feat/be/status page implementation #1138
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
ajhollid
changed the title
![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. Change Overview
1.1 Core Changes
- Primary purpose and scope: This PR introduces the backend implementation for the status page, including routes, controllers, database models, and related tests.
- Key components modified:
statusPageController.js: New controller with methods to create and fetch status pages.StatusPage.js: New Mongoose model for status pages.MongoDB.jsandstatusPageModule.js: Database methods for status page CRUD operations.index.js: Added route configuration for the status page.openapi.json: Updated Swagger documentation.statusPageRoute.js: New route definitions.statusPageController.test.jsandstatusPageModule.test.js: Unit tests for the new controller and module.messages.js: Added error and success messages for status pages.joi.js: Added validation schemas for status page operations.
- Cross-component impacts: This change impacts the API routes, database schema, validation, and testing infrastructure.
- Business value alignment: Aligns with the requirement to implement a public status page for monitoring server uptime and incidents.
1.2 Technical Architecture
- System design modifications:
- Introduces a new component for status page management.
- Adds new routes and controllers for handling status page operations.
- Updates the database schema to include a new
StatusPagemodel. - Integrates with the existing middleware for JWT verification and error handling.
- Component interaction changes:
- New routes interact with the
statusPageController. statusPageControllerinteracts with the database module (statusPageModule) to perform CRUD operations.statusPageModuleinteracts with theStatusPagemodel for database operations.
- New routes interact with the
- Integration points impact:
- Integrates with the existing API documentation (Swagger) and validation mechanisms (Joi).
- Dependency changes and implications:
- No new external dependencies introduced.
2. Deep Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Analysis
[Server/controllers/statusPageController.js] - [createStatusPage]
- Submitted PR Code:
const createStatusPage = async (req, res, next) => { try { await createStatusPageBodyValidation.validateAsync(req.body); } catch (error) { next(handleValidationError(error, SERVICE_NAME)); return; } try { const statusPage = await req.db.createStatusPage(req.body); return res.status(200).json({ success: true, msg: successMessages.STATUS_PAGE_CREATE, data: statusPage, }); } catch (error) { next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "createStatusPage")); } };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues:
- The function correctly validates the request body and handles validation errors.
- It interacts with the database module to create a status page and returns the result.
- Edge cases and error handling:
- Validation errors are caught and handled correctly.
- Database errors are caught and passed to the error handling middleware.
- Cross-component impact:
- Interacts with the validation schema and database module.
- Business logic considerations:
- Ensures that the status page is created with valid data.
- Current logic and potential issues:
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const createStatusPage = async (req, res, next) => { try { await createStatusPageBodyValidation.validateAsync(req.body); } catch (error) { next(handleValidationError(error, SERVICE_NAME)); return; } try { const statusPage = await req.db.createStatusPage(req.body); return res.status(201).json({ // Changed status code to 201 for creation success: true, msg: successMessages.STATUS_PAGE_CREATE, data: statusPage, }); } catch (error) { next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "createStatusPage")); } };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits:
- Using status code 201 for creation is more semantically correct.
- Business value:
- Improves API consistency and adherence to HTTP standards.
- Risk assessment:
- Low risk; improves clarity without changing functionality.
- Technical benefits:
[Server/controllers/statusPageController.js] - [getStatusPageByUrl]
- Submitted PR Code:
const getStatusPageByUrl = async (req, res, next) => { try { await getStatusPageParamValidation.validateAsync(req.params); } catch (error) { next(handleValidationError(error, SERVICE_NAME)); return; } try { const { url } = req.params; const statusPage = await req.db.getStatusPageByUrl(url); return res.status(200).json({ success: true, msg: successMessages.STATUS_PAGE_BY_URL, data: statusPage, }); } catch (error) { next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "getStatusPage")); } };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues:
- The function correctly validates the request parameters and handles validation errors.
- It interacts with the database module to fetch a status page by URL and returns the result.
- Edge cases and error handling:
- Validation errors are caught and handled correctly.
- Database errors are caught and passed to the error handling middleware.
- Cross-component impact:
- Interacts with the validation schema and database module.
- Business logic considerations:
- Ensures that the status page is fetched with valid URL.
- Current logic and potential issues:
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const getStatusPageByUrl = async (req, res, next) => { try { await getStatusPageParamValidation.validateAsync(req.params); } catch (error) { next(handleValidationError(error, SERVICE_NAME)); return; } try { const { url } = req.params; const statusPage = await req.db.getStatusPageByUrl(url); if (!statusPage) { return res.status(404).json({ success: false, msg: errorMessages.STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND, }); } return res.status(200).json({ success: true, msg: successMessages.STATUS_PAGE_BY_URL, data: statusPage, }); } catch (error) { next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "getStatusPage")); } };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits:
- Explicitly handles the case where the status page is not found and returns a 404 response.
- Business value:
- Improves user experience by providing clear feedback when a status page is not found.
- Risk assessment:
- Low risk; improves clarity and error handling without changing functionality.
- Technical benefits:
2.2 Implementation Quality
-
Code Structure:
- Organization and modularity:
- The code is well-organized with separate files for controllers, models, routes, and tests.
- Follows a modular structure with clear separation of concerns.
- Design pattern adherence:
- Uses common patterns such as middleware for validation and error handling.
- Reusability aspects:
- The validation schemas and error handling functions are reusable.
- Maintainability factors:
- The code is easy to read and understand, with clear comments and descriptive function names.
- Organization and modularity:
-
Error Handling:
- Exception scenarios coverage:
- The code handles validation errors and database errors effectively.
- Recovery mechanisms:
- The error handling middleware ensures that errors are logged and appropriate responses are sent to the client.
- Logging and monitoring:
- The existing logging mechanism is integrated, ensuring that errors are logged for monitoring.
- User experience impact:
- Clear and consistent error messages are returned to the client.
- Exception scenarios coverage:
-
Performance Considerations:
- Resource utilization:
- The code efficiently uses resources with minimal overhead.
- Scalability aspects:
- The design is scalable, with separate modules for different concerns.
- Bottleneck analysis:
- No obvious bottlenecks identified in the current implementation.
- Optimization opportunities:
- Further performance testing and optimization may be required as the application scales.
- Resource utilization:
3. Risk Assessment
3.1 Critical Issues
🔴 P0 (Must Fix):
- Issue: Missing rate limiting for status page routes.
- Impact:
- Technical implications:
- Potential for abuse and resource exhaustion.
- Business consequences:
- May impact service availability and user experience.
- User experience effects:
- Users may experience slower response times or service unavailability.
- Technical implications:
- Resolution:
- Specific code changes:
- Implement rate limiting for the status page routes.
- Configuration updates:
- Configure rate limiting settings based on usage patterns.
- Testing requirements:
- Test rate limiting under various scenarios to ensure effectiveness.
- Specific code changes:
3.2 Important Improvements
🟡 P1 (Should Fix):
- Issue: Improve error handling for status page not found.
- Current Impact:
- Performance implications:
- Users may receive unclear error messages when a status page is not found.
- Maintenance overhead:
- May lead to support requests due to unclear error messages.
- Future scalability:
- Clear error handling improves user experience and reduces support overhead.
- Performance implications:
- Suggested Solution:
- Implementation approach:
- Explicitly check for the status page not found case and return a 404 response.
- Migration strategy:
- Update the
getStatusPageByUrlfunction to handle the not found case.
- Update the
- Testing considerations:
- Add tests to ensure the 404 response is returned correctly.
- Implementation approach:
3.3 Minor Suggestions
🟢 P2 (Consider):
- Area: Improve documentation and comments.
- Improvement Opportunity:
- Code quality enhancement:
- Add more detailed comments to explain the purpose and functionality of key components.
- Best practice alignment:
- Ensure that all functions and classes have clear and concise comments.
- Documentation updates:
- Update the API documentation to include detailed information about the status page routes and responses.
- Code quality enhancement:
4. Requirements Analysis
4.1 Functional Coverage
- Requirements mapping:
- Implemented features:
- The PR implements the core functionality for creating and retrieving status pages.
- Missing elements:
- No obvious missing elements identified.
- Edge cases handling:
- Validation and error handling are implemented for common edge cases.
- Implemented features:
- Business Logic:
- Use case coverage:
- The PR covers the use cases for creating and retrieving status pages.
- Business rule implementation:
- The PR adheres to the business rules for status page management.
- Data flow correctness:
- The data flow is correct, with proper validation and error handling.
- Use case coverage:
4.2 Non-functional Aspects
-
Performance metrics:
- Current coverage:
- The PR includes performance considerations such as efficient database queries and error handling.
- Critical paths:
- The critical paths for creating and retrieving status pages are covered.
- Performance benchmarks:
- Performance testing may be required to ensure the implementation meets non-functional requirements.
- Current coverage:
-
Security considerations:
- Current coverage:
- The PR includes JWT verification for protected routes.
- Improvement opportunities:
- Implement rate limiting to prevent abuse.
- Current coverage:
-
Scalability factors:
- Current coverage:
- The design is scalable, with separate modules for different concerns.
- Future improvements:
- Continuous performance testing and optimization as the application scales.
- Current coverage:
-
Maintainability aspects:
- Current coverage:
- The code is well-organized and follows best practices for maintainability.
- Future improvements:
- Add more detailed comments and documentation to improve long-term maintainability.
- Current coverage:
5. Testing Strategy
- Test Coverage:
- Unit test requirements:
- The PR includes unit tests for the controller and database module.
- Integration test scenarios:
- Integration tests should be added to cover the interaction between the controller and the database module.
- Edge case validation:
- Tests should cover edge cases such as invalid input and database errors.
- Unit test requirements:
- Quality Metrics:
- Current coverage:
- The PR includes unit tests for the core functionality.
- Critical paths:
- Tests cover the critical paths for creating and retrieving status pages.
- Performance benchmarks:
- Performance testing may be required to ensure the implementation meets non-functional requirements.
- Current coverage:
6. Final Assessment
6.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical Changes (P0):
- Implement rate limiting for status page routes to prevent abuse and resource exhaustion.
-
Important Improvements (P1):
- Improve error handling for the status page not found case to provide clear feedback to users.
-
Suggested Enhancements (P2):
- Improve documentation and comments to enhance code quality and maintainability.
6.2 Overall Evaluation
- Technical assessment:
- The PR is well-implemented with clear separation of concerns and efficient error handling.
- Business impact:
- The PR aligns with the business requirements for implementing a public status page.
- Risk evaluation:
- Low to moderate risk; some critical issues need to be addressed, but the overall implementation is solid.
- Implementation quality:
- High quality; the code is well-organized, follows best practices, and includes comprehensive testing.
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes to enhance the status page functionality within the application. Key modifications include the addition of a new Mongoose schema for the "StatusPage" model, the implementation of controller functions for creating and retrieving status pages, and the establishment of corresponding routes. Additionally, new validation schemas and messages have been integrated, along with updates to the OpenAPI specification to reflect the new endpoints. 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: 15
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
Server/routes/statusPageRoute.js (1)
1-11: There's more on this sweater we could make better! 🧥Consider these architectural improvements:
- Create a middleware directory for route-specific middleware
- Add JSDoc comments for API documentation
- Implement a centralized error handling middleware
Example structure:
/** * @swagger * /api/v1/status-page/{url}: * get: * description: Retrieve status page by URL * parameters: * - name: url * in: path * required: true * schema: * type: string */Would you like me to help implement any of these suggestions?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
[failure] 10-10: Missing rate limiting
This route handler performs authorization, but is not rate-limited.Server/db/models/StatusPage.js (1)
1-42: Yo, we need some middleware to keep it real! 🍝Consider adding pre-save middleware to ensure the referenced monitors exist before saving a status page.
Here's some middleware that's fire:
StatusPageSchema.pre('save', async function(next) { const Monitor = mongoose.model('Monitor'); const monitorCount = await Monitor.countDocuments({ _id: { $in: this.monitors } }); if (monitorCount !== this.monitors.length) { throw new Error('One or more monitor references are invalid'); } next(); });Server/db/mongo/modules/statusPageModule.js (2)
1-4: Yo, these imports are straight fire! 🔥The imports and constant definition are clean and well-organized. Just one tiny suggestion to make it even better.
Add a brief JSDoc comment describing the module's purpose:
+/** + * Module for handling StatusPage database operations + * @module statusPageModule + */ import StatusPage from "../../models/StatusPage.js";
23-38: Mom's spaghetti moment: Let's secure this endpoint! 🍝The function works, but we can make it more robust and efficient.
Consider these enhancements:
const getStatusPageByUrl = async (url) => { + // Validate URL parameter + if (!url || typeof url !== 'string') { + const error = new Error(errorMessages.INVALID_URL); + error.status = 400; + throw error; + } + try { - const statusPage = await StatusPage.findOne({ url }); + // Only select needed fields for better performance + const statusPage = await StatusPage.findOne( + { url }, + { url: 1, name: 1, description: 1 } + ).lean(); + if (statusPage === null || statusPage === undefined) { const error = new Error(errorMessages.STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND); error.status = 404;Server/controllers/statusPageController.js (1)
1-8: Yo, these imports are clean, but let's drop some knowledge!The imports and constant setup are solid, but adding some JSDoc comments would make this even more fire! 🔥
Add this documentation at the top:
+/** + * @fileoverview Controller for managing status page operations + * @module statusPageController + */ import { handleError, handleValidationError } from "./controllerUtils.js";Server/tests/db/statusPageModule.test.js (2)
9-18: Mom's spaghetti level test setup! 🍝The test setup is clean and follows best practices. All necessary stubs are initialized before each test and properly cleaned up afterwards.
Consider adding JSDoc type annotations for better IDE support:
- let statusPageFindOneStub, statusPageSaveStub, statusPageFindStub; + /** @type {import('sinon').SinonStub} */ + let statusPageFindOneStub; + /** @type {import('sinon').SinonStub} */ + let statusPageSaveStub; + /** @type {import('sinon').SinonStub} */ + let statusPageFindStub;
19-47: Knees weak, arms heavy, but these tests are ready! 💪The test cases for
createStatusPagecover the basic scenarios well, but could be more comprehensive.Consider adding these test cases:
- Invalid status page data (missing required fields)
- Status page with all possible properties
- Edge cases for URL validation (empty string, special characters)
Example addition:
it("should throw an error if required fields are missing", async () => { try { await createStatusPage({}); } catch (error) { expect(error.status).to.equal(400); expect(error.message).to.include("required"); } });Server/tests/controllers/statusPageController.test.js (2)
7-23: Yo dawg, we need to beef up that error handling setup!The test setup is looking fresh, but we should add some error handling middleware setup to make these tests more robust. Consider adding:
res.status = sinon.stub().returnsThis(); res.json = sinon.stub().returnsThis(); // Add returnsThis() here too res.sendStatus = sinon.stub().returnsThis();This way we can chain those responses like they're bars in a rap battle! 🎤
1-6: Let's organize these tests like a platinum album! 💿Consider restructuring the test file to improve maintainability:
- Move the mock data to separate fixture files
- Group test cases by behavior (success, validation, errors) instead of by method
- Add integration tests for the complete request-response cycle
Here's a suggested folder structure:
tests/ ├── fixtures/ │ └── statusPage.fixtures.js ├── integration/ │ └── statusPage.test.js └── unit/ └── controllers/ └── statusPageController.test.jsServer/utils/messages.js (1)
54-57: Yo dawg, consider adding more error cases for status page operations!The error messages look solid, but there might be more error scenarios we should handle for a robust status page implementation:
- Status page deletion failures
- Status page update failures
- Validation errors for status page fields
Add these additional error messages:
// Status Page Errors STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND: "Status page not found", STATUS_PAGE_URL_NOT_UNIQUE: "Status page url must be unique", +STATUS_PAGE_DELETE_FAILED: "Failed to delete status page", +STATUS_PAGE_UPDATE_FAILED: "Failed to update status page", +STATUS_PAGE_INVALID_DATA: "Invalid status page data provided",Server/openapi.json (1)
87-90: Yo, the tag description could use more sauce!The description "Status Page" is a bit too basic. Consider enhancing it to better describe the functionality, like:
"Operations for managing public-facing status pages that display monitor statuses and incident history"
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
Server/.nycrc(1 hunks)Server/controllers/statusPageController.js(1 hunks)Server/db/models/StatusPage.js(1 hunks)Server/db/mongo/MongoDB.js(2 hunks)Server/db/mongo/modules/statusPageModule.js(1 hunks)Server/index.js(2 hunks)Server/openapi.json(3 hunks)Server/routes/statusPageRoute.js(1 hunks)Server/tests/controllers/statusPageController.test.js(1 hunks)Server/tests/db/statusPageModule.test.js(1 hunks)Server/utils/messages.js(2 hunks)Server/validation/joi.js(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
Server/routes/statusPageRoute.js
[failure] 10-10: Missing rate limiting
This route handler performs authorization, but is not rate-limited.
🔇 Additional comments (16)
Server/.nycrc (1)
3-3: Yo dawg, this coverage config is straight fire! 🔥
The expanded include pattern ensures proper coverage for all module files, including the new status page functionality. That's the way we roll!
Let's make sure we ain't missing any files in our coverage game:
✅ Verification successful
Yo dawg, we got full coverage in the house! 🍝
All the JS files in our directories are properly covered by the patterns in .nycrc, including our fresh status page files! The scan shows everything's aligned perfectly:
- All controllers are covered under
controllers/*.js - All utils are covered under
utils/*.js - All services are covered under
service/*.js - All mongo modules are covered under
db/mongo/modules/*.js
Even our new status page files are right where they should be:
statusPageController.js✓statusPageModule.js✓
No spaghetti code slipping through these coverage patterns, fam!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all JS files in relevant directories are included in coverage
# Check for any JS files that might be missed by the patterns
echo "Checking for potential coverage gaps..."
fd -e js -E "*.test.js" . ./Server/controllers ./Server/utils ./Server/service ./Server/db/mongo/modules
# Specifically look for status page related files
echo "Verifying status page files are covered..."
fd -e js -E "*.test.js" statusPage ./Server
Length of output: 1689
Server/routes/statusPageRoute.js (2)
1-7: Yo, these imports are clean like mom's spaghetti! 🍝
The import statements and router setup follow Express.js best practices.
11-11: Clean export, no spaghetti code here! 🍜
The router export follows standard Express.js practices.
Server/db/mongo/modules/statusPageModule.js (2)
40-40: Clean exports, no cap! ✨
The export syntax is clean and follows best practices.
2-2: Let's verify those error messages exist, fam! 🔍
Let's make sure all the error messages we're using are actually defined.
✅ Verification successful
Yo, those error messages are present and accounted for! 🍝
The search results confirm that both STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND and STATUS_PAGE_URL_NOT_UNIQUE are properly defined in the messages file. We're good to go!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if required error messages are defined
rg -A 1 "STATUS_PAGE_URL_NOT_UNIQUE|STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND" "Server/utils/messages.js"
Length of output: 200
Server/controllers/statusPageController.js (3)
51-51: Clean exports, fam! 💯
The export statement is properly structured and exports both controller functions.
30-49:
Heads up! We got some security and error handling concerns! 🚨
- The URL parameter should be sanitized before database lookup
- The error handler uses "getStatusPage" but the function is named "getStatusPageByUrl"
Fix the error handler name:
- next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "getStatusPage"));
+ next(handleError(error, SERVICE_NAME, "getStatusPageByUrl"));Let's check if URL sanitization is handled in the validation schema:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for URL validation patterns
rg -A 5 "getStatusPageParamValidation" Server/validation/10-28: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo dawg, we need to fix that status code! 🎯
Creating a new resource should return 201 (Created) instead of 200 (OK). Also, consider wrapping the database operation in a transaction for data integrity.
Here's the fix:
const statusPage = await req.db.createStatusPage(req.body);
- return res.status(200).json({
+ return res.status(201).json({Let's check if transactions are supported in the database module:
✅ Verification successful
These scripts will help us understand:
- The database implementation details
- Whether transactions are supported
- The actual implementation of createStatusPage
This will give us better context about whether transaction handling is necessary and if the status code change suggestion is valid.
Yo, my knees are weak but I gotta check these implementations to see if we really need transactions and if the status code change makes sense! Let me see what's cooking in that MongoDB spaghetti code! 🍝
Yo dawg, about that status code - you're absolutely right! But hold up on the transaction talk! 🎯
The status code should definitely be 201 for resource creation - that's straight fire! But about them transactions... looking at the MongoDB implementation, I see it's using Mongoose which already handles atomic operations by default for single document operations. The createStatusPage operation seems to be a simple document creation, so we don't need explicit transaction handling here - Mongoose got our back!
const statusPage = await req.db.createStatusPage(req.body);
- return res.status(200).json({
+ return res.status(201).json({- The 201 status code is the proper way to respond to successful resource creation
- No need for explicit transactions - Mongoose handles atomic operations for single documents
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for transaction usage in database modules
rg -l "transaction|beginTransaction" Server/db/
Length of output: 560
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the database implementation
fd "db" Server/ --type f --exec rg -l "createStatusPage|transaction|beginTransaction" {}
Length of output: 117
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check database configuration and setup
fd "config|database" Server/ --type f --exec cat {}
Length of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for any database related files
fd "database|db" Server/ --type f --exec rg -A 5 "class|interface|createStatusPage" {}
Length of output: 567
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual MongoDB implementation
cat Server/db/mongo/MongoDB.js
Length of output: 5505
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the status page module implementation
rg -A 10 "createStatusPage" Server/modules/statusPageModule.js
Length of output: 137
Server/tests/db/statusPageModule.test.js (2)
48-67: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
There's vomit on his sweater already, but these tests are steady! 🎯
The getStatusPageByUrl tests cover the basic scenarios, but let's make them more robust.
Add these critical test cases:
- Invalid URL format validation
- Status page with populated references (if any)
- Case sensitivity handling for URLs
Let's verify the error messages being used:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify error message constants
echo "Checking for error message definitions..."
rg "STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND.*=.*" "Server/utils/messages.js"1-8: Yo, these imports are straight fire! 🔥
The dependencies and imports are properly structured. Let's verify that all imported functions exist in their respective modules.
✅ Verification successful
Yo dawg, these imports are legit! 🎤
Based on our deep dive into the codebase:
- Found both functions
createStatusPageandgetStatusPageByUrlbeing used across multiple files - Error messages
STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUNDandSTATUS_PAGE_URL_NOT_UNIQUEexist in messages.js - The functions are referenced in controllers, routes, and tests, showing they're properly integrated
Even though we couldn't see the exact implementation details, the functions are clearly part of the system's core functionality, being used throughout the codebase. The imports are on point, fam!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the imported functions and dependencies exist
echo "Checking statusPageModule exports..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export { $$$, createStatusPage, getStatusPageByUrl, $$$ }'
echo "Checking error messages..."
rg "STATUS_PAGE_URL_NOT_UNIQUE|STATUS_PAGE_NOT_FOUND" "Server/utils/messages.js"
Length of output: 245
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the exports more thoroughly with different patterns
echo "Checking statusPageModule exports (attempt 1)..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export const createStatusPage'
echo "Checking statusPageModule exports (attempt 2)..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export const getStatusPageByUrl'
echo "Checking statusPageModule exports (attempt 3)..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export { createStatusPage'
# Let's also check the actual file content
echo "Checking actual file content..."
rg -l "createStatusPage|getStatusPageByUrl" --type js
# Check for error messages with proper quoting
echo "Checking error messages..."
rg "STATUS_PAGE" "Server/utils/messages.js"
Length of output: 1207
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual implementation of these functions
echo "Checking statusPageModule implementation..."
rg -A 5 "export (const|function) (createStatusPage|getStatusPageByUrl)" Server/db/mongo/modules/statusPageModule.js
# Let's also verify the model import
echo "Checking StatusPage model..."
rg -l "class StatusPage|Schema.*StatusPage" Server/db/models/StatusPage.js
Length of output: 358
Server/index.js (2)
17-17: Yo, this import's clean as mom's spaghetti! 🍝
The import follows the established pattern and is properly grouped with other route imports.
92-92:
Knees weak, arms heavy - we've got a security vulnerability! 🚨
Unlike other sensitive routes in the application, the status page route is missing JWT verification middleware. According to the PR context, POST operations should be protected.
Apply this diff to secure the route:
-app.use("/api/v1/status-page", statusPageRouter);
+app.use("/api/v1/status-page", verifyJWT, statusPageRouter);Let's verify the route protection requirements:
Server/db/mongo/MongoDB.js (2)
172-175: Yo, these imports are straight fire! 🔥
The new status page imports are properly organized and follow the established pattern in the file. The section header maintains consistency with other module sections.
231-232: Mom's spaghetti... I mean, the exports look ready! 🍝
The new status page methods are properly exported and maintain the file's structure. However, let's verify the implementation of these methods.
✅ Verification successful
Yo, these exports are straight fire! 🔥 Implementation's clean as mom's kitchen!
The status page methods are properly implemented with:
- Full async/await support
- Proper error handling with service context
- Clean MongoDB interactions
- Duplicate URL checking for
createStatusPage - Proper null checks in
getStatusPageByUrl
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the implementation of status page methods
# Expected: Find the implementation file and method definitions
echo "Searching for status page module implementation..."
fd -e js -E node_modules "statusPageModule.js"
echo "Verifying method implementations..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export const createStatusPage = async $_'
ast-grep --pattern 'export const getStatusPageByUrl = async $_'
Length of output: 412
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual implementation of these methods
echo "Checking status page module implementations..."
cat Server/db/mongo/modules/statusPageModule.js
Length of output: 1194
Server/validation/joi.js (2)
413-416: LGTM! Clean section organization.
The new section header follows the existing pattern and maintains code organization consistency.
421-437: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance validation for status page fields.
The schema needs additional validation rules to ensure data integrity.
const createStatusPageBodyValidation = joi.object({
- companyName: joi.string().required(),
+ companyName: joi.string().min(2).max(100).required()
+ .messages({
+ 'string.min': 'Company name must be at least 2 characters long',
+ 'string.max': 'Company name cannot exceed 100 characters'
+ }),
- url: joi.string().required(),
+ url: joi.string().uri().lowercase().required()
+ .pattern(/^[a-z0-9-]+$/)
+ .messages({
+ 'string.uri': 'URL must be a valid URI',
+ 'string.pattern.base': 'URL can only contain lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens'
+ }),
- timezone: joi.string().required(),
+ timezone: joi.string().required()
+ .pattern(/^[A-Za-z_\/+-]+$/)
+ .messages({
+ 'string.pattern.base': 'Must be a valid timezone identifier (e.g., America/Toronto)'
+ }),
- color: joi.string().required(),
+ color: joi.string().required()
+ .pattern(/^#[0-9A-Fa-f]{6}$/)
+ .messages({
+ 'string.pattern.base': 'Color must be a valid hex color code (e.g., #FF0000)'
+ }),
- theme: joi.string().required(),
+ theme: joi.string().valid('light', 'dark').required()
+ .messages({
+ 'any.only': 'Theme must be either "light" or "dark"'
+ }),
monitors: joi
.array()
.items(joi.string().pattern(/^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$/))
.required()
+ .min(1)
+ .max(50)
.messages({
"string.pattern.base": "Must be a valid monitor ID",
"array.base": "Monitors must be an array",
"array.empty": "At least one monitor is required",
+ "array.max": "Cannot exceed 50 monitors",
"any.required": "Monitors are required",
}),
});Additionally, consider adding:
- Uniqueness validation for the URL field to prevent duplicates
- Rate limiting to prevent abuse
✅ Verification successful
The test file suggests URL uniqueness is handled, but let's verify the actual implementation to provide accurate guidance.
The code shows URL uniqueness handling in the module, but let's verify the schema and rate limiting before making our final call. My knees are weak with anticipation!
Palms getting sweaty Let's try these commands to see what we're working with in that schema file!
Yo, the validation enhancement suggestion is solid, but URL uniqueness is already covered!
The URL uniqueness is properly handled through:
- MongoDB schema with
unique: trueconstraint - Error handling in
statusPageModule.jsfor duplicate URLs (error code 11000) - Test coverage confirming the uniqueness validation
The suggested validation improvements for other fields are valuable additions to strengthen data integrity. However, rate limiting should be implemented at the API gateway or middleware level, not in the validation schema.
Wipes sweaty palms
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if URL uniqueness validation exists in the model or controller
# Expected: Find URL uniqueness validation in MongoDB schema or controller
rg -A 5 "unique.*url" --type js
Length of output: 1052
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the status page model and controller implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'const createStatusPage = async ($$$) => { $$$ }'
# Also check for any URL validation in the database module
rg -B 5 -A 10 "createStatusPage" Server/db/
Length of output: 6319
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the MongoDB schema to verify URL uniqueness at the database level
rg -A 10 "new Schema\({" Server/db/models/StatusPage.js
# Also check for any rate limiting middleware
rg -A 5 "rateLimit|rateLimiter" Server/
Length of output: 189
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a simpler pattern to find the schema
rg -A 10 "Schema.*{" Server/db/models/StatusPage.js
# And check the model file content directly
cat Server/db/models/StatusPage.js
Length of output: 847
| router.get("/:url", getStatusPageByUrl); | ||
| router.post("/:url", verifyJWT, createStatusPage); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Yo! There's no rate limiting on these routes, and that's a fact! 🍝
Looking through the server setup like mom's recipe book:
- No
express-rate-limitin package.json dependencies - Main server setup (index.js) only uses basic middleware (cors, helmet)
- No rate limiting middleware configured anywhere
You better lose yourself in implementing rate limiting, the moment you own it:
// First, add to package.json dependencies:
// "express-rate-limit": "^7.1.5"
import rateLimit from 'express-rate-limit';
const apiLimiter = rateLimit({
windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000, // 15 minutes
max: 100 // limit each IP to 100 requests per windowMs
});
router.get("/:url", apiLimiter, getStatusPageByUrl);
router.post("/:url", apiLimiter, verifyJWT, createStatusPage);🔗 Analysis chain
Knees weak, arms heavy - these routes need rate limiting already! 🏋️
While the authentication is solid with JWT, there are some security considerations to address:
- Add rate limiting to prevent abuse
- Consider adding URL parameter validation middleware
Let's check if rate limiting is implemented elsewhere:
Here's a suggested implementation:
import rateLimit from 'express-rate-limit';
const apiLimiter = rateLimit({
windowMs: 15 * 60 * 1000, // 15 minutes
max: 100 // limit each IP to 100 requests per windowMs
});
router.get("/:url", apiLimiter, getStatusPageByUrl);
router.post("/:url", apiLimiter, verifyJWT, createStatusPage);Let me check if there's any rate limiting setup in the server configuration before jumping to conclusions. The previous commands didn't find the package.json, so let's also verify its existence and location.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for rate limiting implementations
echo "Checking for rate limiting packages..."
grep -r "express-rate-limit\|rate-limit" package.json || echo "No rate limiting package found"
echo "Checking for rate limiting middleware..."
rg -l "rateLimit|rateLimiter" --type js
Length of output: 392
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for any middleware configurations and rate limiting in the server setup
echo "Checking server setup files..."
fd -e js -e ts server config app index main | xargs rg -l "middleware|express\(\)|app\."
echo "Checking for rate limit related imports..."
rg "import.*rate|require.*rate" --type js
# Check the actual content of the main server file
echo "Content of main server setup:"
fd -e js -e ts server config app index main | xargs cat
Length of output: 1677
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find package.json files
echo "Looking for package.json files..."
fd package.json
Length of output: 134
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the Server's package.json for rate limiting dependencies
echo "Checking Server's package.json content..."
cat Server/package.json
# Let's also check the main server setup file
echo "Checking Server's index.js content..."
cat Server/index.js
# And let's check if there's any middleware folder with rate limiting
echo "Checking for middleware directory..."
fd middleware Server
Length of output: 6447
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
[failure] 10-10: Missing rate limiting
This route handler performs authorization, but is not rate-limited.
| timezone: { | ||
| type: String, | ||
| required: true, | ||
| default: "America/Toronto", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Timezone validation's weak, arms are heavy! 🍝
The timezone field accepts any string, which could lead to invalid timezone values being stored. We should validate against a list of valid IANA timezone identifiers.
Drop this validation like it's hot:
timezone: {
type: String,
required: true,
default: "America/Toronto",
+ validate: {
+ validator: function(v) {
+ return Intl.supportedValuesOf('timeZone').includes(v);
+ },
+ message: props => `${props.value} is not a valid timezone!`
+ }
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| timezone: { | |
| type: String, | |
| required: true, | |
| default: "America/Toronto", | |
| }, | |
| timezone: { | |
| type: String, | |
| required: true, | |
| default: "America/Toronto", | |
| validate: { | |
| validator: function(v) { | |
| return Intl.supportedValuesOf('timeZone').includes(v); | |
| }, | |
| message: props => `${props.value} is not a valid timezone!` | |
| } | |
| }, |
| color: { | ||
| type: String, | ||
| required: true, | ||
| default: "#4169E1", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Color field's got no chill! 🍝
The color field needs validation to ensure it contains valid hex color codes.
Let's make this validation cleaner than your sweater:
color: {
type: String,
required: true,
default: "#4169E1",
+ validate: {
+ validator: function(v) {
+ return /^#[0-9A-F]{6}$/i.test(v);
+ },
+ message: props => `${props.value} is not a valid hex color code!`
+ }
},📝 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.
| color: { | |
| type: String, | |
| required: true, | |
| default: "#4169E1", | |
| }, | |
| color: { | |
| type: String, | |
| required: true, | |
| default: "#4169E1", | |
| validate: { | |
| validator: function(v) { | |
| return /^#[0-9A-F]{6}$/i.test(v); | |
| }, | |
| message: props => `${props.value} is not a valid hex color code!` | |
| } | |
| }, |
| theme: { | ||
| type: String, | ||
| required: true, | ||
| default: "light", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Theme field's not ready for the spotlight! 🍝
The theme field should be restricted to specific valid options rather than accepting any string.
Here's an improvement that'll make your knees weak:
theme: {
type: String,
required: true,
default: "light",
+ enum: {
+ values: ["light", "dark"],
+ message: '{VALUE} is not a supported theme'
+ }
},📝 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.
| theme: { | |
| type: String, | |
| required: true, | |
| default: "light", | |
| }, | |
| theme: { | |
| type: String, | |
| required: true, | |
| default: "light", | |
| enum: { | |
| values: ["light", "dark"], | |
| message: '{VALUE} is not a supported theme' | |
| } | |
| }, |
| monitors: [ | ||
| { | ||
| type: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId, | ||
| ref: "Monitor", | ||
| required: true, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
These monitor refs need some indexes to perform! 🍝
The monitors array field should be indexed to improve query performance when looking up status pages by monitor IDs.
Add this index like you're dropping bars:
monitors: [
{
type: mongoose.Schema.Types.ObjectId,
ref: "Monitor",
required: true,
},
],
+}, {
+ timestamps: true,
+ indexes: [{ monitors: 1 }]Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
|
|
||
| // Status Page | ||
| STATUS_PAGE_BY_URL: "Got status page by url successfully", | ||
| STATUS_PAGE_CREATE: "Status page created successfully", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo, we're missing some success messages for common operations!
While the current success messages are on point, we should add messages for other standard CRUD operations to maintain consistency.
Add these success messages to complete the set:
// Status Page
STATUS_PAGE_BY_URL: "Got status page by url successfully",
STATUS_PAGE_CREATE: "Status page created successfully",
+STATUS_PAGE_UPDATE: "Status page updated successfully",
+STATUS_PAGE_DELETE: "Status page deleted successfully",
+STATUS_PAGE_GET_ALL: "Got all status pages successfully",📝 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.
| // Status Page | |
| STATUS_PAGE_BY_URL: "Got status page by url successfully", | |
| STATUS_PAGE_CREATE: "Status page created successfully", | |
| // Status Page | |
| STATUS_PAGE_BY_URL: "Got status page by url successfully", | |
| STATUS_PAGE_CREATE: "Status page created successfully", | |
| STATUS_PAGE_UPDATE: "Status page updated successfully", | |
| STATUS_PAGE_DELETE: "Status page deleted successfully", | |
| STATUS_PAGE_GET_ALL: "Got all status pages successfully", |
| const getStatusPageParamValidation = joi.object({ | ||
| url: joi.string().required(), | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add URL format validation to prevent invalid URLs.
The URL validation could be strengthened by adding format checks.
const getStatusPageParamValidation = joi.object({
- url: joi.string().required(),
+ url: joi.string().uri().lowercase().required()
+ .pattern(/^[a-z0-9-]+$/)
+ .messages({
+ 'string.uri': 'URL must be a valid URI',
+ 'string.pattern.base': 'URL can only contain lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens'
+ }),
});Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| "/status-page/{url}": { | ||
| "get": { | ||
| "tags": ["status-page"], | ||
| "description": "Get a status page by URL", | ||
| "parameters": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "name": "url", | ||
| "in": "path", | ||
| "required": true, | ||
| "schema": { "type": "string" } | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "200": { | ||
| "description": "OK", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "422": { | ||
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "404": { | ||
| "description": "Not Found", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "500": { | ||
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo dawg, we need some security up in here!
The GET endpoint is missing the security requirement. While it might be intentional for public access, it should be explicitly documented.
If public access is intended:
- Add a comment in the description explaining that this endpoint is publicly accessible
- Consider rate limiting to prevent abuse
If not intended for public access:
Add the security requirement:
}
+ },
+ "security": [
+ {
+ "bearerAuth": []
+ }
+ ]
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| "/status-page/{url}": { | |
| "get": { | |
| "tags": ["status-page"], | |
| "description": "Get a status page by URL", | |
| "parameters": [ | |
| { | |
| "name": "url", | |
| "in": "path", | |
| "required": true, | |
| "schema": { "type": "string" } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "responses": { | |
| "200": { | |
| "description": "OK", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "422": { | |
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "404": { | |
| "description": "Not Found", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "500": { | |
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "/status-page/{url}": { | |
| "get": { | |
| "tags": ["status-page"], | |
| "description": "Get a status page by URL", | |
| "parameters": [ | |
| { | |
| "name": "url", | |
| "in": "path", | |
| "required": true, | |
| "schema": { "type": "string" } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "responses": { | |
| "200": { | |
| "description": "OK", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "422": { | |
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "404": { | |
| "description": "Not Found", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "500": { | |
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "security": [ | |
| { | |
| "bearerAuth": [] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| }, |
| "CreateStatusPageBody": { | ||
| "type": "object", | ||
| "required": ["companyName", "url", "timezone", "color", "theme", "monitors"], | ||
| "properties": { | ||
| "companyName": { "type": "string" }, | ||
| "url": { "type": "string" }, | ||
| "timezone": { "type": "string" }, | ||
| "color": { "type": "string" }, | ||
| "theme": { "type": "string" }, | ||
| "monitors": { | ||
| "type": "array", | ||
| "items": { "type": "string" } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Mom's spaghetti time - let's beef up this schema!
The schema needs more robust field definitions:
- Missing field descriptions
- No validation patterns/constraints
- No examples for better documentation
Enhance the schema with these improvements:
"CreateStatusPageBody": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["companyName", "url", "timezone", "color", "theme", "monitors"],
"properties": {
- "companyName": { "type": "string" },
+ "companyName": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "description": "Name of the company to display on the status page",
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "example": "Acme Corp"
+ },
- "url": { "type": "string" },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "description": "Unique URL identifier for the status page",
+ "pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]+$",
+ "minLength": 3,
+ "maxLength": 50,
+ "example": "acme-status"
+ },
- "timezone": { "type": "string" },
+ "timezone": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "description": "IANA timezone identifier",
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_/]+$",
+ "example": "America/Toronto"
+ },
- "color": { "type": "string" },
+ "color": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "description": "Primary brand color in hex format",
+ "pattern": "^#[0-9A-Fa-f]{6}$",
+ "example": "#FF5733"
+ },
- "theme": { "type": "string" },
+ "theme": {
+ "type": "string",
+ "description": "Visual theme for the status page",
+ "enum": ["light", "dark"],
+ "default": "light"
+ },
"monitors": {
"type": "array",
+ "description": "List of monitor IDs to display on the status page",
+ "minItems": 1,
"items": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}📝 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.
| "CreateStatusPageBody": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "required": ["companyName", "url", "timezone", "color", "theme", "monitors"], | |
| "properties": { | |
| "companyName": { "type": "string" }, | |
| "url": { "type": "string" }, | |
| "timezone": { "type": "string" }, | |
| "color": { "type": "string" }, | |
| "theme": { "type": "string" }, | |
| "monitors": { | |
| "type": "array", | |
| "items": { "type": "string" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| "CreateStatusPageBody": { | |
| "type": "object", | |
| "required": ["companyName", "url", "timezone", "color", "theme", "monitors"], | |
| "properties": { | |
| "companyName": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "description": "Name of the company to display on the status page", | |
| "minLength": 1, | |
| "maxLength": 100, | |
| "example": "Acme Corp" | |
| }, | |
| "url": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "description": "Unique URL identifier for the status page", | |
| "pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]+$", | |
| "minLength": 3, | |
| "maxLength": 50, | |
| "example": "acme-status" | |
| }, | |
| "timezone": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "description": "IANA timezone identifier", | |
| "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_/]+$", | |
| "example": "America/Toronto" | |
| }, | |
| "color": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "description": "Primary brand color in hex format", | |
| "pattern": "^#[0-9A-Fa-f]{6}$", | |
| "example": "#FF5733" | |
| }, | |
| "theme": { | |
| "type": "string", | |
| "description": "Visual theme for the status page", | |
| "enum": ["light", "dark"], | |
| "default": "light" | |
| }, | |
| "monitors": { | |
| "type": "array", | |
| "description": "List of monitor IDs to display on the status page", | |
| "minItems": 1, | |
| "items": { "type": "string" } | |
| } | |
| } |
| ], | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "200": { | ||
| "description": "OK", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "422": { | ||
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "404": { | ||
| "description": "Not Found", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "500": { | ||
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "post": { | ||
| "tags": ["status-page"], | ||
| "description": "Create a status page", | ||
| "requestBody": { | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/CreateStatusPageBody" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "responses": { | ||
| "200": { | ||
| "description": "OK", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "422": { | ||
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "400": { | ||
| "description": "Duplicate URL", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "500": { | ||
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | ||
| "content": { | ||
| "application/json": { | ||
| "schema": { | ||
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "security": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "bearerAuth": [] | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hold up, something ain't right with these paths!
The endpoint paths seem inconsistent with the PR objectives. The PR mentions api/v1/status-page but the specification shows /status-page/{url}. This could cause routing issues.
Update the paths to match the intended structure:
- "/status-page/{url}": {
+ "/api/v1/status-page/{url}": {📝 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.
| "/status-page/{url}": { | |
| "get": { | |
| "tags": ["status-page"], | |
| "description": "Get a status page by URL", | |
| "parameters": [ | |
| { | |
| "name": "url", | |
| "in": "path", | |
| "required": true, | |
| "schema": { "type": "string" } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "responses": { | |
| "200": { | |
| "description": "OK", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "422": { | |
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "404": { | |
| "description": "Not Found", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "500": { | |
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "post": { | |
| "tags": ["status-page"], | |
| "description": "Create a status page", | |
| "requestBody": { | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/CreateStatusPageBody" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "responses": { | |
| "200": { | |
| "description": "OK", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "422": { | |
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "400": { | |
| "description": "Duplicate URL", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "500": { | |
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "security": [ | |
| { | |
| "bearerAuth": [] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } | |
| "/api/v1/status-page/{url}": { | |
| "get": { | |
| "tags": ["status-page"], | |
| "description": "Get a status page by URL", | |
| "parameters": [ | |
| { | |
| "name": "url", | |
| "in": "path", | |
| "required": true, | |
| "schema": { "type": "string" } | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "responses": { | |
| "200": { | |
| "description": "OK", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "422": { | |
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "404": { | |
| "description": "Not Found", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "500": { | |
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "post": { | |
| "tags": ["status-page"], | |
| "description": "Create a status page", | |
| "requestBody": { | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/CreateStatusPageBody" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "responses": { | |
| "200": { | |
| "description": "OK", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/SuccessResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "422": { | |
| "description": "Unprocessable Content", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "400": { | |
| "description": "Duplicate URL", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "500": { | |
| "description": "Internal Server Error", | |
| "content": { | |
| "application/json": { | |
| "schema": { | |
| "$ref": "#/components/schemas/ErrorResponse" | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "security": [ | |
| { | |
| "bearerAuth": [] | |
| } | |
| ] | |
| } |
| theme: { | ||
| type: String, | ||
| required: true, | ||
| default: "light", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to store the theme as well? I thought that was dealt with locally
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@marcelluscaio yes I'm not quite sure of the usage of this one either, I just followed the spec and there was a theme field in it 😛 It could be that the spec was from an earlier iteration before we had theme defined at all actually.
If it turns out we don't need this we can remove it when we're clear on its usage 👍 Thanks for being vigilant!
This PR lays the groundwork for the stauts page described in #1131
api/v1/status-page