stack icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
stack copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon stack-auth

Vercel integration

Open N2D4 opened this issue 1 year ago • 16 comments

N2D4 avatar Nov 24 '24 13:11 N2D4

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project Deployment Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
stack-backend Ready Ready Preview Comment Nov 14, 2025 11:41am
stack-dashboard Ready Ready Preview Comment Nov 14, 2025 11:41am
stack-demo Ready Ready Preview Comment Nov 14, 2025 11:41am
stack-docs Ready Ready Preview Comment Nov 14, 2025 11:41am

vercel[bot] avatar Nov 24 '24 13:11 vercel[bot]

🌿 Preview your docs: https://stack-auth-preview-04ac5a34-53b6-4d8c-b699-44e27f78ba91.docs.buildwithfern.com

github-actions[bot] avatar Nov 24 '24 13:11 github-actions[bot]

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

CLAassistant avatar Mar 05 '25 08:03 CLAassistant

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/59c64c5d-9ff8-4efb-93d4-d930fdf34425 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/23690b0c-7a3a-4477-9380-b520e67e7d17

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 21 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/7c809060-8230-4130-a2b4-f38186233966 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/789afacb-0752-4588-bbb8-f651dbd24ea6

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 22 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/7597118c-f809-4e5e-946a-46ebe4e95299 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/54c99ad1-feff-4d6a-b1c0-54968c82842e

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 23 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/54139141-3686-41dc-8794-28b499e7ef5f https://zeropath.com/app/issues/f7c615d4-1677-4072-a043-c325c1476a86

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 24 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/3448c56b-23f5-4011-94b9-310418efa820 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/a9a81266-e23b-41fc-8daf-480954e61a2c

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 25 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/d79816ef-82e5-43cc-ad22-38039b85bfd5 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/e5eed1c9-f0f9-48d9-bfdf-647cf26dd800

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 26 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/eb49e372-5691-4211-b4c1-dc99404772ba https://zeropath.com/app/issues/06cb4441-de09-4e55-82d7-c354a4e78500

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 27 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/14ac7987-49d5-4cbf-8265-fe3a307c6d75 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/fd93818d-62d0-4452-acad-a441169d4d05

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Mar 28 '25 11:03 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/0f2d5472-eb08-4d83-a477-25c86d4fef2a https://zeropath.com/app/issues/e20aa22e-815f-4cc9-8b65-99c9ea386e72

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Apr 01 '25 11:04 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/14f8eb4d-a3c3-4fa2-a1a3-07ce1eb981ab https://zeropath.com/app/issues/cd51bc4b-a33c-4fe5-9b67-403a9ef0cc4b

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Apr 02 '25 11:04 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/bb02e6be-efa0-4b58-b55e-fc0a536921e0 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/87f5a54a-237b-4595-aea0-8c0258ae2010

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Apr 03 '25 11:04 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/0a1f218e-6ef5-4f07-84cc-86e0a71578f6 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/6c6bdf0d-a9cf-43ca-9488-d73f880bd1b2

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Apr 04 '25 11:04 zeropath-ai[bot]

Some new issue(s) might be present. Please use the following link(s) to view them:

https://zeropath.com/app/issues/3136e5fa-334d-4a90-baa5-451c7b461789 https://zeropath.com/app/issues/89d1321e-4c1b-4c86-9697-e170c3f7c1ce

Reply to this PR with @zeropath-ai followed by a description of what change you want and we'll auto-submit a change to this PR to implement it.

zeropath-ai[bot] avatar Apr 05 '25 11:04 zeropath-ai[bot]

[!IMPORTANT]

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • [ ] Create PR with unit tests
  • [ ] Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • [ ] Commit unit tests in branch vercel-integration

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

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

coderabbitai[bot] avatar Jul 26 '25 11:07 coderabbitai[bot]

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

I've reviewed the changes in this PR, which adds Vercel API integration functionality. Here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List:

  • [x] Read and analyze changed files
  • [x] Review code quality and best practices
  • [x] Check for potential bugs and issues
  • [x] Evaluate performance considerations
  • [x] Assess security concerns
  • [x] Review test coverage
  • [x] Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

  1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
  2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
  3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
  4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

  1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

    • Adding token validation/sanitization
    • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
    • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

  2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

    const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

    This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

  1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

    const data = await res.json();
return Result.ok(data);

    No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

  2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

    errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

  3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

  1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

  2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

    path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

  3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

    const parts = path.split("/");
if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

  1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

  2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

  3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

  1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
  2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
  3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

  • Network calls that need mocking
  • Complex error handling logic
  • URL parsing edge cases
  • API response validation

Recommendations:

  • Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
  • Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
  • Test URL parsing edge cases
  • Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

  1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
  2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
  3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
  4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

  1. Extract API endpoints to constants
  2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
  3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
  4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

  1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
  2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
  3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

claude[bot] avatar Aug 08 '25 11:08 claude[bot]

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

  • [x] Read and analyze changed files
  • [x] Review code quality and best practices
  • [x] Check for potential bugs and issues
  • [x] Evaluate performance considerations
  • [x] Assess security concerns
  • [x] Review test coverage
  • [x] Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

  1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
  2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
  3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
  4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

  1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

    • Adding token validation/sanitization
    • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
    • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

  2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

    const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

    This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

  1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

    const data = await res.json();
return Result.ok(data);

    No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

  2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

    errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

  3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

  1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

  2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

    path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

  3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

    const parts = path.split("/");
if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

  1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

  2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

  3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

  1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
  2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
  3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

  • Network calls that need mocking
  • Complex error handling logic
  • URL parsing edge cases
  • API response validation

Recommendations:

  • Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
  • Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
  • Test URL parsing edge cases
  • Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

  1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
  2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
  3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
  4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

  1. Extract API endpoints to constants
  2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
  3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
  4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

  1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
  2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
  3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

claude[bot] avatar Aug 09 '25 11:08 claude[bot]

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

  • [x] Read and analyze changed files
  • [x] Review code quality and best practices
  • [x] Check for potential bugs and issues
  • [x] Evaluate performance considerations
  • [x] Assess security concerns
  • [x] Review test coverage
  • [x] Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

  1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
  2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
  3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
  4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

  1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

    • Adding token validation/sanitization
    • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
    • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

  2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

    const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

    This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

  1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

    const data = await res.json();
return Result.ok(data);

    No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

  2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

    errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

  3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

  1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

  2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

    path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

  3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

    const parts = path.split("/");
if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

  1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

  2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

  3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

  1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
  2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
  3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

  • Network calls that need mocking
  • Complex error handling logic
  • URL parsing edge cases
  • API response validation

Recommendations:

  • Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
  • Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
  • Test URL parsing edge cases
  • Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

  1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
  2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
  3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
  4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

  1. Extract API endpoints to constants
  2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
  3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
  4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

  1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
  2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
  3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

claude[bot] avatar Aug 12 '25 11:08 claude[bot]

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

  • [x] Read and analyze changed files
  • [x] Review code quality and best practices
  • [x] Check for potential bugs and issues
  • [x] Evaluate performance considerations
  • [x] Assess security concerns
  • [x] Review test coverage
  • [x] Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

  1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
  2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
  3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
  4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

  1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

    • Adding token validation/sanitization
    • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
    • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

  2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

    const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

    This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

  1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

    const data = await res.json();
return Result.ok(data);

    No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

  2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

    errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

  3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

  1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

  2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

    path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

  3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

    const parts = path.split("/");
if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

  1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

  2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

  3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

  1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
  2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
  3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

  • Network calls that need mocking
  • Complex error handling logic
  • URL parsing edge cases
  • API response validation

Recommendations:

  • Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
  • Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
  • Test URL parsing edge cases
  • Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

  1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
  2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
  3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
  4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

  1. Extract API endpoints to constants
  2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
  3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
  4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

  1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
  2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
  3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

claude[bot] avatar Aug 13 '25 11:08 claude[bot]

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

Todo List:

  • [x] Read and analyze changed files
  • [x] Review code quality and best practices
  • [x] Check for potential bugs and issues
  • [x] Evaluate performance considerations
  • [x] Assess security concerns
  • [x] Review test coverage
  • [x] Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

  1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
  2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
  3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
  4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

  1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

    • Adding token validation/sanitization
    • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
    • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

  2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

    const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

    This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

  1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

    const data = await res.json();
return Result.ok(data);

    No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

  2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

    errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

  3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

  1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

  2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

    path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

  3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

    const parts = path.split("/");
if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

  1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

  2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

  3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

  1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
  2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
  3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

  • Network calls that need mocking
  • Complex error handling logic
  • URL parsing edge cases
  • API response validation

Recommendations:

  • Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
  • Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
  • Test URL parsing edge cases
  • Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

  1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
  2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
  3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
  4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

  1. Extract API endpoints to constants
  2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
  3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
  4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

  1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
  2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
  3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

claude[bot] avatar Aug 15 '25 11:08 claude[bot]

Claude finished @N2D4's task —— View job

Code Review for Vercel Integration PR

I've reviewed the changes in this PR, which adds Vercel API integration functionality. Here's my comprehensive feedback:

Todo List:

  • [x] Read and analyze changed files
  • [x] Review code quality and best practices
  • [x] Check for potential bugs and issues
  • [x] Evaluate performance considerations
  • [x] Assess security concerns
  • [x] Review test coverage
  • [x] Provide comprehensive feedback

📋 Summary of Changes

Modified Files:

  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/urls.tsx: Minor change (+1/-1)
  • packages/stack-shared/src/utils/vercel-api.tsx: New file with Vercel API integration (+115 lines)

✅ Positive Aspects

  1. Good Error Handling: The code uses Result<T> pattern for consistent error handling
  2. Type Safety: Well-typed function signatures with proper TypeScript usage
  3. Input Validation: URL validation and proper parameter checking
  4. Clean API Design: Functions are well-structured and follow consistent patterns

⚠️ Issues and Concerns

Security Concerns

  1. Token Exposure Risk: The bearer token is passed directly to fetch() headers. Consider:

    • Adding token validation/sanitization
    • Ensuring tokens are properly masked in error messages and logs
    • The token could appear in error stack traces or debugging output

  2. URL Construction: In vercelApiRequest(), the path is directly concatenated:

    const url = new URL(options.path, `https://api.vercel.com`);

    This could be vulnerable to URL manipulation if options.path contains unexpected characters.

Potential Bugs

  1. Missing Response Body Validation (vercel-api.tsx:40):

    const data = await res.json();
return Result.ok(data);

    No validation that the response actually contains valid JSON. This could throw if Vercel returns non-JSON content.

  2. Inconsistent Error Handling: The error parsing logic assumes a specific JSON structure but doesn't validate it:

    errorMessage = json?.error?.message ?? errorMessage;
errorCode = json?.error?.code ?? errorCode;

  3. Type Safety Issue: Return types are too generic. For example, getCurrentUser() claims to return { id: string, email: string, name: string } but the actual API response isn't validated against this shape.

Code Quality Issues

  1. Missing Input Validation: Functions don't validate required parameters (e.g., empty token, invalid team slug format)

  2. Magic Strings: API paths are hardcoded strings that should be constants:

    path: '/v2/user',        // Should be const API_ENDPOINTS.USER
path: `/v9/projects/${options.idOrName}`,
path: `/v13/deployments/${idOrUrl}`,

  3. URL Parsing Logic: In parseProjectUrl(), the path parsing is fragile:

    const parts = path.split("/");
if (parts.length !== 2) // Breaks if URL has trailing slash or query params

🚨 Critical Issues

  1. No Rate Limiting: The Vercel API has rate limits, but there's no handling for 429 responses or retry logic.

  2. Missing Request Timeout: Network requests have no timeout, could hang indefinitely.

  3. Error Information Leakage: Full response objects are included in error details, potentially exposing sensitive information.

📊 Performance Considerations

  1. No Request Caching: Repeated calls to the same endpoints will make unnecessary network requests
  2. No Connection Pooling: Each request creates a new connection
  3. Large Error Objects: Including full response objects in errors could cause memory issues

🧪 Test Coverage

Major Gap: The new vercel-api.tsx file has zero test coverage. This is concerning given:

  • Network calls that need mocking
  • Complex error handling logic
  • URL parsing edge cases
  • API response validation

Recommendations:

  • Add unit tests with mocked fetch responses
  • Test error scenarios (network failures, invalid responses)
  • Test URL parsing edge cases
  • Test parameter validation

💡 Recommendations

High Priority

  1. Add comprehensive tests for the new Vercel API module
  2. Validate API responses against expected schemas
  3. Add request timeouts and proper error handling
  4. Sanitize tokens in error messages

Medium Priority

  1. Extract API endpoints to constants
  2. Add retry logic for rate limiting
  3. Improve URL parsing robustness in parseProjectUrl()
  4. Add JSDoc comments for public functions

Low Priority

  1. Consider adding request caching for repeated calls
  2. Add logging/metrics for API calls
  3. Consider using a proper HTTP client library

🎯 Specific Code Suggestions

// Add timeout and better error handling
const controller = new AbortController();
const timeoutId = setTimeout(() => controller.abort(), 10000); // 10s timeout

const res = await fetch(url, {
  // ... existing options
  signal: controller.signal,
});
clearTimeout(timeoutId);

// Validate JSON response
try {
  const data = await res.json();
  // Add schema validation here
  return Result.ok(data);
} catch (error) {
  return Result.error(new StackAssertionError('Invalid JSON response from Vercel API'));
}

Overall: This is a solid foundation for Vercel API integration, but needs security improvements, comprehensive testing, and better error handling before production use.

claude[bot] avatar Aug 19 '25 11:08 claude[bot]