Skip to content

Fix: CNAME validation #9861

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 22, 2025
Merged

Fix: CNAME validation #9861

merged 1 commit into from
May 22, 2025

Conversation

Meldiron
Copy link
Contributor

@Meldiron Meldiron commented May 22, 2025

What does this PR do?

(Provide a description of what this PR does and why it's needed.)

Test Plan

(Write your test plan here. If you changed any code, please provide us with clear instructions on how you verified your changes work. Screenshots may also be helpful.)

Related PRs and Issues

  • (Related PR or issue)

Checklist

  • Have you read the Contributing Guidelines on issues?
  • If the PR includes a change to an API's metadata (desc, label, params, etc.), does it also include updated API specs and example docs?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved domain validation by dynamically selecting the target domain based on rule type and deployment resource type, ensuring more accurate DNS checks for different scenarios.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented May 22, 2025

Walkthrough

The update modifies the logic for determining the target CNAME domain in the API proxy controller. The target domain is now selected dynamically based on the rule's type and, for deployments, the deployment resource type. The DNS CNAME validator is only added when an appropriate target domain is determined and validated.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
app/controllers/api/proxy.php Refactored logic to conditionally set $targetCNAME based on rule type and deployment resource type; updated DNS CNAME validator addition to depend on the new logic.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant ProxyController
    participant EnvConfig
    participant DNSValidator

    Client->>ProxyController: Request with rule
    ProxyController->>ProxyController: Check rule.type
    alt type == 'api'
        ProxyController->>EnvConfig: Get _APP_DOMAIN_TARGET_CNAME
    else type == 'redirect'
        ProxyController->>EnvConfig: Get _APP_DOMAIN_SITES
    else type == 'deployment'
        ProxyController->>ProxyController: Check deploymentResourceType
        alt deploymentResourceType == 'function'
            ProxyController->>EnvConfig: Get _APP_DOMAIN_FUNCTIONS
        else deploymentResourceType == 'site'
            ProxyController->>EnvConfig: Get _APP_DOMAIN_SITES
        end
    else
        ProxyController->>ProxyController: Set targetCNAME = null
    end
    ProxyController->>DNSValidator: Add CNAME validator if targetCNAME is valid
    ProxyController->>DNSValidator: Add A/AAAA validators (unchanged)
    ProxyController-->>Client: Continue processing
Loading

Poem

A hop and a skip through domains we go,
With rules that decide where CNAMEs should flow.
Functions and sites, APIs too,
The proxy now knows just what to do!
🐇✨
Dynamic and clever, this routing’s brand new—
The DNS dance, performed by our crew!

Note

⚡️ AI Code Reviews for VS Code, Cursor, Windsurf

CodeRabbit now has a plugin for VS Code, Cursor and Windsurf. This brings AI code reviews directly in the code editor. Each commit is reviewed immediately, finding bugs before the PR is raised. Seamless context handoff to your AI code agent ensures that you can easily incorporate review feedback.
Learn more here.


Note

⚡️ Faster reviews with caching

CodeRabbit now supports caching for code and dependencies, helping speed up reviews. This means quicker feedback, reduced wait times, and a smoother review experience overall. Cached data is encrypted and stored securely. This feature will be automatically enabled for all accounts on May 30th. To opt out, configure Review - Disable Cache at either the organization or repository level. If you prefer to disable all data retention across your organization, simply turn off the Data Retention setting under your Organization Settings.
Enjoy the performance boost—your workflow just got faster.

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

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.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need 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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
app/controllers/api/proxy.php (2)

217-243: Improved domain validation logic based on rule type

The implementation now correctly determines the target CNAME based on the rule type and deployment resource type, which makes the validation more accurate. Each rule type (api, redirect, deployment) now points to its appropriate target domain, enhancing the reliability of DNS validation.

Consider extracting this logic into a separate method like getTargetCNAMEForRule($rule) to improve readability and maintainability. This would make the code more modular and easier to test.

-        $targetCNAME = null;
-        switch ($rule->getAttribute('type', '')) {
-            case 'api':
-                // For example: fra.cloud.appwrite.io
-                $targetCNAME = new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_TARGET_CNAME', ''));
-                break;
-            case 'redirect':
-                // For example: appwrite.network
-                $targetCNAME = new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_SITES', ''));
-                break;
-            case 'deployment':
-                switch ($rule->getAttribute('deploymentResourceType', '')) {
-                    case 'function':
-                        // For example: fra.appwrite.run
-                        $targetCNAME = new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_FUNCTIONS', ''));
-                        break;
-                    case 'site':
-                        // For example: appwrite.network
-                        $targetCNAME = new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_SITES', ''));
-                        break;
-                    default:
-                        break;
-                }
-                // no break
-            default:
-                break;
-        }
+        $targetCNAME = $this->getTargetCNAMEForRule($rule);

Then add this method to the class:

private function getTargetCNAMEForRule(Document $rule): ?Domain
{
    switch ($rule->getAttribute('type', '')) {
        case 'api':
            // For example: fra.cloud.appwrite.io
            return new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_TARGET_CNAME', ''));
        case 'redirect':
            // For example: appwrite.network
            return new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_SITES', ''));
        case 'deployment':
            switch ($rule->getAttribute('deploymentResourceType', '')) {
                case 'function':
                    // For example: fra.appwrite.run
                    return new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_FUNCTIONS', ''));
                case 'site':
                    // For example: appwrite.network
                    return new Domain(System::getEnv('_APP_DOMAIN_SITES', ''));
                default:
                    return null;
            }
            // no break intentionally to fall through to default
        default:
            return null;
    }
}

247-251: Improved CNAME validator addition logic

The code now only adds a DNS validator for CNAME records when an appropriate target domain is determined and is valid. This prevents validation against inappropriate or invalid target domains.

Consider adding a log entry when a target CNAME is not available or not valid for debugging purposes:

        if (!is_null($targetCNAME)) {
            if ($targetCNAME->isKnown() && !$targetCNAME->isTest()) {
                $validators[] = new DNS($targetCNAME->get(), DNS::RECORD_CNAME);
+            } else {
+                $log->debug('Target CNAME is known or is test domain, skipping CNAME validation');
            }
+        } else {
+            $log->debug('No target CNAME determined for rule type: ' . $rule->getAttribute('type', ''));
        }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6b7071c and 67a5192.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • app/controllers/api/proxy.php (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
app/controllers/api/proxy.php (1)
src/Appwrite/Network/Validator/DNS.php (1)
  • DNS (7-111)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: scan

Copy link

Security Scan Results for PR

Docker Image Scan Results

Package Version Vulnerability Severity
binutils 2.42-r0 CVE-2025-0840 HIGH
libexpat 2.6.4-r0 CVE-2024-8176 HIGH
libxml2 2.12.7-r0 CVE-2024-56171 HIGH
libxml2 2.12.7-r0 CVE-2025-24928 HIGH
libxml2 2.12.7-r0 CVE-2025-27113 HIGH
libxml2 2.12.7-r0 CVE-2025-32414 HIGH
libxml2 2.12.7-r0 CVE-2025-32415 HIGH
sqlite-libs 3.45.3-r1 CVE-2025-29087 HIGH
xz 5.6.2-r0 CVE-2025-31115 HIGH
xz-libs 5.6.2-r0 CVE-2025-31115 HIGH
golang.org/x/crypto v0.31.0 CVE-2025-22869 HIGH

Source Code Scan Results

🎉 No vulnerabilities found!

Copy link

✨ Benchmark results

  • Requests per second: 942
  • Requests with 200 status code: 169,593
  • P99 latency: 0.201343091

⚡ Benchmark Comparison

Metric This PR Latest version
RPS 942 1,186
200 169,593 213,448
P99 0.201343091 0.157248377

@christyjacob4 christyjacob4 merged commit 9df0045 into main May 22, 2025
65 of 66 checks passed
@christyjacob4 christyjacob4 deleted the fix-cname-validation branch May 22, 2025 10:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy