-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
Review of PR #356 #439
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Review of PR #356 #439
Conversation
The changes correctly enable PKCE by default and safeguard against overwriting existing code verifiers. Tests are updated and verified locally. Co-authored-by: chalmerlowe <7291104+chalmerlowe@users.noreply.github.com>
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
Summary of ChangesHello @chalmerlowe, 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 significantly enhances the security posture of the Highlights
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
|
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.
Code Review
This pull request correctly enables PKCE by default, which is a significant security improvement. The change is implemented by updating the default value for autogenerate_code_verifier in from_client_config and ensuring that a manually provided code_verifier is not overwritten. The tests have been updated thoroughly to cover the new default behavior and have been made more robust by using stricter regex matching. I've found one minor opportunity for improvement in the tests to reduce code duplication, which I've commented on. Overall, this is a solid and well-executed change.
| valid_verifier = r"^[A-Za-z0-9-._~]{128}$" | ||
| assert re.fullmatch(valid_verifier, instance.code_verifier) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This regex for validating the code verifier is also used in test_authorization_url_generated_verifier. To improve maintainability and avoid duplication, consider extracting it into a module-level or class-level constant.
For example:
VALID_PKCE_VERIFIER_REGEX = r"^[A-Za-z0-9-._~]{128}$"Then you could use this constant in both test methods.
Review Criteria & Output Format:
autogenerate_code_verifiernow defaults toTrue.if self.code_verifier is None and self.autogenerate_code_verifier:inauthorization_urlis a crucial and correct addition. It ensures that if a user manually supplies acode_verifier(whileautogeneratedefaults to True), their manual value is respected and not overwritten. This handles the edge case of mixed configuration correctly.from_client_config, which also coversfrom_client_secrets_file.__init__already had the correct default.InstalledAppFlow.from_client_configimplieskwargsare passed toOAuth2Session, butautogenerate_code_verifieris consumed. This is a pre-existing pattern forcode_verifieras well, so it's acceptable, though a clarification in the docstring would be a "nit".autogenerate_code_verifier=False) or manual override (passingcode_verifier).tests/unit/test_flow.pyare well-updated.assert "code_challenge=" in urlensures the feature is active.re.fullmatchand stricter patterns for the verifier and challenge improves test rigor.Verdict: LGTM
PR created automatically by Jules for task 8547016886391414059 started by @chalmerlowe