Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes update how the application interacts with its language model provider by replacing the previous Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
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 (
|
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| base_host(request=request, is_app=True), | ||
| "accounts/reset-password?" + urlencode(params), | ||
| ) | ||
| return HttpResponseRedirect(url) |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
URL redirection from remote source Medium
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI about 1 year ago
To fix the problem, we need to ensure that the URL used in the HttpResponseRedirect function is safe and not influenced by untrusted user input. We can achieve this by validating the constructed URL before using it for redirection. Specifically, we can use the url_has_allowed_host_and_scheme function from Django to check that the URL is safe.
- Import the
url_has_allowed_host_and_schemefunction fromdjango.utils.http. - Validate the constructed URL using
url_has_allowed_host_and_schemebefore redirecting.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
apiserver/plane/app/views/external/base.py (2)
119-126: Add robust handling for empty or malformed response objects.While this logic looks correct, it depends on
chat_completion.choices[0].message.contentbeing present. If the response is empty, this may raise an error. Consider checking for an emptychoiceslist or missing fields to guard against unexpected responses.
180-180: Eliminate duplicate provider checks to adhere to DRY principles.This repetition of
if not api_key or not model or not provider:already appears at line 143. Consider extracting it into a helper function or consolidating it at a single point to improve maintainability.apiserver/plane/authentication/views/app/password_management.py (1)
103-116: Improve readability by reducing nested try blocks.This new nested
try/exceptblock correctly handles invaliduidb64and missing user scenarios. However, nesting can be reduced by separating decode logic and user fetch logic into distinct exceptions. This minor refactor would improve clarity while preserving robust error handling.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
apiserver/plane/app/views/external/base.py(3 hunks)apiserver/plane/authentication/views/app/password_management.py(1 hunks)apiserver/requirements/base.txt(3 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (python)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
apiserver/plane/app/views/external/base.py (1)
6-6: Verify import feasibility and usage alignment with the official OpenAI library.The official OpenAI Python package typically provides a module-level API via
import openai. Initializing a client withOpenAI(api_key=...)might rely on a custom wrapper or an older version. Please confirm thatOpenAIis indeed a valid class from your installed package.apiserver/requirements/base.txt (3)
7-7: No notable functional impact.
69-69: No meaningful change detected.
40-40:Details
✅ Verification successful
Check pinned version for security and compatibility.
Pinning
openai==1.63.2ensures consistent behavior but may mask available security or performance patches. Consider verifying if a broader version range is acceptable.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Query PyPI for the latest version of openai and any known vulnerabilities. curl -s https://pypi.org/pypi/openai/json | jq '.info.version' gh api graphql -f query=' { securityVulnerabilities(first: 10, ecosystem: PIP, package: "openai") { nodes { advisory { summary severity publishedAt } vulnerableVersionRange } } } 'Length of output: 358
Verified: Pinned openai==1.63.2 is up-to-date and secure.
The PyPI query confirms that version 1.63.2 is the latest available release and no security vulnerabilities were reported. Since the pin reflects the current release, it maintains consistent and secure dependency management. If you later decide to use a broader version range for automatic updates, please ensure that compatibility and security are revisited periodically.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
apiserver/plane/app/views/intake/base.py (1)
177-181: LGTM! Good error handling improvement.The addition of explicit error handling for missing intake is a good practice. Consider making the error message more descriptive.
- return Response({"error": "Intake not found"}, status=status.HTTP_404_NOT_FOUND) + return Response( + {"error": f"Intake not found for project {project_id}"}, + status=status.HTTP_404_NOT_FOUND + )🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
181-181: Line too long (92 > 88)
(E501)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
apiserver/plane/app/views/intake/base.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
apiserver/plane/app/views/intake/base.py
181-181: Line too long (92 > 88)
(E501)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (python)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apiserver/plane/app/views/intake/base.py (1)
187-187: LGTM! Consistent variable usage.The change from
intake_id.idtointake.idmaintains consistency with the updated variable naming above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
apiserver/requirements/local.txt (1)
1-1: Verify the Removal of Base Requirements Inclusion.The
-r base.txtdirective has been removed, which previously included dependencies from the base requirements file. Please confirm that this change is intentional and that local requirements no longer depend on the base file. If this is part of a broader dependency management change, consider adding a comment or documentation clarifying the new structure.apiserver/plane/utils/valid_uuid.py (1)
3-8: Consider making the UUID version optional.The function currently enforces UUID version 4, which might be too restrictive if other UUID versions are valid in your system. Consider making the version parameter optional with version 4 as the default.
-def is_valid_uuid(uuid_str): +def is_valid_uuid(uuid_str, version=4): try: - uuid.UUID(uuid_str, version=4) + uuid.UUID(uuid_str, version=version) return True except ValueError: return Falseapiserver/plane/app/views/module/issue.py (1)
283-283: Break down the long line for better readability.The line exceeds the recommended length limit of 88 characters. Consider breaking it down into multiple lines.
- {"module_name": module_issue.first().module.name if (module_issue.first() and module_issue.first().module) else None} + { + "module_name": ( + module_issue.first().module.name + if (module_issue.first() and module_issue.first().module) + else None + ) + }🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
283-283: Line too long (137 > 88)
(E501)
apiserver/plane/app/views/issue/base.py (2)
1119-1122: Consider moving validation to a utility module.The
strict_str_to_intmethod could be moved to a utility module since it's a generic validation function that might be useful elsewhere in the codebase.Consider creating a new utility module like
plane/utils/validators.pyand moving this function there.
1126-1133: Improve error message for invalid issue identifier.The error message could be more descriptive to help users understand what constitutes a valid issue identifier.
- {"error": "Invalid issue identifier"}, + { + "error": "Invalid issue identifier. Expected a numeric value.", + "hint": "Issue identifiers must be positive or negative integers." + },apiserver/plane/bgtasks/issue_activities_task.py (2)
1571-1573: Log invalid project_id values.The early return on invalid UUID should log the error to help with debugging.
# check if project_id is valid if not is_valid_uuid(project_id): + log_exception(f"Invalid project_id UUID format: {project_id}") return
1568-1574: Move UUID validation before try block.The UUID validation should be performed before entering the try block since it's a precondition check.
+ # check if project_id is valid + if not is_valid_uuid(project_id): + log_exception(f"Invalid project_id UUID format: {project_id}") + return + try: issue_activities = [] - - # check if project_id is valid - if not is_valid_uuid(project_id): - return
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
apiserver/plane/app/views/issue/base.py(3 hunks)apiserver/plane/app/views/module/issue.py(1 hunks)apiserver/plane/bgtasks/issue_activities_task.py(3 hunks)apiserver/plane/utils/valid_uuid.py(1 hunks)apiserver/requirements/local.txt(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
apiserver/plane/app/views/module/issue.py
283-283: Line too long (137 > 88)
(E501)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (python)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apiserver/requirements/local.txt (1)
5-5: Confirm Updated Ruff Version Compatibility.The version of
ruffhas been updated from0.4.2to0.9.7. Please verify that this upgrade is compatible with the project's linting configuration and does not introduce new linting rules or issues that might affect production code. It might be useful to run linting tests post-upgrade to be sure.
* fix: ai completions * fix: reset password endpoints * fix: intake issue list * fix: identifier validation, uuid validation
|
Maybe I'm confused, but didn't this break support for Anthropic/Gemini as LLM providers?? |
3 participants
Description
fix: server error handling
Type of Change
Test Scenarios
Summary by CodeRabbit