Skip to content

Conversation

@coroiu
Copy link
Contributor

@coroiu coroiu commented Nov 7, 2025

🎟️ Tracking

📔 Objective

📸 Screenshots

⏰ Reminders before review

  • Contributor guidelines followed
  • All formatters and local linters executed and passed
  • Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
  • Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
  • Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
  • CI builds passed
  • Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
  • Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

  • 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
  • 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
  • ❓ (:question:) for questions
  • 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
  • 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
  • ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
  • 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
  • ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

@coroiu coroiu requested a review from addisonbeck November 7, 2025 14:53
@claude

This comment was marked as spam.

const NODE_ENV = process.env.NODE_ENV == null ? "development" : process.env.NODE_ENV;
const LOGGING = process.env.LOGGING != "false";
const ENV = params.env?.ENV ?? process.env?.ENV ?? "development";
const NODE_ENV = params.env?.NODE_ENV ?? process.env?.NODE_ENV ?? "development";
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Finding 1: Inconsistent LOGGING logic compared to ENV and NODE_ENV.

While ENV and NODE_ENV use nullish coalescing for boolean/truthy checks, LOGGING uses != "false" which means:

  • params.env.LOGGING undefined → falls through to process.env.LOGGING != "false"
  • If params.env.LOGGING is false (boolean), it becomes the value without the string check

This could lead to unexpected behavior if params.env.LOGGING is passed as a boolean false (it would be used directly) vs a string "false" (which would need the != check).

Consider making this consistent:

const LOGGING = params.env?.LOGGING ?? (process.env?.LOGGING != "false");

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Was your code snippet the suggestion?

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Logo
Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details848b2518-3e2b-421c-a8e5-b483cde7d99b

New Issues (7)

Checkmarx found the following issues in this Pull Request

Severity Issue Source File / Package Checkmarx Insight
HIGH CVE-2025-12727 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsDescription: Inappropriate implementation in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 142.0.7444.137 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a ...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: LOW

ID: OTlVCmZTsk%2BM2NZRIbiuAAEOhy95nW0j7ISaBu7BkbE%3D
Vulnerable Package
HIGH CVE-2025-12907 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsDescription: Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Devtools in Google Chrome prior to 140.0.7339.80 allowed a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code ...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: LOW

ID: 6%2FnD12Pt9qFllJ%2B1wD%2B%2FfKvEp3R4juLLeIqT%2Fn6aAro%3D
Vulnerable Package
MEDIUM CVE-2025-11215 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsDescription: Off-by-one Error in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 141.0.7390.54 allowed a remote attacker to perform an Out-of-bounds Memory Read via a crafted HTML...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: LOW

ID: PuXRo%2FQ2R1gXtVmg269xyvzozIhrU4g6zcwH1%2BcxbPU%3D
Vulnerable Package
MEDIUM CVE-2025-11216 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsRecommended version: 39.2.0
Description: Inappropriate implementation in Storage in Google Chrome on Mac prior to 141.0.7390.54 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a c...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: LOW

ID: 2FylzSpfe%2FK%2BaDGmYyODmD5CFDHJI3Qa10CGg84zWgw%3D
Vulnerable Package
MEDIUM CVE-2025-12728 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsDescription: Inappropriate implementation in Omnibox in Google Chrome on Android prior to 142.0.7444.137 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engag...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: HIGH

ID: 3P%2BWzlR6%2F0a5rPfptaKVSBqJP0ij2T3afNjkTYoZsEA%3D
Vulnerable Package
MEDIUM CVE-2025-12729 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsDescription: Inappropriate implementation in Omnibox in Google Chrome on Android prior to 142.0.7444.137 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engag...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: HIGH

ID: 0uTR37IzfOR%2FyC1GlhInkLBIJuDXKK%2FBy7VHfpyC4HM%3D
Vulnerable Package
LOW CVE-2025-11219 Npm-electron-37.7.0
detailsRecommended version: 39.2.0
Description: Use After Free in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 141.0.7390.54 allowed a remote attacker to potentially perform Out-of-bounds Memory Access via a cra...
Attack Vector: NETWORK
Attack Complexity: HIGH

ID: q3J3ak6QWHnf7VmugPEQ3OSpnMn9AkFlkziNU7Fai1s%3D
Vulnerable Package

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 7, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 41.24%. Comparing base (90ca6bf) to head (48aec17).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17279      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.12%   41.24%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files        3544     3543       -1     
  Lines      101844   101963     +119     
  Branches    15265    15295      +30     
==========================================
+ Hits        41879    42054     +175     
+ Misses      58202    58145      -57     
- Partials     1763     1764       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@addisonbeck
Copy link
Contributor

One thing you should also consider is that folks expect the self hosted web vault to run on a different port. This isn't configured in the web apps project.json right now, and I think it needs to be.

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.

3 participants