fix(rbac): restore channel API key permissions

[riderx]

Summary (AI generated)

• Restores channel creation for write/developer API keys by granting app.create_channel to app_developer.
• Replaces channel insert/update/delete RLS with exact RBAC permission checks.
• Updates CLI channel add/set/delete prechecks to use exact RBAC permissions instead of coarse legacy admin checks.
• Tightens public channel endpoints so service-role writes are gated by exact channel permissions first.

Motivation (AI generated)

A migrated API key could be reported as write by the legacy CLI permission helper even when it had channel/admin RBAC permissions. That made channel create/delete/self-set flows fail before the request reached the real RBAC/RLS checks.

Business Impact (AI generated)

This restores customer channel management for migrated API keys without making write keys destructive: developer/write keys can create and update allowed channel settings, while channel deletion still requires channel.delete. It also keeps older CLI compatibility through the existing RPC shape.

Test Plan (AI generated)

• bun run supabase:db:reset
• SQL sanity check: one channels RLS policy per operation and app_developer has app.create_channel
• bun run cli:lint
• bun run lint:backend
• bun run cli:typecheck
• bun run typecheck:backend
• bun run typecheck:frontend
• bun run lint
• bun run cli:build
• bun run supabase:with-env -- bunx vitest run tests/channel-post.unit.test.ts tests/rbac-permissions.test.ts tests/hashed-apikey-rls.test.ts
• bun run supabase:with-env -- bunx vitest run tests/cli-channel.test.ts tests/cli-hashed-apikey.test.ts tests/channel.test.ts

Generated with AI

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@riderx, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 23 minutes and 37 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 067109dc-dbd8-4df3-9ad2-f98ac96aaf33

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4fec358 and 703d485.

📒 Files selected for processing (42)

• RBAC_SYSTEM.md
• cli/src/types/supabase.types.ts
• read_replicate/schema_replicate.sql
• src/types/supabase.types.ts
• supabase/functions/_backend/public/channel/delete.ts
• supabase/functions/_backend/public/channel/post.ts
• supabase/functions/_backend/utils/hono_middleware.ts
• supabase/functions/_backend/utils/rbac.ts
• supabase/functions/_backend/utils/supabase.types.ts
• supabase/migrations/20260528122747_fix_channel_rbac_permissions.sql
• supabase/seed.sql
• supabase/tests/26_test_rls_policies.sql
• supabase/tests/33_test_rbac_phase1.sql
• supabase/tests/37_test_check_min_rights_2fa_enforcement.sql
• supabase/tests/39_test_reject_access_due_to_2fa.sql
• supabase/tests/40_test_password_policy_enforcement.sql
• supabase/tests/41_test_reject_access_due_to_2fa_for_app.sql
• supabase/tests/42_test_reject_access_due_to_2fa_for_org.sql
• supabase/tests/45_test_org_create_app_permission.sql
• supabase/tests/45_test_shared_public_images.sql
• supabase/tests/46_test_rbac_legacy_apikey_effective_user.sql
• supabase/tests/47_test_get_org_apikeys_permissions.sql
• supabase/tests/48_test_rbac_apikey_user_mismatch.sql
• supabase/tests/49_test_apikey_oracle_rpc_permissions.sql
• supabase/tests/54_test_usage_credit_rls_performance.sql
• supabase/tests/56_test_apikey_v2_scope_and_rls.sql
• tests/apikey-atomic-bindings.test.ts
• tests/app.test.ts
• tests/audit-logs.test.ts
• tests/bundle.test.ts
• tests/channel-post.unit.test.ts
• tests/enforce-encrypted-bundles.test.ts
• tests/hashed-apikey-rls.test.ts
• tests/organization-api.test.ts
• tests/organization-put-stripe-sync.unit.test.ts
• tests/organization-store-delete.unit.test.ts
• tests/password-policy.test.ts
• tests/plan-check-appid-passthrough.test.ts
• tests/private-error-cases.test.ts
• tests/private-invite-existing-user-to-org.test.ts
• tests/private-role-bindings.test.ts
• tests/rbac-permissions.test.ts

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 43 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 2 skipped benchmarks¹

---

_{Comparing codex/fix-channel-write-permission (703d485) with main (4fec358)}

Footnotes

1. 2 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
4 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[42Clownfish]

Reviewed the channel RBAC/API-key compatibility path. No blocker from my pass.

What I checked:

• post.ts now separates create vs update: new channels require app.create_channel, existing channels require channel.update_settings, and version changes require channel.promote_bundle after resolving the target version.
• The migration mirrors that split in RLS for insert/update/delete, so the old CLI compatibility helpers only get callers to the endpoint/RLS gate; they do not become the final authorization decision.
• The regression coverage hits the important security cases: app developer channel creation, promote denial on direct channel version changes, hashed API-key scope, and forged app/channel binding rejection.
• Current checks are green, including backend lint/typecheck, SQL/RLS tests, CLI tests, CodeQL, Sonar, and Socket.

One non-blocking edge to keep an eye on: post.ts uses the caller's API-key client to discover existingChannel. If a channel exists but is not visible to that key, the code can classify the request as a create attempt and then rely on the upsert/RLS conflict to reject it. That still looks protected, but it may produce a noisier database error instead of the cleaner cannot_access_app response. If that matters for CLI UX, a service-role existence lookup followed by the same explicit permission checks would make the error path deterministic.