@oneuptime/common 12.0.4 → 12.0.6

package/Tests/Server/API/UserAuthenticationAPI.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,641 @@
+import UserAPI from "../../../Server/API/UserAPI";
+import MasterAdminAuthorization from "../../../Server/Middleware/MasterAdminAuthorization";
+import UserService from "../../../Server/Services/UserService";
+import {
+  ExpressRequest,
+  ExpressResponse,
+  NextFunction,
+} from "../../../Server/Utils/Express";
+import Response from "../../../Server/Utils/Response";
+import { mockRouter } from "./Helpers";
+import Dictionary from "../../../Types/Dictionary";
+import Email from "../../../Types/Email";
+import BadDataException from "../../../Types/Exception/BadDataException";
+import NotFoundException from "../../../Types/Exception/NotFoundException";
+import { JSONObject } from "../../../Types/JSON";
+import ObjectID from "../../../Types/ObjectID";
+import UserAuthenticationStatus from "../../../Types/UserAuthenticationStatus";
+import {
+  afterEach,
+  beforeAll,
+  beforeEach,
+  describe,
+  expect,
+  test,
+} from "@jest/globals";
+
+/*
+ * The three master-admin endpoints behind the Admin Dashboard's
+ * User > Authentication page.
+ *
+ * GET /user/:userId/authentication-status exists so that "does this account
+ * have a password at all?" can be answered without the password column ever
+ * leaving the server. A master admin bypasses column read permissions, so the
+ * obvious alternative -- select `password` through the CRUD API and check it
+ * in the browser -- would put every user's scrypt digest in a page's network
+ * tab. The route therefore ships four derived booleans, and marks them
+ * uncacheable: whether somebody can sign in with a password is not a fact a
+ * shared proxy may keep, and it changes the instant either action below runs.
+ *
+ * POST /user/:userId/set-password is a deliberately separate route rather than
+ * a PUT to /user/:id carrying a password, so that the gate is a middleware
+ * anybody can grep for. The body's `password` is TYPE-CHECKED rather than
+ * cast, and that check is load-bearing in a way no other test here would
+ * notice: an `as string` on a JSON body is a lie the moment a caller posts an
+ * object or a number, and the value flows straight into the hasher.
+ *
+ * POST /user/:userId/send-password-reset-link is the safer twin -- it never
+ * puts the operator in possession of the user's credentials -- and echoes back
+ * the address it mailed so the page can say where the link went.
+ *
+ * All three are guarded by the master-admin middleware. That is THE assertion
+ * in this file: without it, any signed-in user could set any other user's
+ * password and take over their account. Nothing else in these tests would
+ * notice the middleware going missing, so each route is checked for it
+ * directly.
+ */
+
+jest.mock("../../../Server/Utils/Express", () => {
+  return {
+    getRouter: () => {
+      return mockRouter;
+    },
+  };
+});
+
+jest.mock("../../../Server/Utils/Response", () => {
+  return {
+    sendEntityArrayResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendJsonArrayResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendJsonObjectResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendEmptySuccessResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendEntityResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendErrorResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendFileResponse: jest.fn(),
+    sendFileByPath: jest.fn(),
+    setNoCacheHeaders: jest.fn(),
+  };
+});
+
+const STATUS_ROUTE: string = "/user/:userId/authentication-status";
+const SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE: string = "/user/:userId/set-password";
+const RESET_LINK_ROUTE: string = "/user/:userId/send-password-reset-link";
+
+const USER_ID: string = "00000000-0000-4000-8000-000000000001";
+
+const AUTHENTICATION_STATUS: UserAuthenticationStatus = {
+  hasPassword: true,
+  isEmailVerified: false,
+  isTwoFactorAuthEnabled: true,
+  hasPendingPasswordResetLink: false,
+};
+
+type RouteCallResult = {
+  thrownToNext: unknown;
+  nextCallCount: number;
+  res: ExpressResponse;
+};
+
+async function callRoute(data: {
+  method: string;
+  route: string;
+  params?: Dictionary<string> | undefined;
+  query?: Dictionary<string> | undefined;
+  body?: Dictionary<unknown> | undefined;
+}): Promise<RouteCallResult> {
+  const req: ExpressRequest = {
+    params: data.params || {},
+    query: data.query || {},
+    body: data.body || {},
+    headers: {},
+  } as unknown as ExpressRequest;
+
+  const res: ExpressResponse = {
+    send: jest.fn(),
+    json: jest.fn(),
+    setHeader: jest.fn(),
+    status: jest.fn().mockReturnThis(),
+  } as unknown as ExpressResponse;
+
+  const next: jest.Mock = jest.fn();
+
+  await mockRouter
+    .match(data.method, data.route)
+    .handlerFunction(req, res, next as unknown as NextFunction);
+
+  return {
+    thrownToNext: next.mock.calls[0] ? next.mock.calls[0][0] : undefined,
+    nextCallCount: next.mock.calls.length,
+    res: res,
+  };
+}
+
+function asMock(fn: unknown): jest.Mock {
+  return fn as unknown as jest.Mock;
+}
+
+function sentJsonObject(): JSONObject {
+  const call: Array<unknown> | undefined = asMock(
+    Response.sendJsonObjectResponse,
+  ).mock.calls[0];
+
+  return (call?.[2] as JSONObject) || {};
+}
+
+describe("GET /user/:userId/authentication-status", () => {
+  let statusSpy: jest.SpyInstance;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    mockRouter.routes.length = 0;
+    new UserAPI();
+  });
+
+  beforeEach(() => {
+    jest.clearAllMocks();
+
+    statusSpy = jest
+      .spyOn(UserService, "getAuthenticationStatus")
+      .mockResolvedValue(AUTHENTICATION_STATUS);
+  });
+
+  afterEach(() => {
+    jest.restoreAllMocks();
+  });
+
+  test("the route is registered", () => {
+    /*
+     * A typo in the path is not a compile error and not a test failure
+     * anywhere else — it is a 404 that the page surfaces as an unexplained
+     * error the first time an operator opens it.
+     */
+    expect(() => {
+      return mockRouter.match("GET", STATUS_ROUTE);
+    }).not.toThrow();
+  });
+
+  test("only a master admin can reach it", () => {
+    expect(mockRouter.match("GET", STATUS_ROUTE).middleware).toBe(
+      MasterAdminAuthorization.isAuthorizedMasterAdminMiddleware,
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("reads the status of the user in the path", async () => {
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(statusSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
+    expect((statusSpy.mock.calls[0]![0] as ObjectID).toString()).toBe(USER_ID);
+  });
+
+  test("sends exactly what the service reported", async () => {
+    /*
+     * The page renders these four booleans directly. A field dropped or
+     * renamed on the way out reads as `undefined`, which the UI shows as "no
+     * password" for an account that has one.
+     */
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(sentJsonObject()).toEqual({
+      hasPassword: true,
+      isEmailVerified: false,
+      isTwoFactorAuthEnabled: true,
+      hasPendingPasswordResetLink: false,
+    });
+  });
+
+  test("tells caches not to keep the answer", async () => {
+    /*
+     * Whether an account can sign in with a password is a fact about one named
+     * user, served over a session-authenticated GET. Without no-store a shared
+     * proxy is entitled to hand it to the next caller — and it is stale the
+     * moment either action on the page is used.
+     */
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(Response.setNoCacheHeaders).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
+    expect(Response.setNoCacheHeaders).toHaveBeenCalledWith(result.res);
+  });
+
+  test("sets the no-cache headers before the body goes out", async () => {
+    /*
+     * Headers written after the response has been sent are ignored, so the
+     * ORDER is the whole protection — not merely that both calls happened.
+     */
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    const noCacheOrder: number = asMock(Response.setNoCacheHeaders).mock
+      .invocationCallOrder[0]!;
+    const sendOrder: number = asMock(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).mock
+      .invocationCallOrder[0]!;
+
+    expect(noCacheOrder).toBeLessThan(sendOrder);
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a missing user id without reading anything", async () => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: {},
+    });
+
+    expect(statusSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(result.thrownToNext).toBeInstanceOf(BadDataException);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a user id that is not a uuid without reading anything", async () => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: '\'; DROP TABLE "User"; --' },
+    });
+
+    expect(statusSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("passes a read failure on rather than reporting a status", async () => {
+    /*
+     * "No such user" must reach the caller as a failure. Swallowed, the page
+     * would render the default booleans and tell an operator that a user who
+     * does not exist has no password.
+     */
+    const readError: NotFoundException = new NotFoundException(
+      "User not found.",
+    );
+
+    statusSpy.mockRejectedValue(readError);
+
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "GET",
+      route: STATUS_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.thrownToNext).toBe(readError);
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+});
+
+describe("POST /user/:userId/set-password", () => {
+  let setPasswordSpy: jest.SpyInstance;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    mockRouter.routes.length = 0;
+    new UserAPI();
+  });
+
+  beforeEach(() => {
+    jest.clearAllMocks();
+
+    setPasswordSpy = jest
+      .spyOn(UserService, "setPassword")
+      .mockResolvedValue(undefined);
+  });
+
+  afterEach(() => {
+    jest.restoreAllMocks();
+  });
+
+  const expectRejected: (body: Dictionary<unknown>) => Promise<void> = async (
+    body: Dictionary<unknown>,
+  ): Promise<void> => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+      body: body,
+    });
+
+    expect(setPasswordSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(result.thrownToNext).toBeInstanceOf(BadDataException);
+    expect(Response.sendEmptySuccessResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  };
+
+  test("the route is registered", () => {
+    expect(() => {
+      return mockRouter.match("POST", SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE);
+    }).not.toThrow();
+  });
+
+  test("only a master admin can reach it", () => {
+    /*
+     * The single most important line in this file. This route rewrites another
+     * person's credentials; with the middleware gone, every signed-in user on
+     * the instance could take over every account on it.
+     */
+    expect(mockRouter.match("POST", SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE).middleware).toBe(
+      MasterAdminAuthorization.isAuthorizedMasterAdminMiddleware,
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("sets the password of the user in the path", async () => {
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+      body: { password: "correct-horse" },
+    });
+
+    expect(setPasswordSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
+
+    const call: { userId: ObjectID; password: string } = setPasswordSpy.mock
+      .calls[0]![0] as { userId: ObjectID; password: string };
+
+    expect(call.userId.toString()).toBe(USER_ID);
+    expect(call.password).toBe("correct-horse");
+  });
+
+  test("forwards the password byte for byte, spaces and all", async () => {
+    /*
+     * A password is whatever the person typed. Trimming, normalising or
+     * re-encoding it here would store something other than what was entered,
+     * and the very next sign-in would fail with no clue as to why.
+     */
+    const password: string = "  pässwörd ✅ 🔐  ";
+
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+      body: { password: password },
+    });
+
+    expect(
+      (setPasswordSpy.mock.calls[0]![0] as { password: string }).password,
+    ).toBe(password);
+  });
+
+  test("leaves the password policy to the service rather than pre-judging it", async () => {
+    /*
+     * The route's only job is the type check; length and blankness rules live
+     * in one place (Types/Password) behind the service, so the browser form
+     * and the endpoint cannot drift apart. A short string is a STRING, so it
+     * must reach the service and be refused there — a duplicate rule here
+     * would be a second copy free to disagree.
+     */
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+      body: { password: "abc" },
+    });
+
+    expect(setPasswordSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
+    expect(
+      (setPasswordSpy.mock.calls[0]![0] as { password: string }).password,
+    ).toBe("abc");
+  });
+
+  test("reports success with an empty body, never echoing the password", async () => {
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+      body: { password: "correct-horse" },
+    });
+
+    expect(Response.sendEmptySuccessResponse).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a missing password", async () => {
+    await expectRejected({});
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a null password", async () => {
+    await expectRejected({ password: null });
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a numeric password", async () => {
+    /*
+     * JSON numbers arrive as numbers. `123456` would satisfy a length check
+     * written against `String(password)` while being nothing a person could
+     * ever type at a sign-in form.
+     */
+    await expectRejected({ password: 123456 });
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a boolean password", async () => {
+    await expectRejected({ password: true });
+  });
+
+  test("rejects an object password", async () => {
+    /*
+     * THE case this type check exists for. Had the handler written
+     * `req.body["password"] as string`, TypeScript would have believed it and
+     * a JSON object would have sailed into the hasher: HashedString would then
+     * hash whatever `String(value)` produces — "[object Object]" for a plain
+     * object, or, worse, an attacker-chosen value where the object carries its
+     * own `toString`. Every account set that way would share one password.
+     * A cast cannot catch this; only a runtime `typeof` can.
+     */
+    await expectRejected({ password: { toString: "[object Object]" } });
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a nested object password", async () => {
+    await expectRejected({ password: { value: "correct-horse" } });
+  });
+
+  test("rejects an array password", async () => {
+    // Arrays are objects, and `String(["hunter2"])` is the innocuous "hunter2".
+    await expectRejected({ password: ["correct-horse"] });
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a missing user id without setting anything", async () => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: {},
+      body: { password: "correct-horse" },
+    });
+
+    expect(setPasswordSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendEmptySuccessResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a user id that is not a uuid without setting anything", async () => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: "not-a-uuid" },
+      body: { password: "correct-horse" },
+    });
+
+    expect(setPasswordSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendEmptySuccessResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("passes a write failure on rather than reporting success", async () => {
+    /*
+     * The policy rejection and "user not found" both arrive this way. Reported
+     * as success, an operator would hand somebody a password that was never
+     * stored.
+     */
+    const writeError: BadDataException = new BadDataException(
+      "Password cannot be less than 6 characters.",
+    );
+
+    setPasswordSpy.mockRejectedValue(writeError);
+
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: SET_PASSWORD_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+      body: { password: "abc" },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.thrownToNext).toBe(writeError);
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendEmptySuccessResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+});
+
+describe("POST /user/:userId/send-password-reset-link", () => {
+  let sendLinkSpy: jest.SpyInstance;
+
+  beforeAll(() => {
+    mockRouter.routes.length = 0;
+    new UserAPI();
+  });
+
+  beforeEach(() => {
+    jest.clearAllMocks();
+
+    sendLinkSpy = jest
+      .spyOn(UserService, "sendPasswordResetLink")
+      .mockResolvedValue(new Email("locked.out@example.com"));
+  });
+
+  afterEach(() => {
+    jest.restoreAllMocks();
+  });
+
+  test("the route is registered", () => {
+    expect(() => {
+      return mockRouter.match("POST", RESET_LINK_ROUTE);
+    }).not.toThrow();
+  });
+
+  test("only a master admin can reach it", () => {
+    /*
+     * Mailing a reset link is a credential-changing action too: it is the
+     * password takeover with one extra step, taken by whoever controls the
+     * mailbox.
+     */
+    expect(mockRouter.match("POST", RESET_LINK_ROUTE).middleware).toBe(
+      MasterAdminAuthorization.isAuthorizedMasterAdminMiddleware,
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("sends the link to the user in the path", async () => {
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: RESET_LINK_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(sendLinkSpy).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
+    expect(
+      (sendLinkSpy.mock.calls[0]![0] as { userId: ObjectID }).userId.toString(),
+    ).toBe(USER_ID);
+  });
+
+  test("reports the address the link actually went to", async () => {
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: RESET_LINK_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(sentJsonObject()).toEqual({ email: "locked.out@example.com" });
+  });
+
+  test("reports the address as a plain string, not a serialized Email", async () => {
+    /*
+     * The service returns an Email, whose toJSON is
+     * `{_type: "Email", value: "..."}`. Sending the object itself would still
+     * be a 200 with an `email` key, so nothing fails loudly — the page just
+     * renders "[object Object]" in the sentence telling the operator where the
+     * link was sent, which is the one fact they came for.
+     */
+    await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: RESET_LINK_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    const email: unknown = sentJsonObject()["email"];
+
+    expect(typeof email).toBe("string");
+    expect(email).toBe("locked.out@example.com");
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a missing user id without sending anything", async () => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: RESET_LINK_ROUTE,
+      params: {},
+    });
+
+    expect(sendLinkSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(result.thrownToNext).toBeInstanceOf(BadDataException);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("rejects a user id that is not a uuid without sending anything", async () => {
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: RESET_LINK_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: '\'; DROP TABLE "User"; --' },
+    });
+
+    expect(sendLinkSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+
+  test("passes a mail failure on rather than reporting the link was sent", async () => {
+    /*
+     * The service awaits the send precisely so that an instance which cannot
+     * send mail says so. Swallowing it here would put the operator back where
+     * they started: told the link is on its way, waiting for one that will
+     * never arrive.
+     */
+    const mailError: Error = new Error("SMTP server is not configured.");
+
+    sendLinkSpy.mockRejectedValue(mailError);
+
+    const result: RouteCallResult = await callRoute({
+      method: "POST",
+      route: RESET_LINK_ROUTE,
+      params: { userId: USER_ID },
+    });
+
+    expect(result.thrownToNext).toBe(mailError);
+    expect(result.nextCallCount).toBe(1);
+    expect(Response.sendJsonObjectResponse).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+  });
+});