faed47e1057dfd55a53f6cd3eac16e8d377fb38f
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 bermudalamb
|
f32913ef51 |
refactor: turn on noUncheckedIndexedAccess in both workspaces (#101)
Indexing an array now yields `T | undefined`, which is what it always did — the compiler simply says so. Enabled in backend/tsconfig.json and frontend/tsconfig.json, and in tsconfig.sonar.json alongside it so the drift guard stays satisfied. The sequencing this issue insisted on was right, and the numbers show why. Before #159 typed the query results, `rows[0]` was `any` and `any` indexes to `any`: the flag would have found close to nothing and the count would have changed completely afterwards. With the rows typed it finds 57 — 50 in the backend, 4 in the frontend, 3 in the Playwright suite — and they fall into three kinds. Thirty are `rows[0]` after a `rows.length` guard. TypeScript cannot connect the two, and rewriting them as `const [row] = rows; if (!row) …` makes the guard and the use the same check, which is better code independently of the flag. Ten are rows a statement guarantees — `INSERT … RETURNING`, or a lookup for an id the session middleware has already matched. These get `requireRow(rows, what)`, a new helper in db.ts that throws naming the query. A thrown error rather than a non-null assertion: if the assumption is ever wrong, an assertion hands `undefined` to the next line and fails somewhere unrelated, whereas this fails at the query and says which. asyncRoute turns it into a 500, which is the right answer for "the database did not do what the statement says it does". It also states the assumption once instead of ten times. The rest is ordinary indexing the compiler cannot prove: a regex capture group that the pattern guarantees, `split('+')[0]`, a modulo kept in range, `hasOwnProperty` failing to narrow an index signature, and Express typing route params as an index signature so `req.params.itemId` is `string | undefined` on a route that cannot match without it. One correction to this issue's premise, which matters for what it was expected to find. The body says "in a handful it does not guard at all", and the unguarded-500 risk it describes was not found. Every `rows[0]` either sits behind a length check or behind a statement that guarantees a row. What the flag actually bought was the ten places where that guarantee was real but unstated, and those now say so. Two changes worth calling out because they are not mechanical. TAG_COLORS is typed `[string, ...string[]]` in both copies rather than `as const` — the first attempt used `as const`, which narrowed the elements to literals and broke adminTags, so the annotation keeps `string` while telling the compiler index 0 exists. And the filter drawer's slider falls back to the bounds it was given rather than to null, because null there reads as "no filter" and would widen the results rather than leave them unchanged. Test files needed changes too, since ts-jest compiles them against the same config: a regex destructure in the compose guard, and ten `mock.calls[0][0]` reads where the surrounding assertions already establish the call happened. Verified: tsc clean over backend, frontend src and the Playwright suite; unit 254/254; integration 238/238; frontend build clean; lint unchanged in both workspaces. Closes #101 |
||
 bermudalambandClaude Opus 5
|
b8549e9c72 |
feat: let a customer resend their own verification email (#110)
A verification email was sent once, at registration. If it was lost, filtered, or arrived after the 24-hour token had expired, the customer had no route back except registering again with a different address. POST /api/customers/resend-verification mints a fresh token and sends the mail, and the account page grows a "Send it again" button beside the warning that was already there. The button only exists while the address is unverified: on a verified account it would be a control whose only outcome is a refusal, and the endpoint refuses that case rather than sending a pointless email. The mint-token-and-send sequence now lives in one place. Registration and the email change already did the same three steps - supersede any outstanding token, mint a new one, send it - and this would have been a third copy. The step most likely to be dropped in a copy is the supersede, and it is the one that matters: without it an older message still sitting in the inbox goes on verifying. Anything that makes the server send mail on request is an abuse vector, so this is rate limited to three an hour, keyed on the customer id. That is tighter than either existing limiter and sidesteps #84's IPv6 problem entirely, since a signed-in caller has an identity better than an address to count against and cannot escape the bucket by moving within a delegated prefix. The refusal says the mail probably did send and to check the spam folder, which is both more useful and more honest than a bare 429. The claim that keying on customer id also solved test isolation was wrong, and the tests caught it. resetDb truncates with RESTART IDENTITY, so every integration test's first customer is id 1: three tests that each sent once left the fourth starting at its limit, and two tests failed on a 429 they never asked for. A "fresh customer per test" is a fresh row with a recycled identity. The limiter now has an explicit exported store the suite clears between tests, and the comment that claimed otherwise has been corrected rather than left to mislead the next reader. Verification: seven integration tests covering the unauthenticated refusal, the send, the new token invalidating the old one - asserted through the endpoint that would honour the stale link rather than by counting rows - the new link actually verifying, the already-verified refusal, the allowance stopping the fourth send rather than merely reporting it, and one customer's exhausted allowance leaving another's intact. Three end-to-end tests for the button, its confirmation and the message on the fourth click. The 33 integration tests across the three suites this touched all pass, as do the 199 backend unit tests. tsc clean on both sides, ESLint no errors. Closes #110 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |