Implement a better API with tenancy-based configuration and storage #13
Conversation
Add Code Owners
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a comprehensive update to the application's infrastructure, focusing on database integration, API route management, and environment configuration. The changes include setting up a new MySQL database connection, creating API routes for tenants, devotions, and verse of the day (VOTD), implementing token verification, and updating the project's dependencies and configuration. The modifications enhance the application's modularity, security, and database interaction capabilities. Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant APIRoute
participant VerifyToken
participant Database
Client->>VerifyToken: Send request with API token
VerifyToken->>APIRoute: Validate token
alt Token Valid
APIRoute->>Database: Perform database operation
Database-->>APIRoute: Return result
APIRoute-->>Client: Send response
else Token Invalid
VerifyToken-->>Client: Send authentication error
end
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 (
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🧹 Nitpick comments (8)
api/routes/tenant.js (1)
142-148: Refactor to allow updating multiple fields simultaneouslyThe current implementation updates only one field (
votd_channelordevotion_channel) per request. Allowing multiple fields to be updated at once improves API usability.Consider this refactor:
-// Determine the field and value to update -let fieldToUpdate = ""; -let valueToUpdate = null; -if (votdChannel) { - fieldToUpdate = "votd_channel"; - valueToUpdate = votdChannel; -} else if (devotionChannel) { - fieldToUpdate = "devotion_channel"; - valueToUpdate = devotionChannel; -} -if (fieldToUpdate) { +// Build an object of fields to update +let fieldsToUpdate = {}; +if (votdChannel) { + fieldsToUpdate.votd_channel = votdChannel; +} +if (devotionChannel) { + fieldsToUpdate.devotion_channel = devotionChannel; +} +if (Object.keys(fieldsToUpdate).length > 0) { // Proceed with the updateThen construct the SQL query dynamically to update all provided fields.
api/routes/verifyToken.js (2)
3-3: Useconstinstead ofvarfor variable declarationUsing
constfor variables that are not reassigned enhances code clarity and prevents accidental reassignments.Apply this diff:
-var token = req.headers["x-access-token"]; +const token = req.headers["x-access-token"];
2-23: Consider implementing a scalable authentication mechanismUsing a static API key from the environment is suitable for simple cases but doesn't scale well for multiple users or enhanced security requirements.
Consider adopting a robust authentication solution like JWT, OAuth 2.0, or API keys associated with user accounts to improve security and scalability.
app.js (1)
28-33: Consider route order and error handling in API registrationThe API routes registration could be improved with better error handling and explicit route prefixing.
Consider this enhanced implementation:
await app.register(async (instance) => { instance.addHook("preValidation", verifyToken); instance.prefix('/api'); // Explicit API prefix return apiRoutes(instance, db); }, { prefix: '/api' }).catch(err => { app.log.error('Failed to register API routes:', err); process.exit(1); });api/common.js (1)
14-31: Add proper HTTP status codes to error responsesThe error responses should include appropriate HTTP status codes for better REST API compliance.
if (!body || !(field in body)) return res.send({ + status: 400, success: false, message: `Body requires field '${field}'`, }); if (body[field] === null) return res.send({ + status: 400, success: false, message: `Field ${field} cannot be null`, });package.json (1)
18-18: Use version range for Node engine requirementUsing an exact version is too restrictive and may cause unnecessary compatibility issues.
- "node": "20.0.0" + "node": ">=20.0.0"dbinit.sql (2)
4-8: Optimize tenant table schemaConsider the following improvements:
- Increase tenantId size for future scaling
- Add table and column comments
+-- Stores tenant information for multi-tenant system CREATE TABLE tenants ( - tenantId VARCHAR(20) PRIMARY KEY, - tenantName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, + tenantId VARCHAR(36) PRIMARY KEY COMMENT 'Unique identifier for tenant (UUID)', + tenantName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL COMMENT 'Display name of the tenant', createdAt TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP );
18-43: Consider normalizing similar tables and adding indexesThe prayers, devotions, and votd tables have identical structure. Consider:
- Creating a base table with common fields
- Adding indexes for frequently queried columns
- Adding table and column comments
Example normalized structure:
-- Base table for all message types CREATE TABLE messages ( messageId VARCHAR(255) PRIMARY KEY, tenantId VARCHAR(36) NOT NULL, userId VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL, messageType ENUM('prayer', 'devotion', 'votd') NOT NULL, createdAt TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, FOREIGN KEY (tenantId) REFERENCES tenants(tenantId) ON DELETE CASCADE, INDEX idx_tenant_type (tenantId, messageType), INDEX idx_user (userId) ) COMMENT 'Unified message storage for prayers, devotions, and verse of the day';
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
.env.example(1 hunks)CODEOWNERS(1 hunks)api/common.js(1 hunks)api/routes/devotion.js(1 hunks)api/routes/index.js(1 hunks)api/routes/tenant.js(1 hunks)api/routes/verifyToken.js(1 hunks)api/routes/votd.js(1 hunks)app.js(3 hunks)controllers/databaseController.js(1 hunks)dbinit.sql(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)routes/index.js(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- CODEOWNERS
- routes/index.js
🔇 Additional comments (2)
api/routes/tenant.js (1)
66-71: Ensure proper response when no results are foundAfter correcting the destructuring, the check
if (!results.length)will work as expected. Ensure that the response message accurately reflects the situation.api/routes/index.js (1)
1-9: Well-organized route initializationThe route handlers are properly imported and registered. The modular approach enhances maintainability.
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: false, | ||
| message: `${error}`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid exposing detailed error messages to clients
Returning raw error messages can reveal sensitive information. It's better to send a generic message to the client and log the detailed error on the server.
Apply this diff to modify the error responses:
- message: `${error}`,
+ message: 'An unexpected error occurred. Please try again later.',Repeat this change for all error handlers.
Also applies to: 80-80, 126-126, 193-193
| try { | ||
| // Get Tenant Configuration by specific ID | ||
| const dbQuery = `SELECT * FROM tenantConfiguration WHERE tenantId = ?`; | ||
| const results = await db.query(dbQuery, [tenantId]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Destructure query results to access data correctly
The db.query() method returns an array [results, fields]. Assigning it directly to results can lead to unexpected behavior when accessing results.length.
Apply this diff to destructure the returned array:
-const results = await db.query(dbQuery, [tenantId]);
+const [results, fields] = await db.query(dbQuery, [tenantId]);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const results = await db.query(dbQuery, [tenantId]); | |
| const [results, fields] = await db.query(dbQuery, [tenantId]); |
| `SELECT id FROM tenantConfiguration WHERE tenantId = ?`, | ||
| [tenantId] | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correctly handle existing configuration query results
Similar to earlier, destructure the result of db.query() to properly access existingConfig.
Apply this diff:
-const existingConfig = await db.query(
+const [existingConfig, fields] = await db.query(
`SELECT id FROM tenantConfiguration WHERE tenantId = ?`,
[tenantId]
);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| `SELECT id FROM tenantConfiguration WHERE tenantId = ?`, | |
| [tenantId] | |
| ); | |
| const [existingConfig, fields] = await db.query( | |
| `SELECT id FROM tenantConfiguration WHERE tenantId = ?`, | |
| [tenantId] | |
| ); |
| try { | ||
| // Get Tenant by specific ID | ||
| if (tenantId) { | ||
| let dbQuery = `SELECT * FROM tenants WHERE tenantId=${tenantId};`; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Prevent SQL Injection by using parameterized queries
The current query constructs the SQL statement by directly embedding tenantId, which can lead to SQL injection vulnerabilities if tenantId is not properly sanitized.
Apply this diff to use a parameterized query:
-let dbQuery = `SELECT * FROM tenants WHERE tenantId=${tenantId};`;
+let dbQuery = `SELECT * FROM tenants WHERE tenantId = ?;`;
+const results = await getTenants(dbQuery, [tenantId]);Update the getTenants function to accept parameters:
-async function getTenants(dbQuery) {
+async function getTenants(dbQuery, params = []) {
const [results, fields] = await db.query(dbQuery, params);
return results;
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| // Token not included | ||
| return res.send({ | ||
| success: false, | ||
| message: `lang.api.noToken`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replace placeholder messages with meaningful error responses
The messages lang.api.noToken and lang.api.invalidToken appear to be placeholders. Clients will receive these as-is, which might be confusing.
Update the messages to provide clear feedback:
- message: `lang.api.noToken`,
+ message: 'No access token provided.',- message: `lang.api.invalidToken`,
+ message: 'Invalid access token.',Also applies to: 20-20
| try { | ||
| // Perform a SELECT query to check if the record exists | ||
| const [rows] = await db.query( | ||
| `SELECT 1 FROM votd WHERE tenantId = ? AND messageId = ? AND userId = ? LIMIT 1`, | ||
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| // If any row is returned, that means the record exists | ||
| const exists = rows.length > 0; | ||
|
|
||
| // Return a boolean indicating if the record exists | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: true, | ||
| exists: exists, | ||
| }); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: false, | ||
| message: `Error checking VOTD entry: ${error}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance error handling and response structure
The error handling could be improved with:
- HTTP status codes
- Consistent error response structure
- SQL error sanitization
try {
const [rows] = await db.query(
`SELECT 1 FROM votd WHERE tenantId = ? AND messageId = ? AND userId = ? LIMIT 1`,
[tenantId, messageId, userId]
);
const exists = rows.length > 0;
- res.send({
+ res.status(200).send({
success: true,
exists: exists,
});
} catch (error) {
- res.send({
+ // Avoid exposing SQL errors to clients
+ const safeError = error.code === 'ER_DUP_ENTRY' ?
+ 'Record already exists' : 'Internal server error';
+ res.status(500).send({
success: false,
- message: `Error checking VOTD entry: ${error}`,
+ error: safeError,
});
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| try { | |
| // Perform a SELECT query to check if the record exists | |
| const [rows] = await db.query( | |
| `SELECT 1 FROM votd WHERE tenantId = ? AND messageId = ? AND userId = ? LIMIT 1`, | |
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | |
| ); | |
| // If any row is returned, that means the record exists | |
| const exists = rows.length > 0; | |
| // Return a boolean indicating if the record exists | |
| res.send({ | |
| success: true, | |
| exists: exists, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| res.send({ | |
| success: false, | |
| message: `Error checking VOTD entry: ${error}`, | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| // Perform a SELECT query to check if the record exists | |
| const [rows] = await db.query( | |
| `SELECT 1 FROM votd WHERE tenantId = ? AND messageId = ? AND userId = ? LIMIT 1`, | |
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | |
| ); | |
| // If any row is returned, that means the record exists | |
| const exists = rows.length > 0; | |
| // Return a boolean indicating if the record exists | |
| res.status(200).send({ | |
| success: true, | |
| exists: exists, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| // Avoid exposing SQL errors to clients | |
| const safeError = error.code === 'ER_DUP_ENTRY' ? | |
| 'Record already exists' : 'Internal server error'; | |
| res.status(500).send({ | |
| success: false, | |
| error: safeError, | |
| }); | |
| } |
| // Add votd endpoint | ||
| app.post(baseEndpoint + "/add", async function (req, res) { | ||
| const tenantId = required(req.body, "tenantId", res); | ||
| const messageId = required(req.body, "messageId", res); | ||
| const userId = required(req.body, "userId", res); | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| await db.query( | ||
| `INSERT INTO votd (tenantId, messageId, userId) VALUES (?, ?, ?)`, | ||
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: true, | ||
| content: `VOTD entry created for tenant ${tenantId} with message ID ${messageId}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: false, | ||
| message: `Error creating devotion entry: ${error}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add input validation and unique constraint handling
The POST endpoint needs additional validation and proper unique constraint handling.
app.post(baseEndpoint + "/add", async function (req, res) {
const tenantId = required(req.body, "tenantId", res);
const messageId = required(req.body, "messageId", res);
const userId = required(req.body, "userId", res);
+ // Validate input
+ if (!Number.isInteger(Number(tenantId)) || !Number.isInteger(Number(messageId))) {
+ return res.status(400).send({
+ success: false,
+ error: "Invalid tenantId or messageId format"
+ });
+ }
try {
await db.query(
`INSERT INTO votd (tenantId, messageId, userId) VALUES (?, ?, ?)`,
[tenantId, messageId, userId]
);
- res.send({
+ res.status(201).send({
success: true,
content: `VOTD entry created for tenant ${tenantId} with message ID ${messageId}`,
});
} catch (error) {
+ if (error.code === 'ER_DUP_ENTRY') {
+ return res.status(409).send({
+ success: false,
+ error: 'Record already exists'
+ });
+ }
- res.send({
+ res.status(500).send({
success: false,
- message: `Error creating devotion entry: ${error}`,
+ error: 'Internal server error'
});
}
});📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| // Add votd endpoint | |
| app.post(baseEndpoint + "/add", async function (req, res) { | |
| const tenantId = required(req.body, "tenantId", res); | |
| const messageId = required(req.body, "messageId", res); | |
| const userId = required(req.body, "userId", res); | |
| try { | |
| await db.query( | |
| `INSERT INTO votd (tenantId, messageId, userId) VALUES (?, ?, ?)`, | |
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | |
| ); | |
| res.send({ | |
| success: true, | |
| content: `VOTD entry created for tenant ${tenantId} with message ID ${messageId}`, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| res.send({ | |
| success: false, | |
| message: `Error creating devotion entry: ${error}`, | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| }); | |
| // Add votd endpoint | |
| app.post(baseEndpoint + "/add", async function (req, res) { | |
| const tenantId = required(req.body, "tenantId", res); | |
| const messageId = required(req.body, "messageId", res); | |
| const userId = required(req.body, "userId", res); | |
| // Validate input | |
| if (!Number.isInteger(Number(tenantId)) || !Number.isInteger(Number(messageId))) { | |
| return res.status(400).send({ | |
| success: false, | |
| error: "Invalid tenantId or messageId format" | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| await db.query( | |
| `INSERT INTO votd (tenantId, messageId, userId) VALUES (?, ?, ?)`, | |
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | |
| ); | |
| res.status(201).send({ | |
| success: true, | |
| content: `VOTD entry created for tenant ${tenantId} with message ID ${messageId}`, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| if (error.code === 'ER_DUP_ENTRY') { | |
| return res.status(409).send({ | |
| success: false, | |
| error: 'Record already exists' | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| res.status(500).send({ | |
| success: false, | |
| error: 'Internal server error' | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| }); |
| import { required, optional } from "../common.js"; | ||
|
|
||
| export default function devotionApiRoute(app, db) { | ||
| const baseEndpoint = "/api/devotion"; | ||
|
|
||
| app.get(baseEndpoint + "/check", async function (req, res) { | ||
| const tenantId = required(req.query, "tenantId", res); | ||
| const messageId = required(req.query, "messageId", res); | ||
| const userId = required(req.query, "userId", res); | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| // Perform a SELECT query to check if the record exists | ||
| const [rows] = await db.query( | ||
| `SELECT 1 FROM devotions WHERE tenantId = ? AND messageId = ? AND userId = ? LIMIT 1`, | ||
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| // If any row is returned, that means the record exists | ||
| const exists = rows.length > 0; | ||
|
|
||
| // Return a boolean indicating if the record exists | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: true, | ||
| exists: exists, | ||
| }); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: false, | ||
| message: `Error checking Devotion entry: ${error}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Create devotion endpoint | ||
| app.post(baseEndpoint + "/add", async function (req, res) { | ||
| const tenantId = required(req.body, "tenantId", res); | ||
| const messageId = required(req.body, "messageId", res); | ||
| const userId = required(req.body, "userId", res); | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| await db.query( | ||
| `INSERT INTO devotions (tenantId, messageId, userId) VALUES (?, ?, ?)`, | ||
| [tenantId, messageId, userId] | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: true, | ||
| content: `Devotion entry created for tenant ${tenantId} with message ID ${messageId}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.send({ | ||
| success: false, | ||
| message: `Error creating devotion entry: ${error}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Extract common API functionality to reduce duplication
The code is nearly identical to votd.js. Consider creating a reusable factory function for these endpoints.
Create a new file api/common/recordEndpoints.js:
export function createRecordEndpoints(options) {
const { app, db, tableName, baseEndpoint } = options;
const checkRecord = async (req, res) => {
const tenantId = required(req.query, "tenantId", res);
const messageId = required(req.query, "messageId", res);
const userId = required(req.query, "userId", res);
if (!Number.isInteger(Number(tenantId)) || !Number.isInteger(Number(messageId))) {
return res.status(400).send({
success: false,
error: "Invalid tenantId or messageId format"
});
}
try {
const [rows] = await db.query(
`SELECT 1 FROM ${tableName} WHERE tenantId = ? AND messageId = ? AND userId = ? LIMIT 1`,
[tenantId, messageId, userId]
);
res.status(200).send({
success: true,
exists: rows.length > 0,
});
} catch (error) {
res.status(500).send({
success: false,
error: 'Internal server error'
});
}
};
const addRecord = async (req, res) => {
// Similar implementation for POST
};
app.get(`${baseEndpoint}/check`, checkRecord);
app.post(`${baseEndpoint}/add`, addRecord);
}Then simplify both route files:
// devotion.js
import { createRecordEndpoints } from '../common/recordEndpoints.js';
export default function devotionApiRoute(app, db) {
createRecordEndpoints({
app,
db,
tableName: 'devotions',
baseEndpoint: '/api/devotion'
});
}| export async function postAPIRequest( | ||
| postURL, | ||
| apiPostBody, | ||
| failureRedirectURL, | ||
| res | ||
| ) { | ||
| const response = await fetch(postURL, { | ||
| method: "POST", | ||
| body: JSON.stringify(apiPostBody), | ||
| headers: { | ||
| "Content-Type": "application/json", | ||
| "x-access-token": process.env.APIKEY, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| const data = await response.json(); | ||
|
|
||
| console.log(data); | ||
|
|
||
| if (data.alertType) { | ||
| setBannerCookie(`${data.alertType}`, `${data.alertContent}`, res); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!data.success) { | ||
| return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return console.log(data); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix critical issues in postAPIRequest function
Several issues need to be addressed:
- Missing error handling for fetch failures
- Logging sensitive data to console
- Undefined setBannerCookie function
- Incorrect return value
export async function postAPIRequest(
postURL,
apiPostBody,
failureRedirectURL,
res
) {
- const response = await fetch(postURL, {
- method: "POST",
- body: JSON.stringify(apiPostBody),
- headers: {
- "Content-Type": "application/json",
- "x-access-token": process.env.APIKEY,
- },
- });
+ try {
+ const response = await fetch(postURL, {
+ method: "POST",
+ body: JSON.stringify(apiPostBody),
+ headers: {
+ "Content-Type": "application/json",
+ "x-access-token": process.env.APIKEY,
+ },
+ });
- const data = await response.json();
+ if (!response.ok) {
+ throw new Error(`HTTP error! status: ${response.status}`);
+ }
- console.log(data);
+ const data = await response.json();
- if (data.alertType) {
- setBannerCookie(`${data.alertType}`, `${data.alertContent}`, res);
- }
+ // TODO: Import or implement setBannerCookie function
+ if (data.alertType) {
+ setBannerCookie(`${data.alertType}`, `${data.alertContent}`, res);
+ }
- if (!data.success) {
- return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL);
- }
+ if (!data.success) {
+ return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL);
+ }
- return console.log(data);
+ return data;
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error('API request failed:', error.message);
+ return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL);
+ }
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export async function postAPIRequest( | |
| postURL, | |
| apiPostBody, | |
| failureRedirectURL, | |
| res | |
| ) { | |
| const response = await fetch(postURL, { | |
| method: "POST", | |
| body: JSON.stringify(apiPostBody), | |
| headers: { | |
| "Content-Type": "application/json", | |
| "x-access-token": process.env.APIKEY, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| const data = await response.json(); | |
| console.log(data); | |
| if (data.alertType) { | |
| setBannerCookie(`${data.alertType}`, `${data.alertContent}`, res); | |
| } | |
| if (!data.success) { | |
| return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL); | |
| } | |
| return console.log(data); | |
| } | |
| export async function postAPIRequest( | |
| postURL, | |
| apiPostBody, | |
| failureRedirectURL, | |
| res | |
| ) { | |
| try { | |
| const response = await fetch(postURL, { | |
| method: "POST", | |
| body: JSON.stringify(apiPostBody), | |
| headers: { | |
| "Content-Type": "application/json", | |
| "x-access-token": process.env.APIKEY, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| if (!response.ok) { | |
| throw new Error(`HTTP error! status: ${response.status}`); | |
| } | |
| const data = await response.json(); | |
| // TODO: Import or implement setBannerCookie function | |
| if (data.alertType) { | |
| setBannerCookie(`${data.alertType}`, `${data.alertContent}`, res); | |
| } | |
| if (!data.success) { | |
| return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL); | |
| } | |
| return data; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('API request failed:', error.message); | |
| return res.redirect(failureRedirectURL); | |
| } | |
| } |
|
|
||
| DBHOST=localhost | ||
| DBPORT=3306 | ||
| DBUSER=root | ||
| DBPASSWORD=root | ||
| DBNAME=devoteMe |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve security in environment variable examples
- Using root credentials in examples is not recommended
- API key example is too simple
- Missing documentation for required formats
-APIKEY=KEY
+# Required: Strong API key for authentication
+APIKEY=<STRONG_API_KEY_HERE>
-DBHOST=localhost
-DBPORT=3306
-DBUSER=root
-DBPASSWORD=root
-DBNAME=devoteMe
+# Database Configuration
+DBHOST=localhost
+DBPORT=3306
+# Avoid using root credentials in production
+DBUSER=app_user
+DBPASSWORD=<STRONG_PASSWORD_HERE>
+DBNAME=devoteMe📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| APIKEY=KEY | |
| DBHOST=localhost | |
| DBPORT=3306 | |
| DBUSER=root | |
| DBPASSWORD=root | |
| DBNAME=devoteMe | |
| # Required: Strong API key for authentication | |
| APIKEY=<STRONG_API_KEY_HERE> | |
| # Database Configuration | |
| DBHOST=localhost | |
| DBPORT=3306 | |
| # Avoid using root credentials in production | |
| DBUSER=app_user | |
| DBPASSWORD=<STRONG_PASSWORD_HERE> | |
| DBNAME=devoteMe |
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Configuration
Database
Security