Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 19dd243 and 8078d0b.

• src/Argon.Api/Argon.Api.csproj (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Controllers/UsersController.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Grains.Interfaces/IUserManager.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/ChannelStorage.cs (2 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/ServerStorage.cs (2 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/UserStorage.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/UserStorageDto.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Grains/UserManager.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Program.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Services/UserAuthorization.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Api/Services/UserInteractionService.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Contracts/Argon.Contracts.csproj (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Contracts/IUserAuthorization.cs (1 hunks)
• src/Argon.Contracts/IUserInteraction.cs (1 hunks)

src/Argon.Api/Services/UserAuthorization.cs (2)

11-12: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Verify authorization flow and add input validation.

The authorization implementation has several areas that need attention:

1. The method lacks input validation for username and password
2. No error handling for invalid credentials or system failures
3. The token response doesn't include any expiration or scope information

Here's a suggested improvement:

 public async Task<AuthorizeResponse> AuthorizeAsync(AuthorizeRequest request)
 {
+    if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(request.username) || string.IsNullOrEmpty(request.password))
+    {
+        throw new ArgumentException("Username and password are required");
+    }
+
     // TODO machineKey
-    var token = await grainFactory.GetGrain<IUserManager>(request.username).Authorize(request.password);
-    return new AuthorizeResponse(token);
+    try
+    {
+        var token = await grainFactory.GetGrain<IUserManager>(request.username).Authorize(request.password);
+        return new AuthorizeResponse(token);
+    }
+    catch (Exception ex) when (ex is UnauthorizedAccessException or InvalidOperationException)
+    {
+        throw new UnauthorizedAccessException("Invalid credentials", ex);
+    }
 }

Let's verify the impact of the Authenticate to Authorize rename:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to Authenticate
echo "Checking for remaining Authenticate references..."
rg "Authenticate[^d]" --type cs

# Search for places where IUserManager is used
echo "Checking IUserManager usage..."
ast-grep --pattern 'interface IUserManager {
  $$$
}'

---

11-11: Address the TODO comment regarding machineKey implementation.

The missing machine key implementation could have security implications for the authorization process. This should be addressed before the code goes to production.

Let's verify if there are any other machine key related TODOs or implementations:

Would you like me to help implement a secure machine key generation and management solution?

src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/UserStorageDto.cs (3)

3-4: LGTM! Required imports for new functionality.

The new imports are necessary to support the mapping functionality and contract types.

---

20-29: Add XML documentation for the implicit conversion operator.

While the implementation is correct, adding documentation would improve clarity about when this conversion occurs.

Consider adding XML documentation:

+    /// <summary>
+    /// Implicitly converts a UserStorageDto to a UserResponse.
+    /// This enables automatic conversion when returning storage data through the API.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <param name="userStorageDto">The storage DTO to convert</param>
     public static implicit operator UserResponse(UserStorageDto userStorageDto)

Let's verify the UserResponse contract matches this implementation:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify UserResponse constructor signature matches our conversion
ast-grep --pattern 'record UserResponse(Guid $_, string $_, string $_, DateTime $_, DateTime $_)'

---

11-11: LGTM! Efficient use of compile-time mapping generation.

The GenerateMapper attribute will auto-generate efficient mapping code at compile time.

Let's verify there are no conflicting manual mappings:

src/Argon.Contracts/Argon.Contracts.csproj (1)

3-21: LGTM! Project configuration follows best practices.

The project configuration is well-structured with:

• Modern .NET 8.0 target
• Nullable reference types enabled
• Appropriate package versioning and asset configurations

src/Argon.Contracts/IUserAuthorization.cs (2)

Line range hint 7-10: LGTM! Clean interface definition.

The interface follows the single responsibility principle and properly defines the authorization contract.

---

30-34: Document token format and verify removal of server information.

The AuthorizeResponse has been simplified to only return a token. Please:

1. Add XML documentation to specify the token format, expiration, and usage
2. Ensure clients are prepared for the removal of server information

#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential token usage patterns and verify if clients expect additional data
rg -A 5 "AuthorizeResponse.*token|token.*AuthorizeResponse"

# Look for any references to the removed server properties to ensure clean migration
rg "servers.*AuthorizeResponse|serverId|serverName|avatarFileId"

src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/ServerStorage.cs (1)

3-3: LGTM!

The addition of the Contracts namespace is consistent with the PR objectives for enhancing serialization and contracts.

src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/ChannelStorage.cs (2)

3-3: LGTM: Using directive aligns with contract enhancements

The addition of the Contracts namespace is appropriate for the new conversion operator.

---

21-33: ⚠️ Potential issue

Several concerns with the implicit conversion operator

1. The semantic mismatch between types raises concerns. Converting a ChannelStorage to a ServerDetailsResponse seems incorrect - shouldn't this convert to a channel-specific response type instead?

2. Using ToString() on enums loses type safety. Consider using a proper enum serialization approach or explicit mapping.

3. The GUID formatting with "N" removes hyphens, which might affect API compatibility. Consider if this format is consistent with other parts of the API.

4. The conversion lacks validation for required fields.

Consider this safer implementation:

-    public static implicit operator ServerDetailsResponse(ChannelStorage channelStorage)
+    public static implicit operator ChannelDetailsResponse(ChannelStorage channelStorage)
     {
+        ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(channelStorage);
+
-        return new ServerDetailsResponse(
+        return new ChannelDetailsResponse(
             channelStorage.Id,
             channelStorage.Name,
             channelStorage.Description,
-            channelStorage.CreatedBy.ToString("N"),
+            channelStorage.CreatedBy.ToString(),  // Use default GUID format for consistency
             channelStorage.ChannelType.ToString(),
-            channelStorage.AccessLevel.ToString(),
+            Enum.GetName<ServerRole>(channelStorage.AccessLevel) ?? throw new InvalidOperationException($"Invalid AccessLevel: {channelStorage.AccessLevel}"),
             channelStorage.CreatedAt,
             channelStorage.UpdatedAt
         );
     }

Let's verify the usage of GUID formats and response types across the codebase:

src/Argon.Api/Program.cs (1)

21-21: LGTM! Verify DI registration.

The RPC server registration follows the correct pattern. Let's verify the service registration:

src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/UserStorage.cs (2)

7-11: LGTM: Class-level serialization attributes are properly configured.

The record is correctly decorated with necessary attributes for all serialization frameworks in use.

---

Line range hint 49-60: Verify the implicit conversion operator's completeness.

The implicit conversion to UserStorageDto looks correct, but let's verify that no new properties have been added to UserStorageDto that should be included in this conversion.

✅ Verification successful

The implicit conversion operator is complete and correct

The conversion operator correctly maps all properties from UserStorage to UserStorageDto. The verification shows that UserStorageDto contains exactly the same properties that are being mapped:

• Id
• Username
• AvatarUrl
• CreatedAt
• UpdatedAt

All these properties are properly included in the implicit conversion operator, maintaining perfect alignment between both types.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for UserStorageDto definition to verify property alignment
ast-grep --pattern 'record UserStorageDto
{
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 54

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find UserStorageDto definition
# First, let's find the file containing UserStorageDto
fd "UserStorageDto" --type f

# Then let's use ripgrep to find the definition with context
rg "class UserStorageDto|record UserStorageDto" -A 10

Length of output: 1222

src/Argon.Api/Argon.Api.csproj (1)

14-17: LGTM! Good choice for enhancing serialization.

The addition of MemoryPack.Generator is well-configured and aligns with the PR's serialization enhancement objectives. The package version matches the main MemoryPack package, and the assets configuration is appropriate for source generators.

Let's verify the Orleans serialization integration:

✅ Verification successful

MemoryPack integration is properly configured and working as expected

The verification shows:

• Both MemoryPack and MemoryPack.Generator packages are referenced with matching versions (1.21.3)
• Orleans is configured with memory grain storage
• Multiple grain state classes are properly decorated with both Orleans' [GenerateSerializer] and MemoryPack's [MemoryPackable] attributes, indicating correct dual serialization support
• The integration pattern is consistently applied across all persistence state classes

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for MemoryPack serializer configuration in Orleans
# Expected: Find any custom serializer configurations or attributes that might affect MemoryPack integration

# Search for serializer configurations
rg -l "ISerializationProvider|SerializerFeature|MemoryPack" 

# Search for MemoryPack attributes on grain interfaces/states
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ { 
  $$$
  [MemoryPackable]
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 908

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of some key files to verify the integration

# Check Orleans configuration
rg -A 5 "AddMemoryGrainStorage|ISerializationProvider" src/Argon.Api/Extensions/OrleansExtension.cs

# Check MemoryPack usage in state files
rg -B 2 "\[MemoryPack" src/Argon.Api/Grains.Persistence.States/*.cs

# Check if MemoryPack main package is referenced
rg "MemoryPack" src/Argon.Api/Argon.Api.csproj

Length of output: 3198

src/Argon.Api/Controllers/UsersController.cs (1)

31-31: ⚠️ Potential issue

Align method name with its implementation

The endpoint is named "Authenticate" but internally calls "Authorize". These terms have distinct meanings in security contexts:

• Authentication: Verifying identity ("who you are")
• Authorization: Checking permissions ("what you can do")

Let's verify the intended behavior:

Consider one of these approaches:

1. If this is identity verification, rename back to Authenticate
2. If this is permission checking, rename the endpoint to match:

-    [HttpPost("authenticate")]
-    public async Task<ActionResult<string>> Authenticate([FromBody] UserInputDto dto)
+    [HttpPost("authorize")]
+    public async Task<ActionResult<string>> Authorize([FromBody] UserInputDto dto)
     {
         var userManager = grainFactory.GetGrain<IUserManager>(dto.Username);
         var token = await userManager.Authorize(dto.Password);
         return token;
     }

✅ Verification successful

Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:

The method naming is consistent with its implementation

Looking at the codebase, this is actually a correct implementation where:

1. The Authorize method in UserManager.cs performs identity verification by checking password and generating a JWT token
2. The [Alias("Authenticate")] attribute in IUserManager.cs explicitly maps "Authenticate" to this implementation
3. The [Authorize] attributes on other endpoints are ASP.NET Core authorization attributes for protecting routes using the JWT token

The naming is semantically correct as the endpoint first authenticates the user and then provides an authorization token for subsequent requests.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if this is purely a rename or if there are semantic changes in the implementation
rg -A 10 "Authorize|Authenticate" --type cs

Length of output: 10393

src/Argon.Api/Grains/UserManager.cs (1)

Line range hint 39-46: Verify the impact of method rename across the codebase

The rename from Authenticate to Authorize might affect other parts of the codebase that implement or use this interface.

✅ Verification successful

Let's examine the content of these files to understand the impact of the rename.

---

Method rename is properly aligned across the codebase

The rename from Authenticate to Authorize is correctly implemented:

• The interface IUserManager defines the method as Authorize with an [Alias("Authenticate")] attribute
• The implementation in UserManager.cs matches the interface
• All usages in UserAuthorization.cs and UsersController.cs correctly use Authorize
• The HTTP endpoint in UsersController.cs still uses "authenticate" in the route for backward compatibility

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all implementations and usages of Authenticate/Authorize methods

echo "Searching for interface definitions..."
ast-grep --pattern 'interface IUserManager {
  $$$
  $_(string password)
  $$$
}'

echo "Searching for method implementations..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : $_, IUserManager {
  $$$
  $_(string password)
  $$$
}'

echo "Searching for method usages..."
rg -l 'Authenticate|Authorize.*password'

Length of output: 676

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the interface definition and implementations
echo "=== IUserManager.cs ==="
cat src/Argon.Api/Grains.Interfaces/IUserManager.cs

echo -e "\n=== UserAuthorization.cs ==="
cat src/Argon.Api/Services/UserAuthorization.cs

echo -e "\n=== UsersController.cs ==="
cat src/Argon.Api/Controllers/UsersController.cs

echo -e "\n=== JwtExtension.cs ==="
cat src/Argon.Api/Extensions/JwtExtension.cs

Length of output: 6598

src/Argon.Api/Services/UserInteractionService.cs (2)

6-9: ⚠️ Potential issue

Syntax Error: Invalid Class Constructor Syntax

Classes in C# do not support the positional constructor syntax used here. Only records can utilize this primary constructor style. To fix this issue, define the constructor inside the class using the proper syntax.

Apply this diff to correct the syntax error:

-public class UserInteractionService(
-    string username, // TODO to be injected
-    IGrainFactory grainFactory
-) : IUserInteraction
+public class UserInteractionService : IUserInteraction
+{
+    private readonly string username; // TODO to be injected
+    private readonly IGrainFactory grainFactory;
+
+    public UserInteractionService(string username, IGrainFactory grainFactory)
+    {
+        this.username = username;
+        this.grainFactory = grainFactory;
+    }

Likely invalid or redundant comment.

---

30-32: ⚠️ Potential issue

Syntax Error: Missing Type in Object Creation

In the JoinChannel method, the object creation expression uses new without specifying the type. In C# versions prior to 9.0, you must explicitly specify the type when creating new objects. If you're targeting C# 9.0 or later and using target-typed new, ensure that it doesn't reduce code readability.

Apply this diff to specify the type explicitly:

-public async Task<ChannelJoinResponse> JoinChannel(ChannelJoinRequest request) =>
-    new((await grainFactory.GetGrain<IUserManager>(username)
-        .JoinChannel(request.ServerId, request.ChannelId)).value);
+public async Task<ChannelJoinResponse> JoinChannel(ChannelJoinRequest request) =>
+    new ChannelJoinResponse((await grainFactory.GetGrain<IUserManager>(username)
+        .JoinChannel(request.ServerId, request.ChannelId)).value);

Likely invalid or redundant comment.

src/Argon.Contracts/IUserInteraction.cs (2)

145-145: ⚠️ Potential issue

Clarify or address the TODO comment in ServerDetailsResponse

The TODO comment on line 145 mentions "all users currently connected to this channel." Since this is within the ServerDetailsResponse, verify if this information is appropriate here or if it should be part of a ChannelDetailsResponse. Including channel-specific data in a server response might cause confusion.

---

132-136: ⚠️ Potential issue

Verify the relevance of ChannelType and AccessLevel in ServerDetailsResponse

Between lines 132-136, the properties ChannelType and AccessLevel are included in the ServerDetailsResponse. Ensure that these properties are relevant to the server context. If they pertain to channels, consider moving them to a channel-specific response to maintain clarity and proper data encapsulation.