Skip to content

feat: recovery code management - #146

Open
romanetar wants to merge 7 commits into
feat/fe-testing-infrastructurefrom
feat/recovery-codes-management
Open

feat: recovery code management#146
romanetar wants to merge 7 commits into
feat/fe-testing-infrastructurefrom
feat/recovery-codes-management

Conversation

@romanetar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

matiasperrone-exo and others added 7 commits June 24, 2026 18:25
Signed-off-by: romanetar <roman_ag@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: romanetar <roman_ag@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: romanetar <roman_ag@hotmail.com>
Comment out login-mfa-flow.spec.ts and register.spec.ts so CI runs
login.spec.ts alone to verify it now passes without account lockout
interference. Also fix the MFA beforeEach mock: fulfill() must run
before unroute(), otherwise Playwright auto-resolves the in-flight
route on unroute and the later fulfill() throws "Route is already
handled" - which was letting the real POST through with a wrong
password and locking out test@test.com.
login.spec.ts verified green in isolation; re-enable the MFA flow
suite (route-ordering fix already applied) and the registration
suite now that the account-lockout cascade is gone.

Signed-off-by: romanetar <roman_ag@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: romanetar <roman_ag@hotmail.com>
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

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.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 35b6d484-39ba-48f9-9812-ee2b8ab31b54

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

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch feat/recovery-codes-management

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.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

📘 OpenAPI / Swagger preview

➡️ https://OpenStackweb.github.io/openstackid/openapi/pr-146/

This page is automatically updated on each push to this PR.

@romanetar
romanetar requested a review from smarcet July 8, 2026 18:48
smarcet added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 23, 2026
Ticket CU-86ba2zc6p's TESTS list requires: "OTP redeem is persisted only
on commit; a failure inside the verify transaction rolls back the
redeem." No such test existed anywhere in this branch or PR #142/#146 -
the two closest existing tests (testOTPCodeRejectsReuseAfterSuccessfulVerification,
testRecoveryCodeRejectsReuseAfterTransactionCommit) only prove the COMMIT
path (a successful verification's redeem persists and blocks reuse), not
that a FAILED verification's partial redeem rolls back.

Pure test-coverage gap, no production fix needed - AuthService::verifyMFAChallenge()
already wraps strategy->verifyChallenge() in tx_service->transaction(),
and DoctrineTransactionService already rolls back and re-throws on
failure. Confirmed the test has teeth: temporarily bypassing the
transaction wrapper broke the pessimistic-lock acquisition inside
verifyChallenge() (which requires an open transaction), proving the test
environment genuinely depends on transactional context, not just
coincidentally passing.

testOTPRedeemRollsBackOnMidTransactionFailure wraps the real
EmailOTPMFAChallengeStrategy in a test double that lets the genuine
redeem happen, then throws immediately after - inside the same
transaction. Asserts the OTP is refetched from the DB (post-rollback)
still unredeemed.
@smarcet
smarcet force-pushed the feat/fe-testing-infrastructure branch from 1b6f66d to 052220a Compare July 26, 2026 04:06
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