test: add gherkin unit tests #173 #176
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new feature for testing the order creation functionality in the ByteMeBurger application. A Gherkin feature file named Changes
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrder.feature (1)
1-2: Enhance feature description with business context and rulesThe feature declaration would benefit from additional context and business rules. Consider adding:
- A description of the feature's business value
- Acceptance criteria or business rules
- Any preconditions that apply to all scenarios
Feature: Create new order + As a customer + I want to create a new order + So that I can purchase items from ByteMeBurger + + Rules: + - Customer must select at least one product + - Each order must have a unique tracking code + - Order creation should trigger a notification eventtests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test.csproj (1)
34-34: Consider using PreserveNewest instead of AlwaysSetting
CopyToOutputDirectorytoAlwaysforces the file to be copied on every build, which can impact build performance. Consider usingPreserveNewestinstead, which only copies the file when it's newer than the destination.- <CopyToOutputDirectory>Always</CopyToOutputDirectory> + <CopyToOutputDirectory>PreserveNewest</CopyToOutputDirectory>tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrderSteps.cs (4)
9-9: Consider using a relative path for the feature file.The hardcoded path in the
FeatureFileattribute could break if the file structure changes. Consider using a path relative to the test assembly or implementing a path resolution mechanism.-[FeatureFile("./UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrder.feature")] +[FeatureFile(@"CreateOrder.feature")]
12-15: Convert inline comments to XML documentation.Move the test flow comments to proper XML documentation for better IDE integration and documentation generation.
+/// <summary> +/// Tests for the order creation use case. +/// </summary> +/// <remarks> +/// Test flow: +/// 1. Given Selected product exists +/// 2. And Tracking code is created +/// 3. When UseCase is called +/// 4. Then it should create the order +/// </remarks> public class CreateOrderSteps : Feature -// Given Selected product exists -// And Tracking code is created -// When UseCase is called -// Then it should create the order
33-40: Consider using a test data builder pattern.The product setup could be more maintainable and flexible using a test data builder pattern. Also, consider using a constant for the product ID to make tests deterministic.
+private static readonly Guid TestProductId = new("12345678-1234-1234-1234-123456789012"); + [Given("Selected product exists")] public void SetupExistingProduct() { - _product = new Product(Guid.NewGuid(), "product", "description", ProductCategory.Drink, 10, []); + _product = ProductBuilder.Create() + .WithId(TestProductId) + .WithName("product") + .WithCategory(ProductCategory.Drink) + .WithPrice(10) + .Build(); _mockProductRepository.Setup(p => p.FindByIdAsync(_product.Id)) .ReturnsAsync(_product) .Verifiable(); }
42-48: Make the test tracking code more explicit.Consider using a constant for the test tracking code to make its purpose clear and maintain it in one place.
+private const string TestTrackingCode = "TEST-ORDER-001"; + [And("Tracking code is created")] public void SetupTrackingCode() { _mockOrderTrackingCodeService.Setup(s => s.GetNextAsync()) - .ReturnsAsync(new OrderTrackingCode("code")) + .ReturnsAsync(new OrderTrackingCode(TestTrackingCode)) .Verifiable(); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test.csproj(1 hunks)tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrder.feature(1 hunks)tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrderSteps.cs(1 hunks)tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Test.Common/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Test.Common.csproj(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrderSteps.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.
🔇 Additional comments (4)
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Test.Common/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Test.Common.csproj (2)
18-18: LGTM! Package reference is correctly configured.
The package reference is properly placed within the ItemGroup and includes an explicit version number, following NuGet best practices.
18-18: Consider upgrading to the latest version.
The package version 4.5.0 is stable but not the latest. Version 4.6.0 is available with potential improvements.
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test.csproj (1)
32-36: Verify Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package reference
The project is configured to use Gherkin feature files but the Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package reference is not visible in this project file.
✅ Verification successful
Package reference is correctly handled through Test.Common project
The Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package (v4.5.0) is properly referenced through the Test.Common project, which is included as a project reference. No changes are needed as the package dependency is correctly managed through project references.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package is referenced in any project file
# and verify its version consistency across the solution
# Search for Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package reference in all project files
echo "Searching for Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package references:"
fd -e csproj -x grep -l "Xunit.Gherkin.Quick"
# Extract and compare versions if found
echo -e "\nPackage versions found:"
fd -e csproj -x grep -A 1 "Xunit.Gherkin.Quick" {}
Length of output: 536
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the test project references the Test.Common project which contains the Xunit.Gherkin.Quick package
cat tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test.csproj
Length of output: 1627
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/CreateOrderSteps.cs (1)
23-31: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add null checks for dependencies in constructor.
The constructor should validate that all injected dependencies are not null to fail fast with clear error messages.
public CreateOrderSteps()
{
_mockDispatcher = new Mock<IDispatcher>();
_mockProductRepository = new Mock<IProductRepository>();
_mockOrderTrackingCodeService = new Mock<IOrderTrackingCodeService>();
+ ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(_mockDispatcher.Object, nameof(_mockDispatcher));
+ ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(_mockProductRepository.Object, nameof(_mockProductRepository));
+ ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(_mockOrderTrackingCodeService.Object, nameof(_mockOrderTrackingCodeService));
+
_useCase = new CreateOrderUseCase(_mockProductRepository.Object, _mockOrderTrackingCodeService.Object,
_mockDispatcher.Object);
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| Scenario: Create a new order successfully | ||
| Given Selected product exists | ||
| And Tracking code is created | ||
| When UseCase is called | ||
| Then it should create the order | ||
| And it should publish integration event |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance scenario coverage and step specificity
The current scenario lacks specific details and covers only the happy path. Consider the following improvements:
- Add concrete examples with actual data
- Include validation of order details
- Add scenarios for edge cases and error conditions
- Scenario: Create a new order successfully
- Given Selected product exists
- And Tracking code is created
- When UseCase is called
- Then it should create the order
- And it should publish integration event
+ Scenario: Successfully create a single item order
+ Given the following product exists in the menu:
+ | Id | Name | Price | Category |
+ | 123 | Classic Burger | 15.99 | Burgers |
+ And a tracking code "ORDER-2024-001" is generated
+ When I create an order with:
+ | ProductId | Quantity |
+ | 123 | 1 |
+ Then the order should be created with status "Pending"
+ And an "OrderCreated" event should be published with tracking code "ORDER-2024-001"
+
+ Scenario: Attempt to create order with non-existent product
+ Given no product exists with id "999"
+ When I create an order with:
+ | ProductId | Quantity |
+ | 999 | 1 |
+ Then it should fail with error "Product not found"
+
+ Scenario: Attempt to create order with invalid quantity
+ Given the following product exists in the menu:
+ | Id | Name | Price | Category |
+ | 123 | Classic Burger | 15.99 | Burgers |
+ When I create an order with:
+ | ProductId | Quantity |
+ | 123 | 0 |
+ Then it should fail with error "Invalid quantity"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| Scenario: Create a new order successfully | |
| Given Selected product exists | |
| And Tracking code is created | |
| When UseCase is called | |
| Then it should create the order | |
| And it should publish integration event | |
| Scenario: Successfully create a single item order | |
| Given the following product exists in the menu: | |
| | Id | Name | Price | Category | | |
| | 123 | Classic Burger | 15.99 | Burgers | | |
| And a tracking code "ORDER-2024-001" is generated | |
| When I create an order with: | |
| | ProductId | Quantity | | |
| | 123 | 1 | | |
| Then the order should be created with status "Pending" | |
| And an "OrderCreated" event should be published with tracking code "ORDER-2024-001" | |
| Scenario: Attempt to create order with non-existent product | |
| Given no product exists with id "999" | |
| When I create an order with: | |
| | ProductId | Quantity | | |
| | 999 | 1 | | |
| Then it should fail with error "Product not found" | |
| Scenario: Attempt to create order with invalid quantity | |
| Given the following product exists in the menu: | |
| | Id | Name | Price | Category | | |
| | 123 | Classic Burger | 15.99 | Burgers | | |
| When I create an order with: | |
| | ProductId | Quantity | | |
| | 123 | 0 | | |
| Then it should fail with error "Invalid quantity" |
| Feature: Create new order | ||
|
|
||
| Scenario: Create a new order successfully | ||
| Given Selected product exists | ||
| And Tracking code is created | ||
| When UseCase is called | ||
| Then it should create the order | ||
| And it should publish integration event |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Test coverage needs improvement for error scenarios
Based on the implementation and current test coverage, there are missing test scenarios:
- The implementation throws
EntityNotFoundExceptionwhen a product is not found, but there's no test scenario for this case - The test only covers the happy path where the order is created successfully
Required test scenarios to add:
- Product not found scenario
- Invalid product ID scenario
- Empty product list scenario
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify test coverage against implementation
Let's ensure the test scenarios align with all possible outcomes in the use case implementation.
Let me gather more information about the implementation to verify all test scenarios.
Let me try one more search to find the complete implementation details.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find the order creation use case implementation to verify all paths are covered
# Look for the order creation use case implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : ICreateOrderUseCase {
$$$
}'
# Look for possible validation rules or error conditions
rg -A 5 "throw new \w+Exception"
Length of output: 9444
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the complete implementation of CreateOrderUseCase
ast-grep --pattern 'class CreateOrderUseCase {
$$$
}'
# Find all test scenarios for order creation
rg -A 10 "Scenario:" "tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Orders/Gherkin/"
Length of output: 970
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the complete implementation with a more specific pattern
ast-grep --pattern 'class CreateOrderUseCase : ICreateOrderUseCase {
$$$
}'
# Also search for the implementation file directly
rg -A 20 "class CreateOrderUseCase" "src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application/UseCases/Orders/"
Length of output: 2874
| [When("UseCase is called")] | ||
| public async Task WhenUseCaseIsCalled() | ||
| { | ||
| _order = await _useCase.Execute(null, new List<SelectedProduct> | ||
| { | ||
| new(_product.Id, 1) | ||
| }); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve test clarity and parameterization.
The use case execution could be improved by:
- Documenting why the customer is null or using a valid test customer
- Making the product quantity configurable
+private const int DefaultProductQuantity = 1;
+
[When("UseCase is called")]
public async Task WhenUseCaseIsCalled()
{
+ // TODO: Consider adding a test for authenticated customers
_order = await _useCase.Execute(null, new List<SelectedProduct>
{
- new(_product.Id, 1)
+ new(_product.Id, DefaultProductQuantity)
});
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| [When("UseCase is called")] | |
| public async Task WhenUseCaseIsCalled() | |
| { | |
| _order = await _useCase.Execute(null, new List<SelectedProduct> | |
| { | |
| new(_product.Id, 1) | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| private const int DefaultProductQuantity = 1; | |
| [When("UseCase is called")] | |
| public async Task WhenUseCaseIsCalled() | |
| { | |
| // TODO: Consider adding a test for authenticated customers | |
| _order = await _useCase.Execute(null, new List<SelectedProduct> | |
| { | |
| new(_product.Id, DefaultProductQuantity) | |
| }); | |
| } |
| [Then("it should create the order")] | ||
| public void ThenItShouldCreateTheOrder() | ||
| { | ||
| _order.Should().NotBeNull(); | ||
| _order.TrackingCode.Should().Be(new OrderTrackingCode("code")); | ||
| _order.OrderItems[0].ProductId.Should().Be(_product.Id); | ||
| _mockProductRepository.VerifyAll(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| [And("it should publish integration event")] | ||
| public void ThenItShouldPublishTheEvent() | ||
| { | ||
| _mockDispatcher.Verify(d => d.PublishIntegrationAsync(It.IsAny<OrderCreated>(), default), Times.Once); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance assertion specificity and consistency.
The assertions could be improved by:
- Using the same tracking code constant defined earlier
- Adding more specific event verification
[Then("it should create the order")]
public void ThenItShouldCreateTheOrder()
{
_order.Should().NotBeNull();
- _order.TrackingCode.Should().Be(new OrderTrackingCode("code"));
+ _order.TrackingCode.Should().Be(new OrderTrackingCode(TestTrackingCode));
_order.OrderItems[0].ProductId.Should().Be(_product.Id);
+ _order.OrderItems[0].Quantity.Should().Be(DefaultProductQuantity);
_mockProductRepository.VerifyAll();
}
[And("it should publish integration event")]
public void ThenItShouldPublishTheEvent()
{
- _mockDispatcher.Verify(d => d.PublishIntegrationAsync(It.IsAny<OrderCreated>(), default), Times.Once);
+ _mockDispatcher.Verify(d => d.PublishIntegrationAsync(
+ It.Is<OrderCreated>(e =>
+ e.OrderId == _order.Id &&
+ e.TrackingCode == TestTrackingCode),
+ default),
+ Times.Once);
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/CustomersController.cs (2)
Line range hint
31-45: Enhance CPF validationWhile the MaxLength validation is good, consider adding a custom validation attribute for CPF format to ensure data integrity at the API level.
Example implementation:
public class CpfAttribute : ValidationAttribute { protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object value, ValidationContext validationContext) { var cpf = value as string; if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(cpf) || !IsCpfValid(cpf)) return new ValidationResult("Invalid CPF format"); return ValidationResult.Success; } private bool IsCpfValid(string cpf) { // Add CPF validation logic here return true; // Placeholder } } // Usage in controller public async Task<ActionResult<CustomerDto>> Get( [FromQuery] [MaxLength(14)] [Cpf] string cpf, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
Line range hint
52-63: Document response status codes and enhance request validationConsider adding:
- XML documentation for possible response status codes
- Explicit validation attributes on CreateCustomerRequest properties
Example improvements:
/// <response code="200">Returns the created customer</response> /// <response code="400">If the request is invalid</response> /// <response code="409">If the customer already exists</response> [ProducesResponseType(typeof(CustomerDto), StatusCodes.Status200OK)] [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest)] [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status409Conflict)] public class CreateCustomerRequest { [Required] [Cpf] public string Cpf { get; set; } [Required] [StringLength(100)] public string Name { get; set; } [Required] [EmailAddress] public string Email { get; set; } }src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cs (1)
Line range hint
1-124: Architecture Review: Compliant with Clean ArchitectureThe controller demonstrates good adherence to Clean Architecture and SOLID principles:
- Depends on abstractions (IOrderService)
- Clear separation of concerns
- Proper error handling and logging
- Well-defined authorization boundaries
- Single Responsibility Principle: focuses solely on order operations
Consider extracting the logging patterns into a decorator or middleware to further improve separation of concerns.
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/ProductsController.cs (3)
Line range hint
89-94: Consider moving price validation to domain layerThe price validation in the controller layer violates DDD principles. Consider creating a
Pricevalue object in the domain layer to encapsulate this business rule.-if (newProduct.Price <= 0) - return BadRequest("Price cannot be zero ou negative."); +// Move to domain layer: Price.cs +public record Price +{ + private Price(decimal value) + { + Value = value; + } + + public decimal Value { get; } + + public static Result<Price> Create(decimal value) + { + if (value <= 0) + return Result.Failure<Price>("Price cannot be zero or negative."); + return Result.Success(new Price(value)); + } +}
Line range hint
95-108: Standardize error handling and response typesThe error handling approach differs between methods. Consider:
- Creating a standardized error response model
- Using consistent HTTP status codes
- Implementing a global exception handler
Example standardized error response:
public record ErrorResponse(string Message, string Code, IEnumerable<string> Details = null); // Global exception handler public class GlobalExceptionHandler : IExceptionHandler { public async ValueTask<bool> TryHandleAsync( HttpContext context, Exception exception, CancellationToken cancellationToken) { var error = exception switch { DomainException dx => new ErrorResponse(dx.Message, "DOMAIN_ERROR"), _ => new ErrorResponse("An unexpected error occurred", "INTERNAL_ERROR") }; context.Response.StatusCode = StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest; await context.Response.WriteAsJsonAsync(error, cancellationToken); return true; } }Also applies to: 147-161
Line range hint
1-161: Consider implementing CQRS patternGiven this is a DDD-based application with clear separation of read and write operations, consider implementing the CQRS pattern to separate read and write concerns. This would improve scalability and maintainability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/AccessTokenAuthEventsHandler.cs(0 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/BmbRoles.cs(0 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtExtensions.cs(0 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtOptions.cs(0 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/CustomersController.cs(1 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cs(1 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/ProductsController.cs(1 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.csproj(1 hunks)src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Program.cs(1 hunks)tf/variables.tf(5 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
- src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/AccessTokenAuthEventsHandler.cs
- src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/BmbRoles.cs
- src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtExtensions.cs
- src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtOptions.cs
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Program.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (3)
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/CustomersController.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/ProductsController.cs (1)
Pattern **/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.
🔇 Additional comments (4)
tf/variables.tf (1)
31-31:
Security concern: JWT signing key configuration
The JWT signing key is set to an empty string default, which could lead to security vulnerabilities if not properly configured at runtime. Additionally, verify that the user pool name change is intentional for the development environment.
Also applies to: 82-82
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/CustomersController.cs (1)
Line range hint 16-22: Well-structured controller implementation!
The controller follows clean architecture principles with proper dependency injection, RESTful design, and comprehensive API documentation.
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cs (1)
Line range hint 24-24: LGTM: Modern C# syntax adoption
The change to primary constructor syntax is a good improvement that:
- Reduces boilerplate code
- Maintains proper dependency injection
- Aligns with modern C# practices
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/ProductsController.cs (1)
Line range hint 16-24: Well-structured controller with proper DI and documentation
The controller follows best practices:
- Uses dependency injection for services and logging
- Properly documented with XML comments
- Follows API conventions with appropriate attributes
- Correctly implements role-based authorization
| @@ -55,28 +56,28 @@ variable "internal_elb_name" { | |||
| variable "db_user" { | |||
| type = string | |||
| sensitive = true | |||
| default = "db_user" | |||
| default = "test" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SECURITY RISK: Remove hardcoded credentials and use secure secret management
Several critical security issues found:
- Database credentials are hardcoded to "test"
- Empty API access keys could cause runtime issues
- Sensitive credentials should not have default values in version control
These practices pose significant security risks if accidentally used in production environments.
Consider these security improvements:
- Remove default values for all sensitive credentials
- Use AWS Secrets Manager or similar service for credential management
- Document the required variables in README.md
- Implement validation to prevent empty API keys in production
variable "db_user" {
type = string
sensitive = true
- default = "test"
}
variable "db_pwd" {
type = string
sensitive = true
- default = "test"
}
variable "api_access_key_id" {
type = string
nullable = false
sensitive = true
- default = ""
}
variable "api_secret_access_key" {
type = string
nullable = false
sensitive = true
- default = ""
}Also applies to: 64-64, 71-71, 78-78
| @@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| variable "api_docker_image" { | |||
| type = string | |||
| default = "ghcr.io/soat-fiap/fiap.techchallenge.bytemeburger/api:sha-b83177c" | |||
| default = "ghcr.io/soat-fiap/fiap.techchallenge.bytemeburger/api:latest" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid using 'latest' tag for Docker images
Using the latest tag (ghcr.io/soat-fiap/fiap.techchallenge.bytemeburger/api:latest) is not recommended as it:
- Makes deployments non-deterministic
- Complicates rollback procedures
- May cause inconsistencies across environments
Consider using specific version tags or SHA digests for better reproducibility and security.
variable "api_docker_image" {
type = string
- default = "ghcr.io/soat-fiap/fiap.techchallenge.bytemeburger/api:latest"
+ default = "ghcr.io/soat-fiap/fiap.techchallenge.bytemeburger/api:sha-<specific-commit>"
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| variable "rds_cluster_identifier" { | |||
| type = string | |||
| default = "techchallenge-mysql-default" | |||
| default = "gh-techchallenge-mysql" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Resource naming convention inconsistency detected
The current naming patterns show inconsistency across resources:
- New RDS identifier uses
gh-techchallenge-mysqlpattern - New EKS cluster uses
eks_dev_quixadapattern - Other resources use different patterns like
fiap-orders,configmap-api, etc.
Consider standardizing the naming convention across all resources to follow a consistent pattern that includes:
- Environment indicator (dev/prod)
- Service/project identifier
- Resource type
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify infrastructure naming convention alignment
The changes to resource identifiers (gh-techchallenge-mysql and eks_dev_quixada) suggest environment-specific resources. Ensure these align with your organization's naming conventions and environment separation strategy.
Also applies to: 20-20
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for consistent naming patterns across infrastructure files
rg -g '*.tf' -A 2 'gh-techchallenge|eks_dev'
Length of output: 218
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any existing naming patterns in other resources
rg -g '*.tf' '(resource|name|identifier)\s*=\s*".+?"' -A 1
# Also check for any environment-specific variables or tags
rg -g '*.tf' '(environment|env|stage)\s*=\s*".+?"' -A 1
Length of output: 1289
| <PackageReference Include="Bmb.Domain.Core" Version="0.0.12" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer" Version="8.0.2" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi" Version="8.0.3"/> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens" Version="8.0.2" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Remove unused Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens package
The search results confirm that while the application uses authentication and authorization through [Authorize] attributes, there are no direct usages of JWT-related code or the Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens package. Since authentication has been migrated to Bmb.Auth as mentioned, this package can be safely removed.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify if Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens is still needed
Since JWT authentication has been removed in favor of Bmb.Auth, this package might no longer be necessary.
Let's check for any remaining JWT or authentication-related code to make a more informed decision about whether this package is still needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any remaining JWT token usage
rg -l "JsonWebToken|JWT" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg "JsonWebToken|JWT" "$file" -A 5
done
Length of output: 1721
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any JWT or token-related code in C# files
rg -t cs "using.*IdentityModel|JsonWebToken|JWT|JwtBearer" -A 5
# Search for authentication-related configuration
rg -t cs "AddAuthentication|UseAuthentication|[Aa]uthorize|Bearer" -A 5
Length of output: 7563
| @@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ | |||
| <ItemGroup> | |||
| <PackageReference Include="AspNetCore.HealthChecks.MySql" Version="8.0.1" /> | |||
| <PackageReference Include="AspNetCore.HealthChecks.UI.Client" Version="8.0.1" /> | |||
| <PackageReference Include="Bmb.Auth" Version="0.0.1" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Early version package with incomplete integration detected
The verification reveals several concerns:
- Bmb.Auth package is imported but its configuration is not visible in the codebase
- The application still heavily relies on JWT configuration (JwtOptions and ConfigureJwt)
- Mixed authentication mechanisms could lead to security vulnerabilities
• Program.cs: Contains both JWT configuration and Bmb.Auth imports
• OrdersController.cs: Uses authorization but the mechanism is unclear
• Authentication middleware is present but the configuration is ambiguous
[security_warning]
Recommendations:
- Complete the migration to Bmb.Auth or rollback to JWT
- Remove unused JWT configurations if Bmb.Auth is the intended solution
- Wait for a stable version of Bmb.Auth before production use
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider the stability of Bmb.Auth package
The package version 0.0.1 indicates a very early development stage. This could pose stability and security risks in a production environment.
Consider:
- Waiting for a more stable version
- Thoroughly testing the authentication mechanism
- Having a rollback plan in case of issues
This will help us understand:
- Where and how Bmb.Auth is being used
- Authentication configuration in the application
- Usage of authentication/authorization in controllers
This will help us understand the authentication configuration details and how Bmb.Auth is integrated with the existing JWT setup.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the usage and implementation of Bmb.Auth
# Look for authentication-related configurations and implementations
rg -l "Bmb.Auth" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg "Bmb.Auth" "$file" -A 5
done
Length of output: 1721
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for authentication-related configurations and usages
rg -l "using.*Bmb.Auth|AddBmbAuth|UseBmbAuth" --type cs
# Check Program.cs and Startup.cs for auth configuration
fd -e cs "(Program|Startup)" --exec cat {}
# Check for authentication attributes and middleware usage
rg "(\[Authorize\]|UseAuthentication|UseAuthorization)" --type cs -A 3
Length of output: 6891
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the ConfigureJwt extension method and JwtOptions
rg -p "ConfigureJwt|JwtOptions" --type cs -A 5
# Check for any Bmb.Auth specific configurations
rg "Bmb\.Auth\." --type cs -A 5
# Look for authentication-related services registration
rg "AddAuthentication|services\.Configure<.*Auth" --type cs -A 5
Length of output: 869
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations; | |||
| using FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth; | |||
| using Bmb.Auth; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent namespace change detected
The namespace change from FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth to Bmb.Auth appears incomplete and inconsistent:
- The old namespace
FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Authis still in use in multiple files - The new namespace
Bmb.Authis not defined anywhere in the codebase - The
BmbRolesclass referenced in the controllers is not found in either namespace
This change needs to be reverted or properly implemented across the entire codebase to maintain consistency.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the namespace change impact across the codebase
The authentication namespace has been changed from FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth to Bmb.Auth. This change needs verification to ensure consistency.
Let me gather more information about the BmbRoles class and its usage.
Let me check the content of the BmbRoles class and related files.
Let me check the actual content of the files in the Auth folders.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the namespace change impact and BmbRoles class existence
# Check for any remaining references to the old namespace
echo "Checking for old namespace references..."
rg "FIAP\.TechChallenge\.ByteMeBurger\.Api\.Auth"
# Verify BmbRoles class exists in the new namespace
echo "Verifying BmbRoles class in new namespace..."
rg -p "namespace Bmb.Auth" -A 10 | rg "class BmbRoles"
# Check for any mixed usage of auth namespaces
echo "Checking for mixed namespace usage..."
rg "Auth.*Roles"
Length of output: 1511
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for BmbRoles class definition
echo "Searching for BmbRoles class definition..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class BmbRoles'
# Check for files in Bmb.Auth namespace
echo "Checking files in Bmb.Auth namespace..."
rg "namespace Bmb.Auth"
# Check for any Auth folder in the codebase
echo "Looking for Auth folders..."
fd "Auth$" --type d
Length of output: 14754
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of files in Auth folders
echo "Checking content of Auth files..."
rg -p "class.*Roles" src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/
rg -p "class.*Roles" tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Test/Auth/
# Check for any roles-related constants or enums
echo "Checking for roles-related code..."
ast-grep --pattern 'const.*Roles'
Length of output: 336
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check content of all files in Auth folders
echo "Content of files in src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/..."
cat src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/*
echo -e "\nContent of files in tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Test/Auth/..."
cat tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Test/Auth/*
Length of output: 4129
| @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ | |||
| using System.Collections.ObjectModel; | |||
| using FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth; | |||
| using Bmb.Auth; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Remove redundant namespace import
The Bmb.Auth namespace appears to be unnecessary. The codebase shows that auth-related code is under the FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth namespace, which is already imported. The BmbRoles type is used in authorization attributes across multiple controllers, and while we can't see its direct definition, the namespace organization suggests it belongs to the FIAP namespace structure.
- Remove the
using Bmb.Auth;directive to avoid potential namespace conflicts - Keep the
using FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth;directive
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify namespace usage to avoid conflicts
The code includes both Bmb.Auth and FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth namespaces. This could lead to ambiguous references, especially for types like BmbRoles used in authorization attributes.
Let's verify the namespace organization:
Also applies to: 7-7
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for BmbRoles usage across the codebase
rg -l "BmbRoles"
# Check the actual namespace of BmbRoles
ast-grep --pattern 'namespace $_ { $$$ class BmbRoles { $$$ } $$$ }'
Length of output: 308
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of files using BmbRoles to understand its namespace
rg "BmbRoles" -B 2 -A 2
# Let's also check if there are any Auth-related files in both namespaces
fd -e cs -e fs -e vb "Auth"
Length of output: 3691
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of any Auth-related files to understand the namespace structure
rg -g "*.cs" "namespace.*Auth" -B 1 -A 1
# Also check for any BmbRoles class definition
rg -g "*.cs" "class.*BmbRoles" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 660
| @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
| using FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth; | |||
| using Bmb.Auth; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent namespace usage detected
The namespace change from FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Auth to Bmb.Auth is incomplete. The following files still use the old namespace:
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cssrc/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtExtensions.cstests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api.Test/Auth/JwtExtensionsTest.cs
This creates an inconsistent state where some files use the new Bmb.Auth namespace while others still reference the old one, despite using the new BmbRoles enum.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify namespace change consistency across the codebase
The auth namespace has been changed to Bmb.Auth. Let's ensure this change is consistent across all controllers and auth-related files.
Let me check the specific content of these files to understand the namespace inconsistency better.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to the old auth namespace
# and verify consistent usage of the new namespace
echo "Checking for old namespace references..."
rg -l "FIAP\.TechChallenge\.ByteMeBurger\.Api\.Auth"
echo "Verifying consistent usage of new namespace..."
rg -l "Bmb\.Auth"
Length of output: 830
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of files that still use the old namespace
echo "=== Content of OrdersController.cs ==="
rg -A 2 -B 2 "FIAP\.TechChallenge\.ByteMeBurger\.Api\.Auth" "src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cs"
echo "=== Content of JwtExtensions.cs ==="
rg -A 2 -B 2 "FIAP\.TechChallenge\.ByteMeBurger\.Api\.Auth" "src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtExtensions.cs"
# Check if there are any references to BmbRoles in these files
echo "=== BmbRoles usage ==="
rg "BmbRoles" "src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Controllers/OrdersController.cs" "src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Api/Auth/JwtExtensions.cs"
Length of output: 1382
|
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 3.2.1 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
No description provided.