?
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.
Right now, prefixKey
is either a non-empty Option
, or it's null
. What if you always made it an Option
(an Option.none()
instead of null
)?
if (match != null) {
prefixKey = urlDecode(match[1]);
// ...
} else {
prefixKey = Option.none();
}
If you did that, then you could set request.fieldKey
in the same way as before:
request.fieldKey = Option.of(prefixKey.orElse(queryKey));
Though honestly, the way it was before doesn't feel especially clear to me. There, if prefixKey
is not empty, .orElse()
will unwrap it, requiring us to rewrap it with Option.of()
.
Maybe a ternary would be clearer?
request.fieldKey = prefixKey.isDefined() ? prefixKey : queryKey;
I'm not sure that that's necessarily more idiomatic though.
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.
Here's another thought. If match != null
, why don't we set request.fieldKey
immediately and return? Why do we even go on to handle queryKey
? I feel like right now, there's technically the possibility that someone could specify both: /v1/key/[some app user token]/projects/1/forms?st=[some public link token]. In that case, request.fieldKey
would hold the app user token, while request.originalUrl
would be rewritten with the public link token.
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.
Is this line important when there is a query key:
delete request.query.st;
?
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.
There's currently some weird manipulation of originalUrl
available when both the query key and the prefix key are provided.
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.
There's currently some weird manipulation of
originalUrl
available when both the query key and the prefix key are provided.
It looks that way to me too. I'd be very happy if we shut that path down. We don't expect a user to specify both.
Also
originalUrl
seems to inconsistently include/v1
, depending on whether a query key or prefix key is used...
I think that's probably just due to how the tests are written. Some tests include /v1 in the url
passed to createRequest()
, while others don't. I'm pretty sure that versionParser()
runs before fieldKeyParser()
and will strip off /v1, so fieldKeyParser()
shouldn't ever see /v1 in request.url
. fieldKeyParser()
will still see /v1 in request.originalUrl
though, as versionParser()
doesn't change that.
Is this line important when there is a query key:
delete request.query.st;?
If we removed that line, I'm not sure that anything would break. My guess is that the idea was, we've done everything we need to with this query parameter, so nothing downstream ever needs to think about it.
That said, it looks like we retain the st
query parameter in request.originalUrl
, so maybe there's a little inconsistency in that approach: we don't remove st
from everything we could. That might have been a practical decision: it's easy to remove st
from request.query
, but maybe not as easy to remove it from request.originalUrl
.
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.
Rewriting originalUrl
at all seems questionable:
This property is much like
req.url
; however, it retains the original request URL, allowing you to rewritereq.url
freely for internal routing purposes.
-https://expressjs.com/en/api.html#req.originalUrl
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.
@matthew-white assertions for st
behaviour added at #1295
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.
I think that's probably just due to how the tests are written. Some tests include /v1 in the
url
passed tocreateRequest()
, while others don't. I'm pretty sure thatversionParser()
runs beforefieldKeyParser()
and will strip off /v1, sofieldKeyParser()
shouldn't ever see /v1 inrequest.url
.
@matthew-white I've updated #1291 to address this.
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.
Rewriting
originalUrl
at all seems questionable
I also feel a little unsure about rewriting it. It says "original" after all. 😅 Then again, it seems to be working fine as-is.
Looking at the codebase, it looks like we use originalUrl
in a number of places. However, my guess is that the only place where we rely on the rewritten originalUrl
is lib/resources/forms.js, since that's where the OpenRosa form list and manifest are served. A bunch of OData functionality references originalUrl
, but public links that use ?st
can't access OData, so I doubt it matters there. It also looks like ?st
is explicitly restricted to certain types of actors: authHandler()
will return a 403 if a web user tries to use ?st
with a session token associated with their account.
If we wanted to do something other than rewriting originalUrl
, one option is that we could add a new property (openRosaUrl
? urlWithoutSt
?). But again, it does seem to be working as-is. It could be that Express provides originalUrl
for convenience, so that it can be accessed after url
is rewritten, yet also doesn't mind if you rewrite originalUrl
.
I've marked the PR as a draft again even though it's approved, since we've started discussing some interesting related topics in the comments above. |
Closing due to lack of progress. |
Related:
Closes #1266