Conversation
…ard compatibility
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces changes across multiple files in the Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
✨ 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 (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #363 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 16 16
Lines 1269 1269
=========================================
Hits 1269 1269
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
tests/test_types.py (1)
199-202: Enhance password validation test coverage.While the tests are updated for 8-char passwords, consider adding these test cases:
- Validation failure for passwords < 8 chars
- Boundary testing with exactly 8 chars
- Maximum length validation (128 chars)
I can help generate the additional test cases. Would you like me to propose the implementation?
Also applies to: 212-213
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
cuenca_validations/types/identities.py(1 hunks)cuenca_validations/types/requests.py(1 hunks)cuenca_validations/version.py(1 hunks)tests/test_types.py(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- cuenca_validations/version.py
🔇 Additional comments (1)
cuenca_validations/types/identities.py (1)
20-24: LGTM! Password field update aligns with CNBV requirements.The changes correctly implement the 8-character minimum length requirement while maintaining secure password handling with SecretStr.
Let's verify there are no other password-related validations that need updating:
✅ Verification successful
Verification complete - Password validation is consistently implemented
The 8-character minimum length requirement is properly enforced through a single Password type definition, which is correctly used across the codebase. The only exception is UserLoginRequest which intentionally uses str for backward compatibility.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any other password validation logic rg -i 'password.*length|length.*password' --type pyLength of output: 53
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for SecretStr usage and password-related patterns echo "=== Searching for SecretStr usage ===" rg "SecretStr" --type py -A 2 -B 2 echo -e "\n=== Searching for password-related fields and classes ===" rg -i "password|passwd" --type py -A 2 -B 2 echo -e "\n=== Searching for validation patterns ===" ast-grep --pattern 'min_length = $_'Length of output: 6390
|
|
||
| class UserLoginRequest(BaseRequest): | ||
| password: Password | ||
| password: str # Set password field to str for backward compatibility. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical: Reverting to str type bypasses password length validation.
Changing the password field type from Password to str circumvents the minimum length requirement, potentially allowing passwords shorter than 8 characters. This contradicts the PR's objective of enforcing CNBV compliance.
Apply this diff to maintain security while ensuring backward compatibility:
- password: str # Set password field to str for backward compatibility.
+ password: Password # Maintain CNBV compliance with 8-char minimum lengthCommittable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
3 participants
Description
This pull request updates the
passwordfield to have amin_lengthof 8 characters, ensuring consistency with CNBV requirements. By making this change at the library level, we eliminate the need to override or redefine the field in dependent projects such asauthed.Key Changes
passwordfield incuenca-validationsto setmin_length=8.UserLoginRequestclass to set password field to str for backward compatibility.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
UserLoginRequestto accept standard string password typeChores
Tests