🧹 chore: Add missing CSRF token extractor tests #3527
Conversation
WalkthroughA new test file was added to the Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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 (
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @gaby, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request enhances the test suite for the CSRF middleware by introducing specific tests for scenarios where CSRF tokens are absent. This improves the reliability and error handling of the token extraction mechanisms by explicitly verifying their behavior when tokens are not found.
Highlights
- Test Coverage: Added new unit tests to verify the behavior of CSRF token extractors (
FromParam,FromCookie,FromForm,FromQuery) when the expected token is not present in the request context. - Error Handling Consistency: Ensured that the correct
ErrMissingParam,ErrMissingCookie,ErrMissingForm, andErrMissingQueryerrors are returned by the respective extractors when the token is missing, improving consistency and robustness in error reporting.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds new tests to validate that the CSRF token extractors correctly handle cases when tokens are missing. The changes include testing missing token extraction for parameters, cookies, form data, and queries.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
middleware/csrf/extractors_test.go:20
- Consider adding tests for successful token extraction cases to complement the missing extractor tests and ensure full coverage of extractor behavior.
token, err := FromParam("csrf")(ctx)
gaby
changed the title
gaby
changed the title
gaby
changed the title
gaby
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
middleware/csrf/extractors_test.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
middleware/csrf/extractors_test.go (1)
15-18: Explicitly set request method & content‐type before exercising the form extractor
FromForminternally relies onctx.FormValue, which only parses the body for methods such as POST/PUT/PATCH and when the content‐type is eitherapplication/x-www-form-urlencodedormultipart/form-data.
With the current context (no method, no headers, empty body) the extractor may short-circuit early, meaning the test passes for the wrong reason.app := fiber.New() ctx := app.AcquireCtx(&fasthttp.RequestCtx{}) +// Ensure the request looks like a typical form submission +ctx.Request().Header.SetMethod(fasthttp.MethodPost) +ctx.Request().Header.SetContentType("application/x-www-form-urlencoded") defer app.ReleaseCtx(ctx)
|
For some reason the workflows didn't trigger. |
Summary