fix: rewrite BE endpoint resolution method #1169
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
Server/controllers/monitorController.js (2)
294-294: Consider reducing the timeout valueA 5-second timeout might be too long for health checks, potentially causing queue buildup during outages.
- timeout: 5000, + timeout: 3000,
291-301: Consider adding resilience patternsThe endpoint checking mechanism could benefit from:
- Implementing a retry mechanism with exponential backoff for transient failures
- Adding a circuit breaker pattern to prevent cascade failures
- Implementing request rate limiting per origin
This would improve reliability and prevent system overload during outages.
Would you like me to provide example implementations of these patterns?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
[failure] 293-296: Server-side request forgery
The URL of this request depends on a user-provided value.Server/tests/controllers/monitorController.test.js (1)
505-507: Enhance axios error simulation for accuracyConsider refining the simulated axios error to more closely reflect the actual error structure returned by axios. This can improve the reliability of your tests.
Apply this diff to improve the error simulation:
const axiosError = new Error("resolution failed"); axiosError.code = "ENOTFOUND"; +axiosError.config = {}; +axiosError.request = {}; +axiosError.response = null; axiosGetStub.rejects(axiosError);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Server/controllers/monitorController.js(2 hunks)Server/tests/controllers/monitorController.test.js(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
Server/controllers/monitorController.js
[failure] 293-296: Server-side request forgery
The URL of this request depends on a user-provided value.
🔇 Additional comments (7)
Server/controllers/monitorController.js (2)
22-22: LGTM! Import change aligns with new implementation
The switch from dns to axios reflects the architectural shift from DNS resolution to HTTP-based endpoint checking.
299-300: LGTM! Enhanced response structure
The addition of status code and status text provides valuable information for monitoring and debugging purposes.
Server/tests/controllers/monitorController.test.js (5)
21-21: Great addition: Importing axios
The inclusion of axios is essential for the updated endpoint resolution logic.
485-485: Properly stubbing axios.get
Using sinon.stub to mock axios.get ensures the tests accurately simulate HTTP requests.
488-488: Ensuring clean test environment
Calling sinon.restore() in the afterEach hook effectively resets stubs and restores the original functionality after each test.
491-491: Accurate simulation of successful response
Mocking axiosGetStub to resolve with { status: 200, statusText: "OK" } correctly emulates a successful endpoint resolution.
497-498: Verifying response details
Asserting that the response includes the correct code and statusText ensures that the controller returns the expected data.
Comment on lines
+291
to
+295
| const { monitorURL } = req.query; | ||
| const parsedUrl = new URL(monitorURL); | ||
| const response = await axios.get(parsedUrl, { | ||
| timeout: 5000, | ||
| validateStatus: () => true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Implement SSRF protection measures
The current implementation is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks. An attacker could provide a URL pointing to internal network resources.
Apply this diff to add basic SSRF protection:
const { monitorURL } = req.query;
const parsedUrl = new URL(monitorURL);
+ // Block private IP ranges and localhost
+ const hostname = parsedUrl.hostname;
+ if (hostname === 'localhost' ||
+ hostname === '127.0.0.1' ||
+ hostname.startsWith('192.168.') ||
+ hostname.startsWith('10.') ||
+ hostname.startsWith('172.16.')) {
+ throw new Error('Access to internal networks is not allowed');
+ }
const response = await axios.get(parsedUrl, {Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
![llamapreview[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1023541?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview
1. Overview
1.1 PR Summary
- Business value and requirements alignment: This PR rewrites the endpoint resolution functionality to improve the monitoring capabilities of the BlueWave Uptime system. The changes ensure that the system can determine if a server is reachable and responding, not just performing DNS resolution.
- Key components modified: The primary changes are in
Server/controllers/monitorController.jsandServer/tests/controllers/monitorController.test.js. - Impact assessment: The changes impact the functionality of monitoring endpoints, affecting how the system determines if a server is responding.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: Introduces
axiosas a dependency for HTTP requests, changing how the controller interacts with network resources.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: The use of
axiosfor HTTP requests introduces a dependency on an external library and changes how endpoint resolution is handled. - Component interactions: The
checkEndpointResolutionfunction now usesaxiosinstead of thednsmodule, altering how the controller interacts with network resources. - Integration points: The change affects the integration points related to endpoint monitoring and resolution.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
Server/controllers/monitorController.js - checkEndpointResolution
-
Submitted PR Code:
const checkEndpointResolution = async (req, res, next) => { try { await getMonitorURLByQueryValidation.validateAsync(req.query); } catch (error) { next(handleValidationError(error, SERVICE_NAME)); return; } try { const { monitorURL } = req.query; const parsedUrl = new URL(monitorURL); const response = await axios.get(parsedUrl, { timeout: 5000, validateStatus: () => true, }); return res.status(200).json({ success: true, code: response.status, statusText: response.statusText, msg: `URL resolved successfully`, }); } catch (error) { next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "checkEndpointResolution")); } };
-
Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues:
- The new implementation uses
axiosto make an HTTP GET request to the provided URL. - The response status code and status text are included in the success response.
- Error handling is in place to catch any issues during the HTTP request.
- The new implementation uses
- Edge cases and error handling:
- The code handles validation errors and HTTP request errors gracefully.
- The
validateStatusfunction is set totrueto accept all status codes.
- Cross-component impact:
- The change impacts the
monitorControllerand any component that relies on thecheckEndpointResolutionfunction.
- The change impacts the
- Business logic considerations:
- The business logic is correctly implemented to check if the server is reachable and responding.
- Current logic and potential issues:
-
LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
// No immediate improvements required as the logic is sound. -
Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits:
- The use of
axiosprovides a more robust way to check endpoint resolution compared to DNS resolution.
- The use of
- Business value:
- Ensures that the system can effectively monitor the reachability and responsiveness of endpoints.
- Risk assessment:
- Introduces a dependency on an external library (
axios), which needs to be managed for updates and potential security issues.
- Introduces a dependency on an external library (
- Technical benefits:
Server/tests/controllers/monitorController.test.js - checkEndpointResolution
-
Submitted PR Code:
describe("Monitor Controller - checkEndpointResolution", () => { let req, res, next, axiosGetStub; beforeEach(() => { req = { query: { monitorURL: "https://example.com" } }; res = { status: sinon.stub().returnsThis(), json: sinon.stub() }; next = sinon.stub(); axiosGetStub = sinon.stub(axios, "get"); }); afterEach(() => { sinon.restore(); }); it("should resolve the URL successfully", async () => { axiosGetStub.resolves({ status: 200, statusText: "OK" }); await checkEndpointResolution(req, res, next); expect(res.status.calledWith(200)).to.be.true; expect( res.json.calledWith({ success: true, code: 200, statusText: "OK", msg: "URL resolved successfully", }) ).to.be.true; expect(next.called).to.be.false; }); it("should return an error if endpoint resolution fails", async () => { const axiosError = new Error("resolution failed"); axiosError.code = "ENOTFOUND"; axiosGetStub.rejects(axiosError); await checkEndpointResolution(req, res, next); expect(next.calledOnce).to.be.true; const errorPassedToNext = next.getCall(0).args[0]; expect(errorPassedToNext).to.be.an.instanceOf(Error); expect(errorPassedToNext.message).to.include("resolution failed"); expect(errorPassedToNext.code).to.equal("ENOTFOUND"); expect(errorPassedToNext.status).to.equal(500); }); it("should reject with an error if query validation fails", async () => { req.query.monitorURL = "invalid-url"; await checkEndpointResolution(req, res, next); expect(next.calledOnce).to.be.true; const error = next.getCall(0).args[0]; expect(next.firstCall.args[0]).to.be.an("error"); expect(next.firstCall.args[0].status).to.equal(422); }); });
-
Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues:
- The tests cover the main functionality and edge cases, including validation errors and HTTP request errors.
- Edge cases and error handling:
- The tests ensure that the
checkEndpointResolutionfunction handles validation errors and HTTP request errors correctly.
- The tests ensure that the
- Cross-component impact:
- The tests validate the integration with the
axioslibrary and ensure that the function works as expected in different scenarios.
- The tests validate the integration with the
- Business logic considerations:
- The tests align with the business logic of checking if the server is reachable and responding.
- Current logic and potential issues:
-
LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
// No immediate improvements required as the tests cover the main functionality and edge cases. -
Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits:
- Comprehensive tests ensure that the
checkEndpointResolutionfunction works as expected in different scenarios.
- Comprehensive tests ensure that the
- Business value:
- Ensures that the system can effectively monitor the reachability and responsiveness of endpoints.
- Risk assessment:
- The tests help identify and mitigate potential issues in the implementation.
- Technical benefits:
Cross-cutting Concerns
- Data flow analysis:
- The data flow involves validating the input URL, making an HTTP request using
axios, and returning the response status code and status text.
- The data flow involves validating the input URL, making an HTTP request using
- State management implications:
- The function is stateless and does not introduce any state management concerns.
- Error propagation paths:
- Errors are propagated to the next middleware for handling, ensuring proper error propagation.
- Edge case handling across components:
- The function handles validation errors and HTTP request errors gracefully.
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code organization and structure:
- The code is well-organized and modular, with clear separation of concerns.
- The controller pattern is maintained, handling requests and responses appropriately.
- Design patterns usage:
- Follows the controller pattern, handling requests and responses appropriately.
- Error handling approach:
- Comprehensive error handling for validation and HTTP request errors.
- Errors are passed to the next middleware for handling, ensuring proper error propagation.
- Resource management:
- Introduces a network request, which should be considered for performance implications.
- The use of
axiosis scalable for handling multiple requests.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
-
🔴 Critical Issues
- Issue: None identified.
-
🟡 Warnings
- Warning description: None identified.
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The code is easy to read and maintain, with clear error handling and validation.
- Readability issues: None identified.
- Performance bottlenecks: The HTTP request could be a bottleneck if not handled properly in high-load scenarios.
4. Security Assessment
4.1 Security Considerations
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: None identified.
- Data handling concerns: Ensure that sensitive data is not exposed in error messages or logs.
- Input validation: The input URL is validated, reducing the risk of injection attacks.
- Security best practices: Ensure that the
axioslibrary is kept up to date to mitigate security risks.
4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
- Potential security risks: Regularly check for vulnerabilities in
axiosand update accordingly. - Mitigation strategies: Implement error reporting to track and analyze issues in production.
- Security testing requirements: Ensure comprehensive logging and error reporting for monitoring and debugging.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: Ensure that the
checkEndpointResolutionfunction handles validation errors and HTTP request errors correctly. - Integration test requirements: Test the integration with the
axioslibrary and ensure that the function works as expected in different scenarios. - Edge cases coverage: Validate edge cases such as invalid URLs and network errors.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
// No additional test cases required as the current tests cover the main functionality and edge cases.- Coverage improvements: None identified.
- Performance testing needs: Consider performance testing for the HTTP request.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed (API, architecture, configuration): Add comments explaining the purpose of the
validateStatusfunction and other critical decisions. - Long-term maintenance considerations: Ensure that the
axiosdependency is managed for updates and potential security issues. - Technical debt and monitoring requirements: Implement caching or parallel requests for optimization.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: Ensure that
axiosis added to the project's dependencies and properly managed. - Key operational considerations: Make the timeout and other configurations configurable via environment variables or configuration files.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
- Critical changes required: None identified.
- Important improvements suggested:
- Make the timeout configurable via environment variables or configuration files.
- Regularly update and monitor the
axiosdependency for security vulnerabilities.
- Best practices to implement:
- Implement caching or parallel requests for optimization.
- Ensure comprehensive logging and error reporting for monitoring and debugging.
- Cross-cutting concerns to address: None identified.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: Continuously monitor and update the
axiosdependency for security and performance improvements. - Business capability evolution: Ensure that the system can effectively monitor the reachability and responsiveness of endpoints as business needs evolve.
- System integration impacts: Consider the impact of network requests on performance and scalability.
💡 LlamaPReview Community
Have feedback on this AI Code review tool? Join our GitHub Discussions to share your thoughts and help shape the future of LlamaPReview.
7 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR rewrites the endpoint resolution functionality. The original implementation was insufficient and only handle DNS resolution, which is only a subset of resolution we need to check.