chore(http): updated labels and notes for few fields #1855
Conversation
sandeepdsvs
requested review from
lvrach,
cisse21,
debanjan97,
am6010,
ssbeefeater,
ruchiramoitra,
ItsSudip,
shrouti1507,
krishna2020 and
1abhishekpandey
as code owners
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to JSON configuration files related to HTTP destinations. Changes include updates to user interface configurations, validation patterns in the schema, and enhancements to error messaging in test cases. The user interface notes were clarified, regex patterns were simplified for various fields, and stricter validation rules were enforced for properties such as Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1855 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 53 53
Branches 7 7
=========================================
Hits 53 53 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
test/data/validation/destinations/http.json (1)
Line range hint
1-1068: Add test cases for new validation scenarios.Consider adding test cases for:
- Empty password validation
- API key name with whitespace (should fail)
- API key value length limits
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json(8 hunks)src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json(11 hunks)test/data/validation/destinations/http.json(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/configurations/destinations/http/ui-config.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (java-kotlin)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/configurations/destinations/http/schema.json (6)
65-65: LGTM: Query parameter pattern update allows spaces.The pattern now allows spaces in query parameter names, which will be automatically URL-encoded. This provides more flexibility while maintaining security.
85-85: LGTM: Header pattern update allows additional characters.The pattern now allows spaces, forward slashes, and backslashes in header values, which are common in HTTP headers.
1006-1006: LGTM: Increased bearer token length limit.The pattern now allows longer bearer tokens (up to 255 characters), which is beneficial for supporting various token formats.
Line range hint
1023-1044: LGTM: Improved API key authentication structure.Good separation of concerns:
apiKeyName: Restricted to non-whitespace charactersapiKeyValue: Flexible pattern allowing various formats
1063-1063: LGTM: Stricter validation for batch size.The pattern now correctly enforces integer values between 1 and 100, preventing invalid batch sizes.
Line range hint
968-987: Verify security implications of allowing empty passwords.While the pattern change allows empty passwords, this might pose security risks. Please confirm if this aligns with security requirements.
✅ Verification successful
Empty password validation pattern aligns with existing implementation
The pattern change allowing empty passwords is consistent with:
- Existing test cases across multiple destination types (http, redis, sftp, etc.)
- No contradicting security guidelines in the documentation
- Flexible authentication requirements for different integration scenarios
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if empty passwords are used in existing configurations # and if there are any security guidelines about this. # Search for password field usage rg -l '"password":\s*""' --type json # Search for security guidelines about authentication fd -t f -e md -e txt . | xargs rg -l -i "password|authentication|security"Length of output: 359
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check documentation content for password/authentication guidelines rg -i -A 3 -B 3 "password|authentication|security" README.md CHANGELOG.md # Check schema documentation fd schema.json | xargs rg -A 3 -B 3 '"description".*password'Length of output: 3961
test/data/validation/destinations/http.json (1)
77-77: LGTM: Updated error message reflects new pattern.The error message correctly reflects the new validation pattern for maxBatchSize.
What are the changes introduced in this PR?
Updated labels and notes for few fields
Removed dynamic config support and updated some regex to allow white space
Schema check was missing for apiKeyName and apiKeyValue , so added that.
What is the related Linear task?
Resolves INT-3061, INT-3060, INT-3040, INT-3035, INT-2996, INT-3064, INT-3036
Please explain the objectives of your changes below
Put down any required details on the broader aspect of your changes. If there are any dependent changes, mandatorily mention them here
Any changes to existing capabilities/behaviour, mention the reason & what are the changes ?
N/A
Any new dependencies introduced with this change?
N/A
Any new checks got introduced or modified in test suites. Please explain the changes.
N/A
Developer checklist
My code follows the style guidelines of this project
No breaking changes are being introduced.
All related docs linked with the PR?
All changes manually tested?
Any documentation changes needed with this change?
I have executed schemaGenerator tests and updated schema if needed
Are sensitive fields marked as secret in definition config?
My test cases and placeholders use only masked/sample values for sensitive fields
Is the PR limited to 10 file changes & one task?
Reviewer checklist
Is the type of change in the PR title appropriate as per the changes?
Verified that there are no credentials or confidential data exposed with the changes.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
New Features
Bug Fixes