Feature: Airtable Analyzer for Personal Access Tokens

[nabeelalam]

Description:

Airtable PAT Analyzer

Checklist:

• Tests passing (make test-community)?
• Lint passing (make lint this requires golangci-lint)?

[ahrav]

Great job @nabeelalam! Left a few small suggestion and questions, but otherwise looks great.

[ahrav]

question: Is the idea here that if the response from the FetchAirtableUserInfo API contains an email, they have the user.email:read scope?

[ahrav]

suggestion: The way determineScope is written, I’m not sure there’s a possible code path where granted == true and err != nil. As a result, the error check right below this will never be triggered.

Additionally, this approach seems to be swallowing the error—was that intentional? If so, could we add a comment explaining why that design is acceptable? I bring this up because, throughout the rest of the implementation, we return an error if one occurs during an API call. If this is an exception, it should be explicitly documented.

Alternatively, we could remove the inline granted check and handle the error first.
Ex:

granted, err := determineScope(token, common.SchemaBasesRead, nil)
if err != nil {
    return nil, err
}
if granted {
    ...
}

[ahrav]

suggestion: Since the if block returns, we don’t need an else if. We can de-indent this and use a regular if, which improves readability by following the line of sight coding principle. ([Reference](https://medium.com/@matryer/line-of-sight-in-code-186dd7cdea88))

ex:

if resp.StatusCode == http.StatusOK {
    scopeStatusMap[scopeString] = true
    return true, nil
}
if endpoint.ExpectedErrorResponse != nil {
..
}

[ahrav]

nit: interface{} -> any

[ahrav]

ditto

[ahrav]

nit: For consistency and better readability, can we rename scope to permission or perm? Since it's later used as an argument for getEndpointByPermission, this would make the code clearer.

[ahrav]

suggestion: Similar to my earlier "line of sight" comment, we can invert the logic of this if statement to return early, allowing us to de-indent the following for loop for better readability.

Ex:

if basesInfo == nil || len(basesInfo.Bases) == 0 {
    return nil
}

for _ base := range baseInfo.Bases {
    ...
}

[ahrav]

suggestion: We can also remove the if else and just use an if at the same indentation level, since the if block already returns.

Ex:

granted, err := determineScope(token, common.DataRecordsRead, ids)
if err != nil {
	return err
}
if !granted {
    continue
}
...

[ahrav]

question/suggestion: It looks like we might be again swallowing the error? If this is also done intentionally let's add a comment explaining why. We can make this a little easier to reason about if we check the err and handle it first. We then don't even need to check the len(records) we can simply range over them.

Ex:

records, err := fetchAirtableRecords(token, base.ID, table.ID)
if err != nil {
    return err // or continue
}
for _, record := range records {
    ids["recordID"] = record.ID
    _, err = determineScope(token, common.DataRecordcommentsRead, ids)
    if err != nil {
	    return err
    }
    break
}

[ahrav]

This is a nice pattern! One small, optional suggestion: consider constructing this in an init() function and making it private with a public getter.

It’s not a big deal, but this approach prevents unintended modifications by external clients since it wouldn’t be directly exported. I don’t think it's a major concern here, but just something to consider! Totally optional. 😊

Ex:

var endpoints map[EndpointName]Endpoint

func init() {
	endpoints = map[EndpointName]Endpoint{
		GetUserInfoEndpoint: {
			URL:    "https://api.airtable.com/v0/meta/whoami",
			Method: "GET",
		},
		// ... existing code ...
	}
}

// GetEndpoint returns the endpoint for the given name and whether it exists
func GetEndpoint(name EndpointName) (Endpoint, bool) {
	endpoint, exists := endpoints[name]
	return endpoint, exists
}