@axonflow/sdk 9.0.0 → 9.2.0

package/dist/cjs/authzen.js

@@ -0,0 +1,875 @@
+"use strict";
+/**
+ * AuthZEN-native authorization for the AxonFlow SDK.
+ *
+ * This is the surface the ADR-065 compatibility plan commits to in all five
+ * SDKs. It talks to `POST /api/v1/access/evaluation`, whose wire shape is
+ * generated from the platform's canonical contract (see
+ * `src/types/authzen.gen.ts`); nothing in this file re-states a field name or
+ * an enum value.
+ *
+ * ## What this replaces, and when
+ *
+ * Nothing yet. The existing decision surface (`decide`, `explainDecision` and
+ * the gateway/proxy methods) stays wire-stable through all of v11 and is not
+ * deprecated here. This is the surface to write NEW integrations against,
+ * because at v11 the engine behind it becomes the ADR-065 Policy Decision Point
+ * with no wire change — an integration written against it migrates once rather
+ * than twice. See `docs/AUTHZEN_MIGRATION_DRAFT.md`.
+ *
+ * ## The one thing worth knowing before you call it
+ *
+ * The server refuses anything it cannot evaluate rather than evaluating around
+ * it. Send a subject property, an unrecognised context member, or an argument
+ * beside the query, and you get an `AuthZENRefusal` naming the exact member —
+ * not a decision computed without it. That is deliberate: a decision that
+ * silently ignored an attribute would tell you the attribute was weighed when
+ * it was not, and every audit of that decision would inherit the claim.
+ *
+ * So treat an `AuthZENRefusal` as "fix the request", and retry only when
+ * `refusal.retryable` is true.
+ */
+var _a;
+Object.defineProperty(exports, "__esModule", { value: true });
+exports.AuthZENDecision = exports.AuthZENAttribute = exports.AuthZENProtocolError = exports.AuthZENRefusal = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_REQUIRED_ABSENT = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_MALFORMED_VALUE = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_CLOSURE_TRUNCATED = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_CLOSURE_UNAVAILABLE = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_SCHEMA_MISMATCH = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_STALE = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_RESOLUTION_FAILED = exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_NOT_SUPPLIED = exports.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_HEADER = exports.AUTHZEN_PATH = exports.AUTHZEN_ATTRIBUTE_MARKER = void 0;
+exports.resolveEnvelope = resolveEnvelope;
+exports.checkEnvelopeComplete = checkEnvelopeComplete;
+exports.buildEnvelope = buildEnvelope;
+exports.evaluateEnvelope = evaluateEnvelope;
+exports.assertFullyResolved = assertFullyResolved;
+exports.toWire = toWire;
+const errors_1 = require("./errors");
+const authzen_gen_1 = require("./types/authzen.gen");
+/**
+ * The marker every tri-state attribute carries. See {@link AuthZENAttribute}.
+ *
+ * Exported so a caller building attributes across a serialisation boundary can
+ * reconstruct one the SDK will still recognise.
+ */
+exports.AUTHZEN_ATTRIBUTE_MARKER = '__axonflow_authzen_attribute__';
+/** The AuthZEN evaluation endpoint. */
+exports.AUTHZEN_PATH = '/api/v1/access/evaluation';
+/**
+ * How a Policy Enforcement Point negotiates the AxonFlow profile.
+ *
+ * The SDK always sends it. AuthZEN 1.0's response is a bare boolean, and the
+ * four-valued state, the obligations and the approval challenge ride in the
+ * response context, which the server returns only to a caller that asked for it
+ * by version. This SDK understands the profile, so there is no reason to ask
+ * for less than it can read — and a response WITHOUT the context is therefore a
+ * protocol failure here rather than a decision with no obligations.
+ */
+exports.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_HEADER = 'X-Axonflow-AuthZEN-Profile';
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// Why an attribute could not be established.
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+//
+// These mirror ADR-065's tri-state reason codes so an operator reading an SDK
+// refusal and an operator reading a platform trace use the same words. They are
+// CLIENT-LOCAL: an unknown attribute never reaches the wire, because the whole
+// point is that the request is not sent. The reason is a free-form string on
+// purpose — a closed set hand-copied from the platform would be a transcription
+// that drifts, and it would buy nothing, since nothing on the far side reads it.
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_NOT_SUPPLIED = 'attribute_not_supplied';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_RESOLUTION_FAILED = 'resolution_failed';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_STALE = 'stale';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_SCHEMA_MISMATCH = 'schema_mismatch';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_CLOSURE_UNAVAILABLE = 'closure_unavailable';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_CLOSURE_TRUNCATED = 'closure_truncated';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_MALFORMED_VALUE = 'malformed_value';
+exports.AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_REQUIRED_ABSENT = 'required_attribute_absent';
+/**
+ * The request was NOT evaluated, and here is the typed reason why.
+ *
+ * A refusal is not a denial. `decision: false` says the request WAS evaluated
+ * and the answer was no; a refusal says no decision exists. Code that treats
+ * every error as a deny fails closed — which is safe — but will block traffic
+ * that should have been allowed once the request is corrected.
+ *
+ * `refusedBy` says who made the call. `'gateway'` is a refusal document the
+ * server sent; `'client'` is this SDK declining to send a request it can
+ * already see will not be evaluated — an attribute the caller could not
+ * resolve, or an evaluation with no subject. The code vocabulary is shared
+ * because the REASONS are shared: an incomplete evaluation is an incomplete
+ * evaluation whoever notices it first.
+ */
+class AuthZENRefusal extends errors_1.AxonFlowError {
+    constructor(code, message, options) {
+        super(message, {
+            code,
+            pointer: options.pointer,
+            supported: options.supported,
+            requestId: options.requestId,
+            refusedBy: options.refusedBy,
+        });
+        this.name = 'AuthZENRefusal';
+        this.code = code;
+        this.pointer = options.pointer;
+        this.supported = options.supported;
+        this.requestId = options.requestId;
+        this.refusedBy = options.refusedBy;
+        Object.setPrototypeOf(this, AuthZENRefusal.prototype);
+    }
+    /** Build a refusal from the structured document the server sent. */
+    static fromBody(body) {
+        return new AuthZENRefusal(body.code, body.message, {
+            refusedBy: 'gateway',
+            pointer: body.pointer,
+            supported: body.supported,
+            requestId: body.request_id,
+        });
+    }
+    /**
+     * Whether sending the same request again could give a different answer.
+     *
+     * Only a dependency failure the GATEWAY reported is. Every other code names
+     * something about the request itself, which will not change on a retry — so
+     * a client that retries on any refusal burns its budget on requests that
+     * cannot succeed.
+     *
+     * A client-side refusal is never retryable, whatever its code: this SDK does
+     * not resolve the caller's attributes, so nothing it can do will change the
+     * answer. Reading retryability off the code alone would have told a caller to
+     * retry an attribute its own resolver failed to produce.
+     */
+    get retryable() {
+        return this.refusedBy === 'gateway' && this.code === authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_ERROR_CODE_EVALUATION_UNAVAILABLE;
+    }
+}
+exports.AuthZENRefusal = AuthZENRefusal;
+/**
+ * A 200 whose body this build cannot safely interpret.
+ *
+ * Deliberately NOT an `AuthZENRefusal`. A refusal carries the server's own
+ * typed code from a closed vocabulary the server owns; a response this build
+ * cannot read is not something the server said, and dressing it in a server
+ * code would tell the caller the gateway refused when it did not. The two also
+ * demand different actions: a refusal means fix the request, a protocol error
+ * means upgrade the SDK or go and look at the deployment.
+ *
+ * It is always fail-closed: no decision is returned, so a caller that lets it
+ * propagate blocks the operation.
+ */
+class AuthZENProtocolError extends errors_1.AxonFlowError {
+    constructor(message) {
+        super(message);
+        this.name = 'AuthZENProtocolError';
+        Object.setPrototypeOf(this, AuthZENProtocolError.prototype);
+    }
+}
+exports.AuthZENProtocolError = AuthZENProtocolError;
+/**
+ * One policy-visible attribute in exactly one of three states.
+ *
+ * `undefined` and `null` cannot express this. ADR-065's model has three:
+ *
+ * - `known` — the authoritative source returned a value. It is sent.
+ * - `absent` — the source successfully established that there is NO value.
+ *   Absence is a FACT, not a failure, so the member is omitted and the request
+ *   is sent: a policy that handles absence gets to handle it.
+ * - `unknown` — the value could not be established. The request is NOT sent.
+ *   Sending it would have the gateway evaluate as though the attribute were
+ *   absent, and the resulting decision — and every audit of it — would record
+ *   that an attribute was weighed when nobody ever read it. That is the exact
+ *   failure the whole surface refuses to commit, one hop earlier.
+ *
+ * Collapsing absent into unknown is the defect this type exists to prevent, and
+ * it is not hypothetical: on the platform side an ABSENT `subject.type` was
+ * read as the one supported value, so omitting the field bypassed the
+ * impersonation refusal that naming it correctly triggered.
+ *
+ * Where it may be used: inside the ATTRIBUTE bags — `context` on a request or a
+ * bulk envelope, and the `properties` bag on a subject, action or resource — at
+ * any depth. Not on the structural members (`subject.id`, `action.name`,
+ * `resource.type` …): those are the identity of the question being asked, not
+ * data about it, and an identity the caller cannot resolve is not an attribute
+ * whose absence a policy could evaluate — there is simply no request to make.
+ *
+ * @example
+ * ```typescript
+ * AuthZENAttribute.known('acme-corp');
+ * AuthZENAttribute.absent();
+ * AuthZENAttribute.unknown(AUTHZEN_UNKNOWN_RESOLUTION_FAILED);
+ * ```
+ */
+class AuthZENAttribute {
+    constructor(state, value, reason) {
+        /**
+         * The marker, carried as an ordinary ENUMERABLE property.
+         *
+         * Recognising an attribute by `instanceof` alone has a silent failure in the
+         * dangerous direction: a bundler that duplicated this package gives two
+         * distinct classes. A non-enumerable Symbol brand fixes that and introduces
+         * the same failure by another route - every ordinary copy strips it, so
+         * `structuredClone`, a spread, a JSON round trip or a worker boundary turned
+         * an UNKNOWN attribute back into ordinary data and SENT it. Measured against
+         * a live gateway.
+         *
+         * Recognising it by SHAPE alone has the mirror failure: a caller's own bag
+         * carrying `state`/`value`/`reason` is read as an attribute, and a legitimate
+         * request is refused with a message asserting the caller could not establish
+         * a value it did establish.
+         *
+         * An enumerable marker closes both. It survives every ordinary copy, and no
+         * caller's data carries it by accident. The Python sibling uses the same key
+         * for the same reason.
+         */
+        this[_a] = true;
+        this.state = state;
+        this.value = value;
+        this.reason = reason;
+    }
+    /** The source returned this value. */
+    static known(value) {
+        return new AuthZENAttribute('known', value, '');
+    }
+    /** The source established that there is no value. */
+    static absent() {
+        return new AuthZENAttribute('absent', undefined, '');
+    }
+    /**
+     * The value could not be established, for the named reason.
+     *
+     * The reason is mandatory. An unknown with no reason carries no more than
+     * `undefined` already did, and the whole point of the third state is that it
+     * says why.
+     */
+    static unknown(reason) {
+        if (!reason || reason.trim() === '') {
+            throw new errors_1.AxonFlowError('an unknown attribute must name why it could not be established; an unknown with ' +
+                'no reason carries no more information than undefined, which is the collapse ' +
+                'this type exists to prevent');
+        }
+        return new AuthZENAttribute('unknown', undefined, reason);
+    }
+    /**
+     * Whether `value` is a tri-state attribute, however it was copied.
+     *
+     * See the marker above for why this is neither a bare `instanceof` nor a
+     * structural shape check.
+     */
+    static is(value) {
+        if (value instanceof AuthZENAttribute)
+            return true;
+        if (typeof value !== 'object' || value === null)
+            return false;
+        const candidate = value;
+        if (candidate[exports.AUTHZEN_ATTRIBUTE_MARKER] !== true)
+            return false;
+        return (candidate.state === 'known' || candidate.state === 'absent' || candidate.state === 'unknown');
+    }
+}
+exports.AuthZENAttribute = AuthZENAttribute;
+_a = exports.AUTHZEN_ATTRIBUTE_MARKER;
+/**
+ * The decision, with the readings a Policy Enforcement Point acts on.
+ *
+ * It implements the generated wire type rather than replacing it, so `decision`
+ * and `context` remain exactly what the server sent while the readings below
+ * stay in hand-written code the generator never has to know about.
+ */
+class AuthZENDecision {
+    constructor(response) {
+        this.decision = response.decision;
+        this.context = response.context;
+    }
+    /**
+     * Whether the enforcement point may proceed.
+     *
+     * Read this rather than `decision`. `decision` is AuthZEN 1.0's collapsed
+     * boolean; the operational STATE is what the policy engine actually produced,
+     * and exactly one state permits execution. Requiring both means a response
+     * whose boolean and state disagree can never be read as an allow — and such a
+     * response is refused before it gets here anyway, so this is the second of
+     * two locks rather than the only one.
+     *
+     * An allow with an undischarged MANDATORY obligation is not an allow. See
+     * `mandatoryObligations`.
+     */
+    get allowed() {
+        return (this.decision === true &&
+            this.context !== undefined &&
+            this.context.state === authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_OPERATIONAL_STATE_ALLOW);
+    }
+    /**
+     * The four-valued operational state.
+     *
+     * `ERROR` when there is no context. Unreachable via `evaluate`, which refuses
+     * a context-less 200 before constructing this — but the type is public and a
+     * caller can build one by hand, and the safe reading of an outcome that
+     * carries no state is not ALLOW.
+     */
+    get state() {
+        return this.context ? this.context.state : authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_OPERATIONAL_STATE_ERROR;
+    }
+    /**
+     * The id of the evaluation that DETERMINED this outcome.
+     *
+     * For a bulk envelope this is the entry that decided the meet, not the last
+     * one evaluated: it is the id an operator looks up to explain the answer.
+     */
+    get decisionId() {
+        return this.context?.decision_id;
+    }
+    /** The safe machine-readable reason code, when the server sent one. */
+    get reason() {
+        return this.context?.reason;
+    }
+    /** The coarse outcome category, when the server sent one. */
+    get category() {
+        return this.context?.category;
+    }
+    /** Instructions the enforcement point must discharge before proceeding. */
+    get obligations() {
+        return this.context?.obligations ?? [];
+    }
+    /**
+     * The obligations that are not optional.
+     *
+     * A mandatory obligation that cannot be discharged means the operation must
+     * NOT proceed, even though `allowed` is true. This SDK cannot make that call
+     * for you — whether your enforcement point can discharge a redaction is a
+     * fact about your seam, not about the decision — so it gives you the list and
+     * stays out of the way.
+     */
+    get mandatoryObligations() {
+        return this.obligations.filter(obligation => obligation.mandatory);
+    }
+    /** The approval challenge, when the state is CHALLENGE. */
+    get approval() {
+        return this.context?.approval;
+    }
+}
+exports.AuthZENDecision = AuthZENDecision;
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// Tri-state resolution
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// RFC 6901. A correlation key containing a slash would otherwise produce a
+// pointer naming a member that does not exist, on the refusal whose entire
+// diagnostic value is the pointer.
+function escapePointerToken(token) {
+    return token.replace(/~/g, '~0').replace(/\//g, '~1');
+}
+class Unresolvable extends Error {
+    constructor(pointer, reason) {
+        super(pointer);
+        this.pointer = pointer;
+        this.reason = reason;
+    }
+}
+// Distinguishes "this member resolved to no value, drop it" from "this member
+// resolved to the value null". They are different: a caller may legitimately
+// send a JSON null, and reusing null for the drop signal would silently rewrite
+// one into the other.
+const DROP = Symbol('authzen.absent');
+/**
+ * How deep an attribute bag may nest before the SDK stops walking it.
+ *
+ * Without a bound, a bag that refers to itself recurses until the engine gives
+ * up, and the caller gets a `RangeError` out of `evaluate` - an error type
+ * nothing documents and no enforcement point catches. A bound turns that into
+ * the same typed refusal every other malformed bag gets. 64 is far past
+ * anything a policy attribute path plausibly nests and far short of the stack.
+ */
+const MAX_ATTRIBUTE_DEPTH = 64;
+function resolveValue(value, pointer, depth = 0) {
+    if (depth > MAX_ATTRIBUTE_DEPTH) {
+        throw new Unresolvable(pointer, `nests deeper than ${MAX_ATTRIBUTE_DEPTH} levels, which this SDK will not walk; a bag ` +
+            `that refers to itself would otherwise recurse until the engine stopped`);
+    }
+    if (AuthZENAttribute.is(value)) {
+        if (value.state === 'known') {
+            // A known attribute may itself hold a container carrying more
+            // attributes; resolving the payload keeps the rule uniform rather than
+            // depending on how deeply a caller nested its resolver output.
+            return resolveValue(value.value, pointer, depth + 1);
+        }
+        if (value.state === 'absent')
+            return DROP;
+        throw new Unresolvable(pointer, value.reason);
+    }
+    if (Array.isArray(value)) {
+        // An ABSENT element is dropped from the list rather than left as a hole. A
+        // list with a gap in it is a different list, and the index a policy reads
+        // would shift under it either way; dropping is the reading that matches
+        // "there is no value here".
+        const items = [];
+        value.forEach((item, index) => {
+            const resolved = resolveValue(item, `${pointer}/${index}`, depth + 1);
+            if (resolved !== DROP)
+                items.push(resolved);
+        });
+        return items;
+    }
+    if (typeof value === 'object' && value !== null) {
+        const out = {};
+        Object.keys(value).forEach(key => {
+            const resolved = resolveValue(value[key], `${pointer}/${escapePointerToken(key)}`, depth + 1);
+            if (resolved === DROP)
+                return;
+            // defineProperty, not `out[key] = …`. A plain assignment to the key
+            // `__proto__` invokes the inherited setter instead of creating a member,
+            // so a context carrying `__proto__` - which `JSON.parse` produces as an
+            // ordinary own property - VANISHED from the request with no refusal.
+            // That is "mapped or refused, never silently ignored" broken by this SDK,
+            // in the one place the gateway cannot see it: the server refuses the
+            // member by name, and it never arrived. It reaches the wire now.
+            Object.defineProperty(out, key, {
+                value: resolved,
+                writable: true,
+                enumerable: true,
+                configurable: true,
+            });
+        });
+        return out;
+    }
+    return value;
+}
+/**
+ * Resolve one attribute bag.
+ *
+ * ABSENCE DOES NOT CASCADE. A bag whose every member resolved absent is sent as
+ * an empty object, not deleted: the bag is the caller's structure and the
+ * attributes are the data inside it, and an SDK that removed a container the
+ * caller placed would be editing the question rather than resolving the answer.
+ *
+ * The lever a caller wants sits one level in, which is where the attributes
+ * are: `{ args, correlation: AuthZENAttribute.absent() }` drops `correlation`
+ * and keeps everything else. Omitting the bag itself is ordinary TypeScript —
+ * do not pass it — because a bag that is not part of the question is not an
+ * attribute whose absence anything could evaluate.
+ */
+function resolveBag(bag, pointer) {
+    if (bag === undefined)
+        return undefined;
+    return resolveValue(bag, pointer);
+}
+// Every member the caller wrote is CARRIED FORWARD, and only the attribute bags
+// are rewritten.
+//
+// These functions used to whitelist-copy `{type, id, properties}`, which meant a
+// member the contract does not declare - `{"type":"gateway","id":"g1",
+// "department":"finance"}` - was deleted here, before the generated validator
+// ran, and the request went out without it and without a refusal. The
+// validator's own documentation says it "catches a member the caller invented
+// before it becomes a 422"; the whitelist made that claim false for exactly
+// those members. Python refuses them at model construction, so this was also a
+// place the two SDKs answered the same request differently.
+//
+// Spreading means an invented member survives to `validateAuthZENEnvelope` and
+// is refused by name, with its pointer.
+function resolveSubject(subject, at) {
+    if (!subject)
+        return undefined;
+    return { ...subject, properties: resolveBag(subject.properties, `${at}/subject/properties`) };
+}
+function resolveAction(action, at) {
+    if (!action)
+        return undefined;
+    return { ...action, properties: resolveBag(action.properties, `${at}/action/properties`) };
+}
+function resolveResource(resource, at) {
+    if (!resource)
+        return undefined;
+    return { ...resource, properties: resolveBag(resource.properties, `${at}/resource/properties`) };
+}
+function resolveRequest(request, at) {
+    return {
+        ...request,
+        subject: resolveSubject(request.subject, at),
+        action: resolveAction(request.action, at),
+        resource: resolveResource(request.resource, at),
+        context: resolveBag(request.context, `${at}/context`),
+    };
+}
+/**
+ * Return the envelope with every tri-state attribute resolved to the wire.
+ *
+ * Throws `AuthZENRefusal` with `refusedBy: 'client'` and the JSON Pointer of
+ * the offending member when an attribute is UNKNOWN.
+ *
+ * The pointers match the server's own vocabulary — `/evaluation/...` for a
+ * singular envelope, `/evaluations/evaluations/<i>/...` for a plural entry — so
+ * a client-side refusal and a gateway refusal name the same member the same
+ * way, and a caller does not have to learn two pointer dialects.
+ */
+function resolveEnvelope(envelope) {
+    try {
+        // BOTH members are resolved when both are present, rather than the first
+        // one winning. Python's models refuse a two-member envelope at
+        // construction; TypeScript has no such moment, so an early return here
+        // would silently DROP the second member and send a request the caller did
+        // not write — and the exactly-one-of rule, which lives in the generated
+        // validator, would never see the violation it exists to refuse. One
+        // implementation of that rule, not two.
+        const out = {};
+        if (envelope.evaluation !== undefined && envelope.evaluation !== null) {
+            out.evaluation = resolveRequest(envelope.evaluation, '/evaluation');
+        }
+        if (envelope.evaluations !== undefined && envelope.evaluations !== null) {
+            const bulk = envelope.evaluations;
+            out.evaluations = {
+                subject: resolveSubject(bulk.subject, '/evaluations'),
+                action: resolveAction(bulk.action, '/evaluations'),
+                resource: resolveResource(bulk.resource, '/evaluations'),
+                context: resolveBag(bulk.context, '/evaluations/context'),
+                evaluations: (bulk.evaluations ?? []).map((entry, index) => resolveRequest(entry, `/evaluations/evaluations/${index}`)),
+            };
+        }
+        if (out.evaluation !== undefined || out.evaluations !== undefined) {
+            return out;
+        }
+    }
+    catch (err) {
+        if (!(err instanceof Unresolvable))
+            throw err;
+        throw new AuthZENRefusal(authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_ERROR_CODE_UNEVALUABLE_ATTRIBUTE, `the attribute at ${err.pointer} could not be established (${err.reason}), so this ` +
+            `request was not sent. The gateway would have evaluated as though the attribute ` +
+            `had no value, and the decision — and every audit of it — would record that it ` +
+            `was considered when nothing read it. Establish the value, or send it as an ` +
+            `explicitly ABSENT attribute if the source proved there is none.`, { refusedBy: 'client', pointer: err.pointer });
+    }
+    throw new AuthZENRefusal(authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_ERROR_CODE_MALFORMED_ENVELOPE, 'the envelope names neither an evaluation nor an evaluations member', { refusedBy: 'client', pointer: '' });
+}
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// Completeness
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * Check the one invariant the artifact says it cannot express.
+ *
+ * The artifact marks every member of `authzen_request` structurally optional,
+ * because a plural entry inherits anything it omits from the shared base.
+ * Whether the MERGED entry names a subject, an action and a resource is a
+ * cross-object property no per-object schema can carry, and the platform's own
+ * projection enforces it server-side.
+ *
+ * This is deliberately the ONLY thing checked here, and it is checked by
+ * PRESENCE alone. Everything else the server refuses — which action names are
+ * evaluable, which resource types exist, which correlation keys this deployment
+ * records — is deployment state the SDK does not have. A client that guessed at
+ * it would refuse requests a newer gateway accepts, and the caller would have
+ * no way to tell an SDK that is out of date from a request that is wrong.
+ */
+function checkComplete(request, base, at) {
+    const missing = ['subject', 'action', 'resource'].filter(member => !request[member] && !(base && base[member]));
+    if (missing.length > 0) {
+        throw new AuthZENRefusal(authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_ERROR_CODE_INCOMPLETE_EVALUATION, `after inheriting from the shared base this evaluation still has no ` +
+            `${missing.join(', ')}; there is nothing to evaluate`, { refusedBy: 'client', pointer: at });
+    }
+    const subject = request.subject ?? base?.subject;
+    if (subject && subject.id.trim() === '') {
+        throw new AuthZENRefusal(authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_ERROR_CODE_INCOMPLETE_EVALUATION, 'the subject id must not be blank; a decision has to name the caller it was made for', { refusedBy: 'client', pointer: `${at}/subject/id` });
+    }
+}
+/** Refuse an envelope that cannot produce a decision, before the round trip. */
+function checkEnvelopeComplete(envelope) {
+    if (envelope.evaluation) {
+        checkComplete(envelope.evaluation, undefined, '/evaluation');
+        return;
+    }
+    if (envelope.evaluations) {
+        const bulk = envelope.evaluations;
+        const base = {
+            subject: bulk.subject,
+            action: bulk.action,
+            resource: bulk.resource,
+            context: bulk.context,
+        };
+        (bulk.evaluations ?? []).forEach((entry, index) => {
+            checkComplete(entry, base, `/evaluations/evaluations/${index}`);
+        });
+    }
+}
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+// The response direction
+// ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+/**
+ * Refuse a 200 this build cannot act on.
+ *
+ * Every check here closes a way for an un-actionable body to be read as an
+ * allow. A decoded response that is merely well-typed is not enough: the
+ * boolean and the state are two renderings of one outcome, and a build that
+ * trusts either alone will act on a decision the other contradicts.
+ */
+function validateDecision(response, body) {
+    if (!response.context) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the server answered without the profile context. This SDK negotiates ` +
+            `${exports.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_HEADER}: ${authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_V1} on every request, so a response ` +
+            `carrying only the boolean means the gateway did not honour the negotiation — an ` +
+            `older build, or a proxy that dropped the header. The obligations and the approval ` +
+            `challenge that CONSTRAIN an allow ride in that payload, so an allow without it is ` +
+            `an allow whose mandatory conditions cannot be read. body=${body}`);
+    }
+    const context = response.context;
+    if (context.profile !== authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_V1) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the server answered with AuthZEN profile '${context.profile}'; this build can only ` +
+            `interpret '${authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_V1}'. The obligations and approval challenge that ` +
+            `constrain an allow are carried in that payload, so the decision cannot be acted ` +
+            `on safely. Upgrade the SDK.`);
+    }
+    if (!authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_OPERATIONAL_STATE_VALUES.includes(context.state)) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the server reported the operational state '${context.state}', which this build does ` +
+            `not know. Under profile ${authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_V1} the state set is closed, so a new ` +
+            `value means the response was produced by something this SDK cannot interpret — ` +
+            `and a state whose meaning is unknown must not be resolved into permission. ` +
+            `body=${body}`);
+    }
+    const executable = context.state === authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_OPERATIONAL_STATE_ALLOW;
+    if (response.decision !== executable) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the decision boolean (${response.decision}) and the operational state ` +
+            `(${context.state}) disagree; exactly one state permits execution, so one of the ` +
+            `two renderings of this outcome is wrong and there is no safe way to choose ` +
+            `between them. body=${body}`);
+    }
+    if (!executable && context.obligations && context.obligations.length > 0) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the server attached obligations to a ${context.state} decision. Obligations ride ` +
+            `only on an executable decision: instructions on a refusal invite an enforcement ` +
+            `point to discharge them and proceed. body=${body}`);
+    }
+    // `schema_version` is deliberately NOT enforced. The PROFILE is the
+    // negotiated contract and is checked above; schema_version is carried so a
+    // support conversation can name the contract a deployment answered from.
+    // Enforcing both would mean the two have to be bumped in lockstep, and this
+    // SDK would start refusing decisions over a discrepancy that changes nothing
+    // it reads.
+}
+/**
+ * Validate the envelope, reporting a schema violation as a TYPED refusal.
+ *
+ * Shared by `evaluateEnvelope` and `toWire` so the two cannot answer the same
+ * malformed envelope differently. `toWire` used to leak the raw
+ * `AuthZENSchemaError` while `evaluateEnvelope` converted it, which made the
+ * function documented as "the exact document this SDK would send" throw
+ * something the send path never throws.
+ */
+function validateEnvelopeOrRefuse(resolved) {
+    try {
+        return (0, authzen_gen_1.validateAuthZENEnvelope)(stripUndefined(resolved), '');
+    }
+    catch (err) {
+        if (!(err instanceof authzen_gen_1.AuthZENSchemaError))
+            throw err;
+        throw new AuthZENRefusal(authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_ERROR_CODE_MALFORMED_ENVELOPE, err.message, {
+            refusedBy: 'client',
+            pointer: err.pointer,
+        });
+    }
+}
+/**
+ * Decode a structured refusal document, or undefined if the body is not one.
+ *
+ * Decoded LENIENTLY, unlike the decision path, and the asymmetry is deliberate.
+ * Strictness on a DECISION is a safety control: an unknown member means the
+ * server is speaking a profile this build cannot fully read, and the unread part
+ * may be the one that constrains an allow. A refusal constrains nothing - it
+ * says no decision exists - so the same strictness buys no safety and costs the
+ * caller the whole point of the surface: one additive field on the refusal
+ * envelope would degrade every typed refusal into a bare error, losing the code,
+ * the pointer, the supported set and the retryable signal on the one path whose
+ * entire purpose is to be branchable.
+ *
+ * Unknown members are dropped here, and the SHAPE is still checked: a body
+ * carrying no code or no message is not a refusal document and returns
+ * undefined, which sends the caller down the generic-error path rather than
+ * fabricating a refusal the server did not make.
+ */
+const AUTHZEN_ERROR_MEMBERS = ['code', 'pointer', 'message', 'supported', 'request_id'];
+function decodeRefusal(body) {
+    let parsed;
+    try {
+        parsed = JSON.parse(body);
+    }
+    catch {
+        return undefined;
+    }
+    if (typeof parsed !== 'object' || parsed === null || Array.isArray(parsed))
+        return undefined;
+    const known = {};
+    AUTHZEN_ERROR_MEMBERS.forEach(member => {
+        const value = parsed[member];
+        if (value !== undefined)
+            known[member] = value;
+    });
+    try {
+        return (0, authzen_gen_1.validateAuthZENError)(known, '');
+    }
+    catch {
+        return undefined;
+    }
+}
+/**
+ * Build an envelope: RESOLVE, check completeness, then validate.
+ *
+ * The counterpart of the Python sibling's `build_envelope`, and it exists for
+ * the same reason: `evaluate` and `evaluateAll` must not each assemble an
+ * envelope inline, or the two entry points drift on the order these steps run
+ * in - and that order decides which of two problems a caller with two problems
+ * is told about.
+ */
+function buildEnvelope(evaluation, evaluations) {
+    const envelope = {};
+    if (evaluation !== undefined)
+        envelope.evaluation = evaluation;
+    if (evaluations !== undefined)
+        envelope.evaluations = evaluations;
+    const resolved = resolveEnvelope(envelope);
+    if (resolved.evaluation === undefined || resolved.evaluations === undefined) {
+        checkEnvelopeComplete(resolved);
+    }
+    assertFullyResolved(resolved);
+    return validateEnvelopeOrRefuse(resolved);
+}
+/**
+ * Run one envelope through `send` and interpret the answer.
+ *
+ * `send` is the SDK's own transport — the same authenticated fetch wrapper,
+ * headers and heartbeat gate every other method uses. It is passed in rather
+ * than built here so this module owns the AuthZEN semantics and nothing else; a
+ * second transport would be a second place for credentials, timeouts and proxy
+ * configuration to drift out of step with the client the user configured.
+ */
+async function evaluateEnvelope(send, envelope) {
+    const resolved = resolveEnvelope(envelope);
+    // Completeness runs FIRST, so a missing subject/action/resource is reported
+    // as `incomplete_evaluation` for both envelope shapes. The generated
+    // validator would otherwise reach the singular member's own required set
+    // first and report the same mistake under a different code depending on
+    // which shape the caller used.
+    //
+    // Except when the envelope names BOTH members: its fault is not that an
+    // evaluation is incomplete, and answering "no action" for a request whose
+    // real problem is that it asks two questions at once sends the caller to the
+    // wrong member entirely.
+    if (resolved.evaluation === undefined || resolved.evaluations === undefined) {
+        checkEnvelopeComplete(resolved);
+    }
+    assertFullyResolved(resolved);
+    const wire = validateEnvelopeOrRefuse(resolved);
+    const { status, body } = await send(exports.AUTHZEN_PATH, wire, {
+        [exports.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_HEADER]: authzen_gen_1.AUTHZEN_PROFILE_V1,
+    });
+    if (status === 401) {
+        // Authentication is answered by the gateway's own middleware, before the
+        // route runs, so it never carries an AuthZEN refusal document. Surfacing it
+        // as the SDK's existing AuthenticationError keeps one error for "your
+        // credentials are wrong" across every method on this client, instead of a
+        // second one only AuthZEN callers know to catch.
+        throw new errors_1.AuthenticationError(`Invalid credentials for ${exports.AUTHZEN_PATH}: ${body}`);
+    }
+    if (status !== 200) {
+        const refusal = decodeRefusal(body);
+        if (refusal)
+            throw AuthZENRefusal.fromBody(refusal);
+        // A non-OK body that is not a refusal document still surfaces as an error —
+        // never as a decision.
+        throw new errors_1.AxonFlowError(`HTTP ${status} from ${exports.AUTHZEN_PATH}: ${body}`);
+    }
+    let parsed;
+    try {
+        parsed = JSON.parse(body);
+    }
+    catch (err) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the decision could not be decoded: ${err.message}. body=${body}`);
+    }
+    let response;
+    try {
+        // Strict decoding on the success path. An unknown member in a decision is a
+        // server speaking a profile this build does not understand, and quietly
+        // dropping it would mean acting on a partial reading of an authorization
+        // decision. A TypeScript cast would do none of this — the interface is
+        // erased at runtime — which is why the validator is generated.
+        response = (0, authzen_gen_1.validateAuthZENResponse)(parsed, '');
+    }
+    catch (err) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the decision could not be decoded: ${err.message}. body=${body}`);
+    }
+    validateDecision(response, body);
+    return new AuthZENDecision(response);
+}
+/**
+ * Drop `undefined` members so they are not serialised as `null`.
+ *
+ * `JSON.stringify` already omits an `undefined` property, but the generated
+ * validator runs BEFORE serialisation and would otherwise see the key present
+ * with an undefined value. Normalising here means the validator, the bytes on
+ * the wire and `toWire` below all describe the same document.
+ */
+function stripUndefined(value) {
+    if (Array.isArray(value))
+        return value.map(stripUndefined);
+    if (typeof value === 'object' && value !== null) {
+        const out = {};
+        Object.entries(value).forEach(([key, item]) => {
+            if (item === undefined)
+                return;
+            // defineProperty for the same reason as the resolver: a plain assignment
+            // to the key `__proto__` invokes the inherited setter instead of creating
+            // a member, so the member would be dropped HERE even after the resolver
+            // carried it through. Two places, one rule.
+            Object.defineProperty(out, key, {
+                value: stripUndefined(item),
+                writable: true,
+                enumerable: true,
+                configurable: true,
+            });
+        });
+        return out;
+    }
+    return value;
+}
+/**
+ * Guarantee no tri-state attribute reaches the wire.
+ *
+ * `resolveEnvelope` walks every bag the contract declares, so on today's
+ * contract this has nothing to catch. It exists for the case that does not
+ * announce itself: a container kind added to the artifact later, or an attribute
+ * reaching a member the resolver does not visit. Without it that attribute is
+ * not a crash - `JSON.stringify` turns the instance into an ordinary
+ * `{"state": …, "value": …, "reason": …}` object - so the request is SENT,
+ * carrying a resolver's internal shape where the gateway expects a value, and an
+ * UNKNOWN attribute reaches the network after all.
+ *
+ * The Python sibling carries the same control, and had exactly this defect:
+ * there the check ran after serialisation and could never fire.
+ */
+function assertFullyResolved(value, path = '', depth = 0) {
+    if (depth > MAX_ATTRIBUTE_DEPTH) {
+        // Bounded for the same reason the resolver is, and by the same number. Two
+        // walkers that disagree on their bound is how a cycle reaching only the
+        // unbounded one comes back as a RangeError - the error type the bound
+        // exists to remove.
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`the structure at ${path || '/'} nests deeper than ${MAX_ATTRIBUTE_DEPTH} levels; ` +
+            `this SDK will not walk it, and a structure that refers to itself would ` +
+            `otherwise recurse until the engine stopped`);
+    }
+    if (AuthZENAttribute.is(value)) {
+        throw new AuthZENProtocolError(`an unresolved AuthZENAttribute reached the wire at ${path || '/'}. Tri-state ` +
+            `attributes are only supported inside the context and properties bags; this one is ` +
+            `somewhere the resolver does not reach.`);
+    }
+    if (Array.isArray(value)) {
+        value.forEach((item, index) => assertFullyResolved(item, `${path}/${index}`, depth + 1));
+        return;
+    }
+    if (typeof value === 'object' && value !== null) {
+        Object.keys(value).forEach(key => {
+            assertFullyResolved(value[key], `${path}/${escapePointerToken(key)}`, depth + 1);
+        });
+    }
+}
+/**
+ * The exact document this SDK would send for `envelope`.
+ *
+ * Exported for tests and for support: "what did the SDK actually put on the
+ * wire" is the first question of every integration problem, and answering it by
+ * reading the client's source is how the answer ends up wrong.
+ */
+function toWire(envelope) {
+    const resolved = resolveEnvelope(envelope);
+    if (resolved.evaluation === undefined || resolved.evaluations === undefined) {
+        checkEnvelopeComplete(resolved);
+    }
+    assertFullyResolved(resolved);
+    return validateEnvelopeOrRefuse(resolved);
+}
+//# sourceMappingURL=authzen.js.map