Test Electron App #13770
Test Electron App #13770
Conversation
…Giddh-New-Angular4-App into test-electron-build
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily involve updates to the versioning of the Changes
Suggested reviewers
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command 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[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
electron-sign/electron-builder.json (1)
53-56: Consider Environment-Specific Build ConfigurationsThe current changes suggest this might be a test configuration. Consider:
- Maintaining separate builder configurations for test/production environments
- Using environment variables for sensitive values
- Implementing a validation step in CI/CD to ensure production builds maintain proper signing and publisher information
This will help prevent test configurations from accidentally being used in production builds.
electron-sign/electron-builder-test.json (1)
Line range hint
1-71: Consider environment-specific configuration inheritanceSince this is a test environment configuration, consider:
- Creating a base configuration with common settings
- Using environment-specific overrides for test/production
- Maintaining separate S3 buckets with clear naming for test builds (already done with "giddh-app-builds-test")
- Adding build metadata to identify test builds
This would make it easier to:
- Track which builds are for testing
- Prevent accidental publishing of test builds to production
- Maintain consistent base configuration across environments
apps/web-giddh/webpack.electron.prod.partial.js (1)
Line range hint
1-41: Architecture Advice: Improve Configuration ManagementThe current configuration structure has several areas for improvement:
- Environment-specific configurations are mixed
- URLs are hardcoded
- Duplicate configurations between root and process.env
Consider implementing these improvements:
- Use a configuration management system (like node-config)
- Implement environment-based configuration loading
- Add validation for required environment variables
- Document the configuration structure and environment requirements
- Add configuration schema validation
Would you like assistance in implementing any of these improvements?
apps/web-giddh/src/app/signup/signup.component.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-489: Consider splitting the component for better maintainability.The SignupComponent handles multiple authentication methods and has grown quite large. Consider:
- Breaking it down into smaller, focused components (e.g., EmailSignup, MobileSignup, OtpSignup)
- Creating a facade service to handle the authentication logic
- Moving the state management logic to dedicated services
This would improve:
- Code maintainability
- Testing capabilities
- Reusability
- Separation of concerns
apps/web-giddh/src/app/login/login.component.ts (1)
Line range hint
444-450: Enhance error handling in OTP callbacksWhile the current implementation is functional, consider enhancing the error handling to provide more specific error messages to users.
failure: (error: any) => { - this.toaster.errorToast(error?.message); + const errorMessage = error?.message || 'OTP verification failed. Please try again.'; + this.toaster.errorToast(errorMessage); + this.loaderService.hide(); // Ensure loader is hidden on error }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (16)
apps/electron-giddh/src/package.json(1 hunks)apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts(1 hunks)apps/web-giddh/src/app/login/login.component.ts(2 hunks)apps/web-giddh/src/app/signup/signup.component.ts(2 hunks)apps/web-giddh/src/custom-typings.d.ts(0 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.electron.partial.js(0 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.electron.prod.partial.js(1 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.local.partial.js(0 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.partial.js(0 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.prod.partial.js(0 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.stage.partial.js(0 hunks)apps/web-giddh/webpack.test.partial.js(0 hunks)electron-sign/electron-builder-ci.json(1 hunks)electron-sign/electron-builder-test.json(2 hunks)electron-sign/electron-builder.json(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (7)
- apps/web-giddh/src/custom-typings.d.ts
- apps/web-giddh/webpack.electron.partial.js
- apps/web-giddh/webpack.local.partial.js
- apps/web-giddh/webpack.partial.js
- apps/web-giddh/webpack.prod.partial.js
- apps/web-giddh/webpack.stage.partial.js
- apps/web-giddh/webpack.test.partial.js
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- apps/electron-giddh/src/package.json
- package.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts
646-646: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
electron-sign/electron-builder.json (1)
56-56:
Review Required: Disabled Executable Signing
Setting signAndEditExecutable to false disables executable signing, which:
- May be intended for testing purposes
- Should not be used in production builds
- Could affect Windows SmartScreen filtering
Please confirm if this is intentionally disabled for testing purposes only.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the search results and generate additional verification scripts to understand the signing configuration better.
This will help us understand:
- All electron builder configurations and their signing settings
- The notarization process implementation
- Whether this is a development/test configuration or production one
Let me analyze the results to provide a comprehensive response about the signing configuration.
Windows Code Signing Intentionally Disabled for Development
Based on the analysis of the electron builder configurations, the signAndEditExecutable: false setting is intentionally configured across all environments (production, CI, and test) as the application uses different signing approaches for different platforms:
-
For macOS: Full signing and notarization is implemented using:
- Code signing with specified identity
- Notarization using Apple's notarytool
- Proper entitlements and provisioning profiles
-
For Windows: The application appears to be using an alternative signing process outside the electron-builder configuration, as evidenced by:
- Empty
publisherNamefield - Disabled
signAndEditExecutableacross all configs - Presence of CI/production deployment configurations
- Empty
This is a valid configuration pattern where Windows code signing is handled in the deployment pipeline rather than during the electron-builder phase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for other signing-related configurations
echo "Checking for signing configurations across the codebase..."
rg "sign" --type json -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 36765
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for electron builder configuration files and their signing settings
echo "Checking electron builder configuration files..."
fd electron-builder.*\.json$ --exec cat {}
# Check for notarize.js file that's referenced in the configs
echo -e "\nChecking notarize.js content..."
cat electron-sign/notarize.js
Length of output: 7285
electron-sign/electron-builder-test.json (1)
12-12: LGTM: Path normalization looks good
The simplified output directory path maintains the same target location while using a more standard notation.
apps/web-giddh/webpack.electron.prod.partial.js (1)
13-13: Security: Review AWS Amplify endpoint usage
The configuration exposes an AWS Amplify endpoint (master.d2n1i21e52r793.amplifyapp.com). This raises security concerns:
- Direct reference to infrastructure
- Potential for unauthorized access
- Difficulty in environment management
Let's verify the usage of this endpoint:
Also applies to: 37-37
apps/web-giddh/src/app/signup/signup.component.ts (1)
7-7: LGTM! Import changes are well-organized.
The new OTP-related constants are properly imported and follow Angular's naming conventions.
apps/web-giddh/src/app/login/login.component.ts (2)
7-7: LGTM! Import statement is correctly updated
The new OTP constants are properly imported alongside existing configuration imports.
441-443: Verify OTP provider integration with new token
The configuration update for OTP authentication needs verification to ensure:
- The new token is properly configured in the environment
- The OTP provider accepts the new token format
- The integration works in both development and production environments
✅ Verification successful
OTP configuration is properly integrated and consistent
The verification shows that the OTP token configuration is properly implemented:
- The token is defined as a constant in
app.constant.ts - It's consistently used across login and signup components with the same configuration pattern
- The add-company component uses a new token variant (OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN_NEW) which appears to be intentional
- No legacy token references (OTP_TOKEN_AUTH) were found
- The token is properly scoped and not exposed in environment configurations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify OTP token configuration and usage
# Check if the OTP token is consistently used across the codebase
echo "Checking OTP token usage consistency..."
rg -l "OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN"
# Check for any remaining old token references
echo "Checking for old token references..."
rg -l "OTP_TOKEN_AUTH"
# Verify environment configurations
echo "Checking environment configurations..."
fd -e ts -e js "environment" -x cat {} \; | rg "OTP_"
Length of output: 558
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual token configuration and usage
# Check the constant definition
echo "=== Checking OTP token constant definition ==="
rg -A 2 "OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN" apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts
# Check how it's used in each file
echo -e "\n=== Checking login component usage ==="
rg -B 2 -A 2 "OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN" apps/web-giddh/src/app/login/login.component.ts
echo -e "\n=== Checking signup component usage ==="
rg -B 2 -A 2 "OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN" apps/web-giddh/src/app/signup/signup.component.ts
echo -e "\n=== Checking add-company component usage ==="
rg -B 2 -A 2 "OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN" apps/web-giddh/src/app/add-company/add-company.component.ts
# Check for any environment-specific configurations
echo -e "\n=== Checking environment files ==="
fd -e ts "environment.prod" -x cat {} \;
Length of output: 4457
apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts (1)
645-647: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Clarify the purpose of multiple OTP configurations
The codebase has two sets of OTP widget configurations:
- OTP_WIDGET_ID and OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN
- OTP_WIDGET_ID_NEW and OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN_NEW
This could lead to confusion about which credentials should be used.
Let's verify the usage of these constants:
Consider:
- Adding documentation to explain the purpose of each configuration
- If the old configuration is no longer needed, remove it
- If this represents a transition, add a TODO comment with migration timeline
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response as the usage pattern is clear:
Distinct OTP configurations serve different authentication flows
The codebase shows clear separation of OTP widget usage:
- Original configuration (OTP_WIDGET_ID, OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN) is used in authentication flows (login.component.ts, signup.component.ts)
- New configuration (OTP_WIDGET_ID_NEW, OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN_NEW) is used in company creation flow (add-company.component.ts)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of both old and new OTP widget constants
echo "Searching for OTP widget constant usage..."
rg "OTP_WIDGET_ID|OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN" -A 2
Length of output: 3113
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
646-646: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
| ], | ||
| "publisherName": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd", | ||
| "legalTrademarks": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd" | ||
| "icon": "./resources/icon.ico", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Incorrect icon path in electron-builder.json
The specified icon path ./resources/icon.ico is invalid as the icon file is actually located at apps/web-giddh/src/resources/icon.ico. The path needs to be updated to point to the correct location.
- Update the Windows icon path in
electron-sign/electron-builder.jsonto use../apps/web-giddh/src/resources/icon.ico
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the icon resource path exists
The icon path has been updated to use the resources directory. Let's verify this path is correct.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the icon file exists in the specified path
if [ -f "./resources/icon.ico" ]; then
echo "Icon file exists"
else
echo "Warning: Icon file not found at ./resources/icon.ico"
# List contents of resources directory if it exists
if [ -d "./resources" ]; then
echo "Contents of resources directory:"
ls -la ./resources
else
echo "Resources directory not found"
fi
fi
Length of output: 242
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if the icon exists in any other location
fd -g "icon.ico" -t f
# Also check the electron-builder.json to see if there are any other icon paths mentioned
rg "icon" electron-sign/electron-builder.json -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 653
| "publisherName": "", | ||
| "legalTrademarks": "", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Security Concern: Code Signing Configuration Intentionally Disabled
The empty publisher fields are consistent across all configuration files (electron-builder.json, electron-builder-test.json, and electron-builder-ci.json). This appears to be an intentional configuration choice as signAndEditExecutable is also set to false in the Windows build settings. This indicates the application is deliberately configured to not use code signing for Windows builds.
- All three configuration files have:
- Empty
publisherNameandlegalTrademarks "signAndEditExecutable": falsein the Windows configuration- Consistent configuration across production, test, and CI environments
- Empty
While this may be acceptable for development or testing purposes, it poses security risks for production builds as unsigned applications will trigger Windows security warnings and reduce user trust.
🔗 Analysis chain
Security Concern: Missing Publisher Information
Removing the publisher name and legal trademarks could affect the app's legitimacy on Windows systems. This might:
- Trigger security warnings during installation
- Impact code signing verification
- Affect user trust
Consider maintaining these fields, especially for production builds.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if this is consistent across other electron builder configs
echo "Checking other electron builder configurations..."
rg -l "publisherName|legalTrademarks" --type json
Length of output: 276
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of these configuration files
echo "Content of electron-builder.json:"
cat electron-sign/electron-builder.json
echo -e "\nContent of electron-builder-test.json:"
cat electron-sign/electron-builder-test.json
echo -e "\nContent of electron-builder-ci.json:"
cat electron-sign/electron-builder-ci.json
Length of output: 6334
| "publisherName": "", | ||
| "legalTrademarks": "", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Security: Empty publisher information may affect Windows SmartScreen reputation
Removing the publisher name and trademarks could impact the application's reputation on Windows and trigger SmartScreen warnings for users. Consider maintaining the publisher information for better user trust and security reputation.
- "publisherName": "",
- "legalTrademarks": "",
+ "publisherName": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd",
+ "legalTrademarks": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd",📝 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.
| "publisherName": "", | |
| "legalTrademarks": "", | |
| "publisherName": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd", | |
| "legalTrademarks": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd", |
| "icon": "./resources/icon.ico", | ||
| "publisherName": "", | ||
| "legalTrademarks": "", | ||
| "signAndEditExecutable": false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Security: Disabled executable signing may impact application security
Disabling executable signing (signAndEditExecutable: false) and removing signing hash algorithms could:
- Trigger Windows SmartScreen warnings
- Make it harder for users to verify the application's authenticity
- Reduce trust in the distribution process
Consider maintaining proper code signing for production builds.
- "signAndEditExecutable": false
+ "signAndEditExecutable": true,
+ "signingHashAlgorithms": ["sha256"]📝 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.
| "signAndEditExecutable": false | |
| "signAndEditExecutable": true, | |
| "signingHashAlgorithms": ["sha256"] |
| ], | ||
| "publisherName": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd", | ||
| "legalTrademarks": "Walkover Technologies Pvt Ltd" | ||
| "icon": "./resources/icon.ico", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Icon path needs to be updated to match actual location
The specified icon path ./resources/icon.ico in electron-builder-ci.json is incorrect. The icon file actually exists at apps/web-giddh/src/resources/icon.ico. The current path will cause the build to fail as the resources directory doesn't exist at the expected location relative to the configuration file.
- Update the icon path in
electron-sign/electron-builder-ci.jsonto use the correct relative path:../apps/web-giddh/src/resources/icon.ico
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the icon resource path exists
The icon path has been updated to use a more explicit path. Let's verify the resources directory structure.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence of the icon resource
# Expected: The icon file should exist in the resources directory
# Check if the resources directory and icon file exist
fd -t f "icon.ico" -p "resources"
Length of output: 128
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if the resources directory exists anywhere in the repository
fd -t d "resources"
# Also search for any .ico files in the repository
fd -t f ".ico$"
# Check the content of the electron-builder-ci.json to understand the context better
cat electron-sign/electron-builder-ci.json
Length of output: 2248
| "icon": "./resources/icon.ico", | ||
| "publisherName": "", | ||
| "legalTrademarks": "", | ||
| "signAndEditExecutable": false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Icon path is incorrect and needs to be updated
The icon file exists at apps/web-giddh/src/resources/icon.ico, but the electron builder configs are looking for it at ./resources/icon.ico. This path mismatch needs to be fixed.
- Update the icon path in the following files to point to the correct location:
- electron-sign/electron-builder-test.json
- electron-sign/electron-builder.json
- electron-sign/electron-builder-ci.json
Regarding the empty publisher information and disabled code signing: this appears to be an intentional configuration across all builder files, likely for test/development purposes, so no changes are needed there.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify Windows build configuration changes
Several potentially concerning changes in the Windows configuration:
- Empty publisher information (
publisherNameandlegalTrademarks) might affect Windows app verification and user trust. - Disabled code signing (
signAndEditExecutable: false) could impact security and Windows SmartScreen verification.
Let's verify the icon path and configuration:
Consider:
- Restoring the publisher information to maintain Windows app verification
- Document the reasoning for disabling code signing in test builds
The first verification revealed that the icon is missing and the empty publisher configuration is consistent across all builder configs. Let's search for icon files and their references to understand if this is a path issue or a missing resource.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the icon file exists in the specified location
if [ -f "./resources/icon.ico" ]; then
echo "✓ Icon file exists"
else
echo "✗ Icon file not found at ./resources/icon.ico"
fi
# Check other electron builder configs for consistency
echo "Checking other electron builder configs for comparison:"
rg -A 5 '"publisherName"' electron-sign/
Length of output: 1438
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if the icon exists in other potential locations and find all icon files
echo "Searching for icon files:"
fd -e ico
# Check if there are any references to icon paths in the codebase
echo -e "\nChecking icon path references:"
rg -g '!{*.lock,package-lock.json}' "icon.*\.(ico|png)"
Length of output: 5013
| @@ -8,37 +8,33 @@ module.exports = { | |||
| 'errlyticsNeeded': JSON.stringify(false), | |||
| 'errlyticsKey': JSON.stringify(''), | |||
| 'AppUrl': JSON.stringify('./'), | |||
| 'ApiUrl': JSON.stringify('https://api.giddh.com/'), | |||
| 'ApiUrl': JSON.stringify('https://apitest.giddh.com/'), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Production configuration contains test environment settings
The production Webpack configuration contains test environment values which is concerning:
- Test API endpoint:
https://apitest.giddh.com/ - Test portal URL: AWS Amplify endpoint
- Production flag set to
false - Test flag set to
true
This mixing of environments in a production configuration file could lead to:
- Accidental deployment of test endpoints to production
- Security risks from exposing internal endpoints
- Confusion in deployment pipelines
Consider:
- Maintaining separate configurations for test and production
- Using environment variables instead of hardcoded URLs
- Implementing configuration validation in your CI/CD pipeline
- 'ApiUrl': JSON.stringify('https://apitest.giddh.com/'),
+ 'ApiUrl': JSON.stringify(process.env.API_URL || 'https://api.giddh.com/'),
- 'PORTAL_URL': JSON.stringify('https://master.d2n1i21e52r793.amplifyapp.com/'),
+ 'PORTAL_URL': JSON.stringify(process.env.PORTAL_URL || 'https://portal.giddh.com/'),
- 'PRODUCTION_ENV': JSON.stringify(false),
+ 'PRODUCTION_ENV': JSON.stringify(true),
- 'TEST_ENV': JSON.stringify(true),
+ 'TEST_ENV': JSON.stringify(false),Also applies to: 13-13, 15-15, 17-17
| 'process.env.ENV': JSON.stringify('production'), | ||
| 'process.env.NODE_ENV': JSON.stringify('production'), | ||
| 'process.env.isElectron': JSON.stringify(true), | ||
| 'process.env.errlyticsNeeded': JSON.stringify(false), | ||
| 'process.env.errlyticsKey': JSON.stringify(''), | ||
| 'process.env.AppUrl': JSON.stringify('./'), | ||
| 'process.env.ApiUrl': JSON.stringify('https://api.giddh.com/'), | ||
| 'process.env.ApiUrl': JSON.stringify('https://apitest.giddh.com/'), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inconsistent environment variables in process.env
The same test endpoints are duplicated in process.env configuration. This needs to be synchronized with the earlier changes.
Apply the same environment-based configuration:
- 'process.env.ApiUrl': JSON.stringify('https://apitest.giddh.com/'),
+ 'process.env.ApiUrl': JSON.stringify(process.env.API_URL || 'https://api.giddh.com/'),
- 'process.PORTAL_URL': JSON.stringify('https://master.d2n1i21e52r793.amplifyapp.com/'),
+ 'process.PORTAL_URL': JSON.stringify(process.env.PORTAL_URL || 'https://portal.giddh.com/'),Also applies to: 37-37
| @@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ export class SignupComponent implements OnInit, OnDestroy { | |||
|
|
|||
| let configuration = { | |||
| widgetId: OTP_WIDGET_ID, | |||
| tokenAuth: OTP_TOKEN_AUTH, | |||
| tokenAuth: OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Hardcoded OTP tokens and insufficient error handling detected
Based on the verification results:
-
Security concerns:
- OTP tokens and widget IDs are hardcoded in
app.constant.ts - Tokens are exposed in client-side code:
OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN = '205968TmXguUAwoD633af103P1'
- OTP tokens and widget IDs are hardcoded in
-
Error handling limitations:
- Basic error handling only shows toast messages
- No retry mechanism implemented for OTP verification failures
- No rate limiting for OTP attempts
-
Integration issues:
- OTP provider script is loaded from an external URL without integrity checks
- No validation of OTP provider's response structure
Recommendations:
- Move OTP tokens to environment configuration or secure backend endpoints
- Implement proper rate limiting and retry mechanisms
- Add response validation and enhanced error handling
- Consider using Content Security Policy for external script loading
🔗 Analysis chain
Enhance security and error handling for OTP configuration.
Consider the following security and reliability improvements:
- Validate the OTP provider's response data structure
- Implement rate limiting for OTP attempts
- Add retry mechanism for failed OTP initialization
Let's verify the OTP provider integration:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for proper OTP provider integration and potential security issues
# Check if OTP provider URL is properly configured
rg -l "OTP_PROVIDER_URL.*=.*" --type ts
# Look for any hardcoded OTP tokens or IDs
rg -i "otp.*token|widget.*token|otp.*id|widget.*id" --type ts
# Check for proper error handling in OTP-related code
rg -A 5 "failure.*=.*\{" --type ts
Length of output: 12743
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts (1)
601-602:⚠️ Potential issueSecurity Risk: Sensitive credentials exposed in client-side code
The OTP widget credentials are hardcoded in the client-side code, which poses a security risk as these could be misused if compromised.
Consider moving these credentials to environment variables:
-export const OTP_WIDGET_ID = '326a63733354393830313330'; -export const OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN = '205968TmXguUAwoD633af103P1'; +export const OTP_WIDGET_ID = process.env.OTP_WIDGET_ID; +export const OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN = process.env.OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN;🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
602-602: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
apps/electron-giddh/src/package.json(1 hunks)apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts(1 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- apps/electron-giddh/src/package.json
- package.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
apps/web-giddh/src/app/app.constant.ts
602-602: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
| export const OTP_WIDGET_ID = '326a63733354393830313330'; | ||
| export const OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN = '205968TmXguUAwoD633af103P1'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Code Duplication: Similar OTP widget constants already exist
There are duplicate OTP widget constants (OTP_WIDGET_ID_NEW and OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN_NEW) with similar purposes. This could lead to confusion and maintenance issues.
Consider:
- Using only one set of constants if they serve the same purpose
- If both sets are needed, add comments explaining the difference in their usage
- Consider using an enum or configuration object to group related constants:
export const OTP_WIDGET_CONFIG = {
LEGACY: {
ID: process.env.OTP_WIDGET_ID,
TOKEN: process.env.OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN
},
NEW: {
ID: process.env.OTP_WIDGET_ID_NEW,
TOKEN: process.env.OTP_WIDGET_TOKEN_NEW
}
} as const;🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
602-602: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
npm run package:windows
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Configuration Changes
Chores