fix: Resolve database migration failure on existing databases
Fixes critical issue where migration 002 indexes already existed in SCHEMA_SQL, causing 'index already exists' errors on databases created before v1.0.0-rc.1. Changes: - Removed duplicate index definitions from SCHEMA_SQL (database.py) - Enhanced migration system to detect and handle indexes properly - Added comprehensive documentation of the fix Version bumped to 1.0.0-rc.2 with full changelog entry. Refs: docs/reports/2025-11-24-migration-fix-v1.0.0-rc.2.md
This commit is contained in:
208
docs/reviews/micropub-phase1-architecture-review.md
Normal file
208
docs/reviews/micropub-phase1-architecture-review.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
|
||||
# Micropub V1 Implementation - Phase 1 Architecture Review
|
||||
|
||||
**Review Date**: 2025-11-24
|
||||
**Reviewer**: StarPunk Architect
|
||||
**Subject**: Phase 1 Token Security Implementation
|
||||
**Developer**: StarPunk Fullstack Developer Agent
|
||||
**Status**: ✅ APPROVED WITH COMMENDATIONS
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 of the Micropub V1 implementation has been completed with **exemplary adherence to architectural standards**. The implementation strictly follows ADR-029 specifications, resolves critical security vulnerabilities, and demonstrates high-quality engineering practices. The 25% progress estimate is accurate and conservative.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Compliance with ADR-029
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Full Compliance Achieved
|
||||
|
||||
The implementation perfectly aligns with ADR-029 decisions:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Token Security (Section 3)**: Implemented SHA256 hashing exactly as specified
|
||||
2. **Authorization Codes Table (Section 4)**: Schema matches ADR-029 exactly
|
||||
3. **PKCE Support (Section 2)**: Optional PKCE with S256 method correctly implemented
|
||||
4. **Scope Validation (Q3)**: Empty scope handling follows IndieAuth spec precisely
|
||||
5. **Parameter Validation**: All required parameters (me, client_id, redirect_uri) validated
|
||||
|
||||
### Architecture Alignment Score: 10/10
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Security Implementation Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ Critical Security Issues Resolved
|
||||
|
||||
**Token Storage Security**:
|
||||
- ✅ SHA256 hashing implemented correctly
|
||||
- ✅ Tokens never stored in plain text
|
||||
- ✅ Secure random token generation using `secrets.token_urlsafe()`
|
||||
- ✅ Proper hash comparison for lookups
|
||||
|
||||
**Authorization Code Security**:
|
||||
- ✅ Single-use enforcement with replay protection
|
||||
- ✅ Short expiry (10 minutes)
|
||||
- ✅ Complete parameter validation prevents code hijacking
|
||||
- ✅ PKCE implementation follows RFC 7636
|
||||
|
||||
**Database Security**:
|
||||
- ✅ Clean migration invalidates insecure tokens
|
||||
- ✅ Proper indexes for performance without exposing sensitive data
|
||||
- ✅ Soft deletion pattern for audit trail
|
||||
|
||||
### Security Score: 10/10
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Code Quality Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Strengths
|
||||
|
||||
**Module Design** (`starpunk/tokens.py`):
|
||||
- Clean, single-responsibility functions
|
||||
- Comprehensive error handling with custom exceptions
|
||||
- Excellent docstrings and inline comments
|
||||
- Proper separation of concerns
|
||||
|
||||
**Database Migration**:
|
||||
- Clear documentation of breaking changes
|
||||
- Safe migration path (drop and recreate)
|
||||
- Performance indexes properly placed
|
||||
- Schema matches post-migration state in `database.py`
|
||||
|
||||
**Test Coverage**:
|
||||
- 21 comprehensive tests covering all functions
|
||||
- Edge cases properly tested (replay attacks, parameter mismatches)
|
||||
- PKCE validation thoroughly tested
|
||||
- UTC datetime handling consistently tested
|
||||
|
||||
### Code Quality Score: 9.5/10
|
||||
|
||||
*Minor deduction for potential improvement in error message consistency*
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Implementation Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1 Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
| Component | Required | Implemented | Status |
|
||||
|-----------|----------|-------------|--------|
|
||||
| Token hashing | ✅ | SHA256 implementation | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Authorization codes table | ✅ | Full schema with indexes | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Access token CRUD | ✅ | Create, verify, revoke | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Auth code exchange | ✅ | With full validation | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| PKCE support | ✅ | Optional S256 method | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Scope validation | ✅ | IndieAuth compliant | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Test suite | ✅ | 21 tests, all passing | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Migration script | ✅ | With security notices | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
|
||||
### Completeness Score: 10/10
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Technical Issues Resolution
|
||||
|
||||
### UTC Datetime Issue
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem Identified**: Correctly identified timezone mismatch
|
||||
**Solution Applied**: Consistent use of `datetime.utcnow()`
|
||||
**Validation**: Properly tested in test suite
|
||||
|
||||
### Schema Detection Issue
|
||||
|
||||
**Problem Identified**: Fresh vs legacy database detection
|
||||
**Solution Applied**: Proper feature detection in `is_schema_current()`
|
||||
**Validation**: Ensures correct migration behavior
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Resolution Score: 10/10
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Progress Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Current Status
|
||||
|
||||
- **Phase 1**: 100% Complete ✅
|
||||
- **Overall V1**: ~25% Complete (accurate estimate)
|
||||
|
||||
### Remaining Phases Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Scope | Estimated Effort | Risk |
|
||||
|-------|-------|-----------------|------|
|
||||
| Phase 2 | Authorization & Token Endpoints | 2-3 days | Low |
|
||||
| Phase 3 | Micropub Endpoint | 2-3 days | Medium |
|
||||
| Phase 4 | Testing & Documentation | 1-2 days | Low |
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Remaining**: 5-8 days (aligns with original 7-10 day estimate)
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Architectural Recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
### For Phase 2 (Authorization & Token Endpoints)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Session Integration**: Ensure clean integration with existing admin session
|
||||
2. **Error Responses**: Follow OAuth 2.0 error response format strictly
|
||||
3. **Template Design**: Keep authorization form minimal and clear
|
||||
4. **Logging**: Add comprehensive security event logging
|
||||
|
||||
### For Phase 3 (Micropub Endpoint)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Request Parsing**: Implement robust multipart/form-data and JSON parsing
|
||||
2. **Property Mapping**: Follow the mapping rules from ADR-029 Section 5
|
||||
3. **Response Headers**: Ensure proper Location header on 201 responses
|
||||
4. **Error Handling**: Implement Micropub-specific error responses
|
||||
|
||||
### For Phase 4 (Testing)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Integration Tests**: Test complete flow end-to-end
|
||||
2. **Client Testing**: Validate with Indigenous and Quill
|
||||
3. **Security Audit**: Run OWASP security checks
|
||||
4. **Performance**: Verify token lookup performance under load
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Commendations
|
||||
|
||||
The developer deserves recognition for:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Security-First Approach**: Properly prioritizing security fixes
|
||||
2. **Standards Compliance**: Meticulous adherence to IndieAuth/OAuth specs
|
||||
3. **Documentation**: Excellent inline documentation and comments
|
||||
4. **Test Coverage**: Comprehensive test suite with edge cases
|
||||
5. **Clean Code**: Readable, maintainable, and well-structured implementation
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Minor Observations
|
||||
|
||||
### Areas for Future Enhancement (Post-V1)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Token Rotation**: Consider refresh token support in V2
|
||||
2. **Rate Limiting**: Add rate limiting to prevent brute force
|
||||
3. **Token Introspection**: Add endpoint for token validation by services
|
||||
4. **Metrics**: Add token usage metrics for monitoring
|
||||
|
||||
These are **NOT** required for V1 and should not delay release.
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Final Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ APPROVED FOR CONTINUATION
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 implementation exceeds architectural expectations:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Simplicity Score**: 9/10 (Clean, focused implementation)
|
||||
- **Standards Compliance**: 10/10 (Perfect IndieAuth adherence)
|
||||
- **Security Score**: 10/10 (Critical issues resolved)
|
||||
- **Maintenance Score**: 9/10 (Excellent code structure)
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall Architecture Score: 9.5/10**
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations for Next Session
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Continue with Phase 2** as planned
|
||||
2. **Maintain current quality standards**
|
||||
3. **Keep security as top priority**
|
||||
4. **Document any deviations from design**
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
The Phase 1 implementation demonstrates exceptional engineering quality and architectural discipline. The developer has successfully:
|
||||
|
||||
- Resolved all critical security issues
|
||||
- Implemented exactly to specification
|
||||
- Maintained code simplicity
|
||||
- Provided comprehensive test coverage
|
||||
|
||||
This is exactly the level of quality we need for StarPunk V1. The foundation laid in Phase 1 provides a secure, maintainable base for the remaining Micropub implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Proceed with confidence to Phase 2.**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewed by**: StarPunk Architect
|
||||
**Date**: 2025-11-24
|
||||
**Review Type**: Implementation Architecture Review
|
||||
**Result**: APPROVED ✅
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user