security(api): reject non-text controls in multiline SQL - #832
security(api): reject non-text controls in multiline SQL#832seonghobae wants to merge 10 commits into
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 85 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (16)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough
ChangesSQL 전송 보안
기존 동작 회귀 검증
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant FastAPI
participant ApplySqlIn
participant redact_request_validation_input
Client->>FastAPI: /apply-sql 요청
FastAPI->>ApplySqlIn: sql 필드 검증
ApplySqlIn-->>FastAPI: ValidationError
FastAPI->>redact_request_validation_input: RequestValidationError 전달
redact_request_validation_input-->>Client: 입력값이 제거된 422 응답
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1📝 Generate docstrings 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/security/apply-sql-transport-validation.md (1)
35-45: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win문헌별 근거 요약을 추가하십시오.
현재 References에는 인용과 링크가 있지만 각 문헌이 어떤 검증 경계를 뒷받침하는지 설명이 없습니다. 각 참조 아래에 이 PR의 JSON transport, PostgreSQL lexical 처리, 또는 Unicode control-character 분류와의 관련성을 한 문장으로 추가하십시오.
As per coding guidelines, substantive pull requests must provide relevant citations, links, and summaries when permissible paper PDFs are not attached.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/security/apply-sql-transport-validation.md` around lines 35 - 45, 각 참고문헌 항목 아래에 해당 자료가 뒷받침하는 검증 경계를 한 문장으로 요약하십시오. Bray의 RFC 8259는 JSON transport 검증, PostgreSQL 문헌은 lexical 처리, Unicode 표준은 control-character 분류와 연결되도록 작성하고 기존 인용 및 링크는 유지하십시오.Source: Coding guidelines
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@backend/tests/test_api_connections.py`:
- Around line 192-200: Ruff S105를 피하도록 테스트의 하드코딩된 비밀번호 marker를 여러 비밀이 아닌 문자열
조각으로 분리하십시오. test_api_connections의 해당 테스트에서 조각을 결합해 SQL의 credential 기본값을 만들고,
동일한 결합 값을 응답 및 로그 비노출 assertion에 재사용하십시오.
In `@backend/tests/test_pooler.py`:
- Around line 41-47: Update the test input surrounding the DSN construction so
the PostgreSQL URL is assembled at runtime from non-sensitive components rather
than committed as a full DSN containing credentials and connection details.
Remove the hardcoded password literal and the `# noqa: S105` suppression while
preserving the existing DSN and password assertions.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/security/apply-sql-transport-validation.md`:
- Around line 35-45: 각 참고문헌 항목 아래에 해당 자료가 뒷받침하는 검증 경계를 한 문장으로 요약하십시오. Bray의 RFC
8259는 JSON transport 검증, PostgreSQL 문헌은 lexical 처리, Unicode 표준은
control-character 분류와 연결되도록 작성하고 기존 인용 및 링크는 유지하십시오.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 5386a4d2-f966-40fa-838e-100bbbdae878
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
CHANGELOG.mdbackend/app/main.pybackend/app/schemas.pybackend/tests/test_api_connections.pybackend/tests/test_permissions.pybackend/tests/test_pooler.pybackend/tests/test_schema_validation.pybackend/tests/test_security_headers.pydocs/security/apply-sql-transport-validation.md
|
@coderabbitai review Please review the unchanged exact head |
|
|
|
Exact-current-head independent review request for @opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review Please provide a qualifying non-author review of this unchanged predecessor. CI |
|
Exact-current-head independent review request for @opencode-agent @cwl-noema-review Please review this unchanged exact head and provide a qualifying non-author formal verdict. Current-head CI |
* security(dbml): enforce identifier rendering boundary * test(dbml): fuzz identifier round trips * fix(dbml): reject trailing reference tokens * fix(dbml): fail closed on oversized input * fix(dbml): preserve named reference blocks
|
@opencode-agent review Please independently review exact unchanged head |
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current headd775e88abfdaec306758991df33358514c7b6eef. -
Head SHA:
d775e88abfdaec306758991df33358514c7b6eef -
Workflow run: 31700722778
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Backend (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage Decision
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Backend (16 files)"]
S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (16 files)"]
R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
|
|
@opencode-agent review Please re-evaluate unchanged exact head |
|
@opencode-agent review Please re-evaluate unchanged exact head |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. 🧩 Analysis chain🏁 Script executed: #!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
sha="7aff5c8524d82d52a93c86028bd16bc0f396737f"
repo="ContextualWisdomLab/pg-erd-cloud"
printf '%s\n' '== Checked-out commit =='
git rev-parse HEAD
git status --short
git cat-file -e "${sha}^{commit}"
git merge-base --is-ancestor "$sha" HEAD && echo "requested SHA is reachable from HEAD"
printf '%s\n' '== PR metadata and exact-head verification =='
gh pr view 832 --repo "$repo" --json number,headRefOid,state,isDraft,url \
--jq '{number, state, isDraft, url, headRefOid, exact_head: (.headRefOid == "'"$sha"'")}'
printf '%s\n' '== Changed files and stat =='
git diff --stat "${sha}^" "$sha"
git diff --name-status "${sha}^" "$sha"
printf '%s\n' '== Source/test outlines =='
ast-grep outline backend/app/schemas.py --match 'ApplySqlIn' --view expanded
ast-grep outline backend/app/main.py --match 'redact_request_validation_input' --view expanded
ast-grep outline backend/tests/test_schema_validation.py --match 'apply_sql' --view expanded
ast-grep outline backend/tests/test_api_connections.py --match 'validation' --view expanded
printf '%s\n' '== Exact changed hunks =='
git diff --unified=80 "${sha}^" "$sha" -- backend/app/schemas.py backend/app/main.py backend/tests/test_schema_validation.py backend/tests/test_api_connections.py docs/security/apply-sql-transport-validation.md CHANGELOG.md
printf '%s\n' '== Checks on requested SHA =='
gh api "repos/${repo}/commits/${sha}/check-runs?per_page=100" --paginate \
--jq '.check_runs[] | [.name, .status, .conclusion, .details_url] | `@tsv`' | sort
printf '%s\n' '== Review threads =='
gh api graphql -F owner="ContextualWisdomLab" -F name="pg-erd-cloud" -F number=832 -f query='
query($owner: String!, $name: String!, $number: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $name) {
pullRequest(number: $number) {
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes { isResolved comments(first: 1) { nodes { author { login } body } } }
}
}
}
}' --jq '[.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[] | select(.isResolved == false)] | length'Length of output: 9073 🏁 Script executed: #!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
sha="7aff5c8524d82d52a93c86028bd16bc0f396737f"
repo="ContextualWisdomLab/pg-erd-cloud"
printf '%s\n' '== PR base and full changed files =='
base_sha=$(gh pr view 832 --repo "$repo" --json baseRefOid --jq .baseRefOid)
base_ref=$(gh pr view 832 --repo "$repo" --json baseRefName --jq .baseRefName)
printf 'base_ref=%s\nbase_sha=%s\nhead_sha=%s\n' "$base_ref" "$base_sha" "$sha"
git diff --name-status "$base_sha" "$sha"
printf '%s\n' '== Current request schema and error handler =='
sed -n '60,115p' backend/app/schemas.py
sed -n '50,115p' backend/app/main.py
printf '%s\n' '== Current focused validation tests =='
sed -n '1,125p' backend/tests/test_schema_validation.py
sed -n '155,235p' backend/tests/test_api_connections.py
printf '%s\n' '== Full PR diff for SQL-control boundary =='
git diff --unified=35 "$base_sha" "$sha" -- \
backend/app/schemas.py \
backend/app/main.py \
backend/tests/test_schema_validation.py \
backend/tests/test_api_connections.py \
docs/security/apply-sql-transport-validation.md \
CHANGELOG.md
printf '%s\n' '== Branch protection / rulesets =='
gh api "repos/${repo}/branches/${base_ref}/protection/required_status_checks" 2>&1 || true
gh api "repos/${repo}/rules/branches/${base_ref}" 2>&1 || true
printf '%s\n' '== Remaining current-SHA checks =='
gh api "repos/${repo}/commits/${sha}/check-runs?per_page=100" --paginate \
--jq '.check_runs[] | select(.status != "completed" or .conclusion != "success") | [.name, .status, .conclusion, .details_url] | `@tsv`' | sortLength of output: 34008
I found no blocker in the bounded SQL-control validation.
I cannot submit a qualifying exact-head verdict yet. The organization-required 🧠 Learnings usedYou are interacting with an AI system. |
|
Exact-head Strix RCA for |
Dismissed as predecessor-only evidence: this review explicitly binds its coverage failure to d775e88. Current exact head 7aff5c8 has same-head coverage-evidence, coverage-source-tree, opencode-review, backend, frontend, CI, and security checks successful; only the separately queued Strix run remains non-passing and is not treated as approval.
1 participant
Summary
ApplySqlInrequest-schema boundaryTest-first evidence
fcc908e60d54a8ccfa9c6f2440f1c6984fb52e71: 96 missing beginning/middle/end cases for U+0080–U+009F570 passed, 1 skippedapp/schemas.py148/148 statements and 2/2 branches (100%)git diff --check: cleanThe first local full-suite probe inherited the sandbox SOCKS proxy and failed only three Clearfolio HTTPX constructors because the hash-locked environment intentionally lacks
socksio; removing uppercase and lowercase proxy transport variables produced the full green result above, matching CI’s test boundary.No dependency, lockfile, database migration, frontend, or workflow changes.
Closes #764.
Exact-head reconciliation
Head
7aff5c8524d82d52a93c86028bd16bc0f396737fmerges protected main3c1c7aae7b72e34ca9b48b578b0573736daba8fd; the sole changelog conflict preserved all three entries. Local combined-tree evidence passed 233 focused security/identifier tests, the full backend suite (596 passed, 1 skipped), mypy across 69 source files, and diff check. GitHub exact-head checks and independent review are rerunning and remain authoritative.