@prosopo/user-access-policy 3.14.13 → 3.14.15

package/src/tests/redis/redisRulesStorage.integration.test.ts

@@ -1,1811 +0,0 @@
-// Copyright 2021-2026 Prosopo (UK) Ltd.
-//
-// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
-// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
-// You may obtain a copy of the License at
-//
-//     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
-//
-// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
-// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
-// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
-// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
-// limitations under the License.
-
-import { chunkIntoBatches, executeBatchesSequentially } from "@prosopo/common";
-import { LogLevel, type Logger, getLogger } from "@prosopo/logger";
-import {
-	type RedisConnection,
-	createTestRedisConnection,
-	setupRedisIndex,
-} from "@prosopo/redis-client";
-import { ResultReason } from "@prosopo/types";
-import { randomAsHex } from "@prosopo/util-crypto";
-import type { RedisClientType } from "redis";
-import {
-	afterAll,
-	afterEach,
-	beforeAll,
-	beforeEach,
-	describe,
-	expect,
-	test,
-} from "vitest";
-import { RedisRulesReader } from "#policy/redis/reader/redisRulesReader.js";
-import {
-	ACCESS_RULE_REDIS_KEY_PREFIX,
-	accessRulesRedisIndex,
-	getAccessRuleRedisKey,
-} from "#policy/redis/redisRuleIndex.js";
-import {
-	RedisRulesWriter,
-	getRedisRuleValue,
-} from "#policy/redis/redisRulesWriter.js";
-import { AccessPolicyType, type AccessRule } from "#policy/rule.js";
-import {
-	type AccessRulesReader,
-	type AccessRulesWriter,
-	FilterScopeMatch,
-} from "#policy/rulesStorage.js";
-
-describe("redisAccessRulesStorage", () => {
-	let redisConnection: RedisConnection;
-	let redisClient: RedisClientType;
-	let indexName: string;
-
-	// Every member is a no-op sink, except `with`, which has to return a child
-	// logger — setupRedisIndex calls `logger.with({ name })` and logs through
-	// the result. Returning the proxy itself keeps the child a sink too.
-	const mockLogger = new Proxy(
-		{},
-		{
-			get: (_target, property) =>
-				property === "with" ? () => mockLogger : () => {},
-		},
-	) as unknown as Logger;
-
-	const getUniqueString = () => Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 15);
-	const getIndexRecordsCount = async (indexName: string): Promise<number> =>
-		(await redisClient.ft.info(indexName)).num_docs;
-
-	const insertRules = async (rules: AccessRule[]) => {
-		const ruleBatches = chunkIntoBatches(rules, 1000);
-
-		await executeBatchesSequentially(ruleBatches, async (batchRules) => {
-			const queries = redisClient.multi();
-
-			batchRules.map((rule) => {
-				const ruleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(rule);
-				const ruleValue = getRedisRuleValue(rule);
-
-				queries.hSet(ruleKey, ruleValue);
-			});
-
-			await queries.exec();
-		});
-	};
-
-	beforeAll(async () => {
-		redisConnection = createTestRedisConnection();
-
-		redisClient = await setupRedisIndex(
-			redisConnection,
-			accessRulesRedisIndex,
-			mockLogger,
-		).getClient();
-	});
-
-	// Move cleanup to afterEach
-	afterEach(async () => {
-		if (indexName) {
-			try {
-				// Drop index and all documents (DD) created by THIS specific test
-				await redisClient.ft.dropIndex(indexName, { DD: true });
-			} catch (e) {
-				console.error(`Failed to cleanup index ${indexName}`, e);
-			}
-		}
-	}, 120_000);
-
-	beforeEach(async () => {
-		indexName = randomAsHex(16);
-
-		const result = setupRedisIndex(
-			redisConnection,
-			{ ...accessRulesRedisIndex, name: indexName },
-			mockLogger,
-		);
-		redisClient = await result.getClient();
-	});
-
-	describe("writer", () => {
-		let accessRulesWriter: AccessRulesWriter;
-
-		beforeAll(() => {
-			accessRulesWriter = new RedisRulesWriter(redisClient, mockLogger);
-		});
-
-		test("inserts rule", async () => {
-			const testIndexName = indexName;
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-			};
-			const accessRuleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(accessRule);
-
-			// when
-			await accessRulesWriter.insertRules([
-				{
-					rule: accessRule,
-				},
-			]);
-
-			// then
-			const insertedAccessRule = await redisClient.hGetAll(accessRuleKey);
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(testIndexName);
-
-			expect(insertedAccessRule).toEqual(accessRule);
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toEqual(1);
-		});
-
-		test("inserts time limited rule", async () => {
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-			};
-			const accessRuleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(accessRule);
-			// 1 hour from now.
-			const expireIn = 60 * 60; // seconds
-			const expirationTimestamp = new Date(
-				Date.now() + expireIn * 1000,
-			).getTime();
-			const expirationTimestampInSeconds = Math.floor(
-				expirationTimestamp / 1000,
-			);
-
-			// when
-			await accessRulesWriter.insertRules([
-				{
-					rule: accessRule,
-					expiresUnixTimestamp: expirationTimestampInSeconds,
-				},
-			]);
-			const ruleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(accessRule);
-			// then
-			const insertedAccessRule = await redisClient.hGetAll(accessRuleKey);
-			const insertedExpirationResult = await redisClient.expireAt(
-				ruleKey,
-				expirationTimestampInSeconds,
-			);
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			const recordExpirySeconds = await redisClient.ttl(ruleKey);
-
-			expect(insertedAccessRule).toEqual(accessRule);
-			expect(insertedExpirationResult).toBe(1);
-			expect(recordExpirySeconds).toBeLessThanOrEqual(
-				expirationTimestampInSeconds,
-			);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(1);
-		});
-
-		// The existing "inserts time limited rule" test above only
-		// checks that the TTL is *set* on the Redis key. Neither
-		// side actually verifies the rule stops matching once its
-		// TTL fires — which is the property operators care about
-		// (temporary bans should self-clear). Guard against a
-		// regression that persists rules past their expiry (e.g. a
-		// future writer that swaps `expireAt` for `persist` by
-		// accident, or an index rebuild that resurrects expired
-		// records).
-		test("expired rule is no longer returned by the reader after its TTL fires", async () => {
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: `expiring-${getUniqueString()}`,
-			};
-			const ruleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(accessRule);
-			// 2 s expiry — long enough that the "before expiry" check
-			// races the write cleanly, short enough that the test
-			// completes in a reasonable timeout. Redis TTL granularity
-			// is 1 s so anything shorter is under-resolution.
-			const expirationTimestampInSeconds = Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000) + 2;
-
-			await accessRulesWriter.insertRules([
-				{
-					rule: accessRule,
-					expiresUnixTimestamp: expirationTimestampInSeconds,
-				},
-			]);
-
-			// Sanity: the rule exists immediately after write.
-			const initialRecord = await redisClient.hGetAll(ruleKey);
-			expect(initialRecord).toEqual(accessRule);
-
-			// Wait past the TTL. Add ~1s slack for Redis's per-key
-			// expiry sweep — the docs guarantee expired keys stop
-			// answering reads but the actual key deletion is lazy.
-			await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 3500));
-
-			// After expiry: hGetAll returns {} (Redis treats an
-			// expired key as non-existent for reads).
-			const expiredRecord = await redisClient.hGetAll(ruleKey);
-			expect(expiredRecord).toEqual({});
-
-			// And the RediSearch index no longer counts it.
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(0);
-		}, 10_000);
-
-		test("deletes rules", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-			};
-			const johnAccessRuleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(johnAccessRule);
-
-			const doeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-			};
-			const doeAccessRuleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(doeAccessRule);
-
-			await insertRules([johnAccessRule, doeAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			await accessRulesWriter.deleteRules([
-				johnAccessRuleKey.slice(ACCESS_RULE_REDIS_KEY_PREFIX.length),
-			]);
-
-			// then
-			const presentAccessRule = await redisClient.hGetAll(doeAccessRuleKey);
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(presentAccessRule).toEqual(doeAccessRule);
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(1);
-		});
-
-		test("deletes all rules", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-			};
-			const doeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([johnAccessRule, doeAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			await accessRulesWriter.deleteAllRules();
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(0);
-		});
-
-		test("deletes all rules when there are 1 million rules", async () => {
-			// given
-			const rulesCount = 1_000_000;
-			const batchSize = 10_000;
-			const numBatches = Math.ceil(rulesCount / batchSize);
-
-			// Insert rules in batches to avoid memory exhaustion
-			// Don't create 1M objects in memory at once!
-			for (let i = 0; i < numBatches; i++) {
-				const currentBatchSize = Math.min(
-					batchSize,
-					rulesCount - i * batchSize,
-				);
-				const batchRules: AccessRule[] = Array.from(
-					{ length: currentBatchSize },
-					() => ({
-						type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-						clientId: getUniqueString(),
-					}),
-				);
-
-				await insertRules(batchRules);
-			}
-
-			// verify that there are 1 million rules in the database
-			const beforeDeleteIndexRecordsCount =
-				await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-			expect(beforeDeleteIndexRecordsCount).toBe(rulesCount);
-
-			// when
-			await accessRulesWriter.deleteAllRules();
-
-			// then
-			const afterDeleteIndexRecordsCount =
-				await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(afterDeleteIndexRecordsCount).toBe(0);
-		});
-		// The trailing 240_000 is the suite timeout. vitest 4 dropped the
-		// options-object overload for describe, so it has to be a plain number.
-	}, 240_000);
-
-	describe("reader", () => {
-		let accessRulesReader: AccessRulesReader;
-
-		beforeAll(async () => {
-			accessRulesReader = new RedisRulesReader(
-				redisClient,
-				getLogger(LogLevel.enum.info, "RedisAccessRulesReader"),
-			);
-		});
-
-		test("finds client and global rules by greedy policy scope match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-			const johnAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: johnId,
-			};
-			const doeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-			};
-			const globalAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([johnAccessRule, doeAccessRule, globalAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundByClientAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(3);
-			expect(foundByClientAccessRules).toEqual([
-				johnAccessRule,
-				globalAccessRule,
-			]);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([
-				johnAccessRule,
-				doeAccessRule,
-				globalAccessRule,
-			]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds client or global rules by exact policy scope match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const johnAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: johnId,
-			};
-			const doeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-			};
-			const globalAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([johnAccessRule, doeAccessRule, globalAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundClientAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-			const foundGlobalAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				},
-				false,
-				false,
-			);
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(3);
-			expect(foundClientAccessRules).toEqual([johnAccessRule]);
-			expect(foundGlobalAccessRules).toEqual([globalAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by greedy user scope match", async () => {
-			// given
-
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-			const johnIpAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: johnId,
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-			};
-			const doeIpAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-			};
-			const johnHeaderAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				headersHash:
-					"00110110100001111101001101100101101101001000011111010011011001010101000110000111110100110110010111010100100011011101101010000011",
-			};
-			const globalJa4AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				ja4Hash: "windows",
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([
-				johnIpAccessRule,
-				doeIpAccessRule,
-				johnHeaderAccessRule,
-				globalJa4AccessRule,
-			]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(100),
-					ja4Hash: "windows",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(4);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([johnIpAccessRule, globalJa4AccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by exact user scope match", async () => {
-			// given
-
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const johnTargetAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: johnId,
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-				ja4Hash: "windows",
-			};
-
-			const doeTargetAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-				ja4Hash: "windows",
-			};
-
-			const johnHeaderAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				headersHash:
-					"00110110100001111101001101100101101101001000011111010011011001010101000110000111110100110110010111010100100011011101101010000011",
-			};
-
-			const globalTargetAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-				ja4Hash: "windows",
-			};
-
-			const globalJa4AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				ja4Hash: "windows",
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([
-				johnTargetAccessRule,
-				doeTargetAccessRule,
-				johnHeaderAccessRule,
-				globalTargetAccessRule,
-				globalJa4AccessRule,
-			]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(100),
-					ja4Hash: "windows",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(5);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([
-				johnTargetAccessRule,
-				globalTargetAccessRule,
-			]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by greedy ip match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: johnId,
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(0),
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(100),
-			};
-			const johnIp_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: johnId,
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-			};
-			const globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(100),
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(200),
-			};
-			const doeIpMask_200_300AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(200),
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(300),
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([
-				johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule,
-				johnIp_100_AccessRule,
-				globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule,
-				doeIpMask_200_300AccessRule,
-			]);
-
-			// when
-			const ip_0_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(0),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-			const ip_99_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(99),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-			const ip_100_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(100),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-			const ip_101_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(101),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-			const ip_201_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(201),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(4);
-
-			expect(ip_0_accessRules).toEqual([johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule]);
-			expect(ip_99_accessRules).toEqual([johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule]);
-			expect(ip_100_accessRules).toEqual([
-				johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule,
-				johnIp_100_AccessRule,
-				globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule,
-			]);
-			expect(ip_101_accessRules).toEqual([globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule]);
-			expect(ip_201_accessRules).toEqual([]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by exact ip match with exact policy match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: johnId,
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(0),
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(100),
-			};
-			const johnIp_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: johnId,
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-			};
-			const globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(100),
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(200),
-			};
-			const globalIp_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIp: BigInt(100),
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([
-				johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule,
-				johnIp_100_AccessRule,
-				globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule,
-				globalIp_100_AccessRule,
-			]);
-
-			// when
-			const ip_0_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(0),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-			const ip_100_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(100),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(4);
-
-			expect(ip_0_accessRules).toEqual([johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule]);
-			expect(ip_100_accessRules).toEqual([
-				johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule,
-				johnIp_100_AccessRule,
-			]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by exact ip match with exact policy match 2", async () => {
-			// given
-			const johnId = getUniqueString();
-			const johnIp = BigInt(100);
-
-			const johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: johnId,
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(0),
-				numericIpMaskMax: johnIp,
-			};
-			const johnIp_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				clientId: johnId,
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIp: johnIp,
-			};
-			const globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIpMaskMin: johnIp,
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(200),
-			};
-			const globalIp_100_AccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				numericIp: johnIp,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([
-				johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule,
-				johnIp_100_AccessRule,
-				globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule,
-				globalIp_100_AccessRule,
-			]);
-
-			// when
-			const ip_0_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: johnId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(0),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-			const ip_100_accessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: johnIp,
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(4);
-
-			expect(ip_0_accessRules).toEqual([johnIpMask_0_100_AccessRule]);
-			expect(ip_100_accessRules).toEqual([
-				globalIpMask_100_200_AccessRule,
-				globalIp_100_AccessRule,
-			]);
-		});
-
-		test("does not find rules when some criteria do not match and user scope match is exact", async () => {
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				userAgentHash: "userAgentHash1",
-				ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-			};
-
-			// when
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			// then
-			const query = {
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-					userAgentHash: "userAgentHash2",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			};
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(query);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([]);
-		});
-
-		test("does not find rules when query is more exact than rule and user scope match is exact", async () => {
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-			};
-
-			// when
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			// then
-			const query = {
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-					userAgentHash: "userAgentHash",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			};
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(query);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([]);
-		});
-
-		test("does find rules when query is more exact than rule and user scope match is greedy", async () => {
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-			};
-
-			// when
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			// then
-			const query = {
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-					userAgentHash: "userAgentHash",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			};
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(query);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([accessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("does find rules when some criteria do not match and user scope match is exact", async () => {
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				userAgentHash: "userAgentHash",
-				ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-			};
-
-			// when
-			getAccessRuleRedisKey(accessRule);
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			// then
-			const query = {
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					ja4Hash: "ja4Hash",
-					userAgentHash: "userAgentHash",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			};
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(query);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([accessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("if an ip rule and an ip mask rule is applied for a single IP at client level, both rules are returned with the more specific IP rule being first in the list", async () => {
-			// given
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				numericIp: BigInt(10),
-			};
-			const ipRangeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(10),
-				numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(20),
-			};
-
-			// when
-			await insertRules([accessRule, ipRangeAccessRule]);
-
-			// then
-
-			const query = {
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					numericIp: BigInt(10),
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			};
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(query);
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([accessRule, ipRangeAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by headHash with exact match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const headHash1 = "abc123def456";
-			const headHash2 = "xyz789ghi012";
-
-			const headHashAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				headHash: headHash1,
-			};
-			const otherHeadHashAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				headHash: headHash2,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([headHashAccessRule, otherHeadHashAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					headHash: headHash1,
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([headHashAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by coords with exact match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const coords1 = "[[[100,200]]]";
-			const coords2 = "[[[300,400]]]";
-
-			const coordsAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				coords: coords1,
-			};
-			const otherCoordsAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				coords: coords2,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([coordsAccessRule, otherCoordsAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					coords: coords1,
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([coordsAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by combined headHash and coords with exact match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const headHash1 = "abc123def456";
-			const coords1 = "[[[100,200]]]";
-
-			const combinedAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				headHash: headHash1,
-				coords: coords1,
-			};
-			const headHashOnlyAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				headHash: headHash1,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([combinedAccessRule, headHashOnlyAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					headHash: headHash1,
-					coords: coords1,
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([combinedAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by countryCode with exact match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const countryCode1 = "US";
-			const countryCode2 = "GB";
-
-			const countryCodeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				countryCode: countryCode1,
-			};
-			const otherCountryCodeAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				countryCode: countryCode2,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([countryCodeAccessRule, otherCountryCodeAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					countryCode: countryCode1,
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([countryCodeAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules by combined countryCode and userId with exact match", async () => {
-			// given
-			const countryCode1 = "US";
-			const userId1 = "user123";
-
-			const combinedAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				countryCode: countryCode1,
-				userId: userId1,
-			};
-			const countryCodeOnlyAccessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: "clientId",
-				countryCode: countryCode1,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([combinedAccessRule, countryCodeOnlyAccessRule]);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: "clientId",
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					countryCode: countryCode1,
-					userId: userId1,
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-			});
-
-			// then
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([combinedAccessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("returns remaining rules when a matched document's hash key has been deleted", async () => {
-			// given
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const survivingRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: "user1",
-			};
-			const deletedRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: "user2",
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([survivingRule, deletedRule]);
-
-			// Delete the hash key for deletedRule directly, bypassing the writer.
-			// The index may still reference it briefly, simulating the race
-			// condition that caused the @redis/search documentValue(null) crash.
-			const deletedRuleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(deletedRule);
-			await redisClient.del(deletedRuleKey);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: clientId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					userId: "user1",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-
-			// then - should not throw and should return the surviving rule
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([survivingRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("returns empty array without throwing when all matched documents have been deleted", async () => {
-			// given
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const rule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: "user1",
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([rule]);
-
-			// Delete the hash key directly
-			const ruleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(rule);
-			await redisClient.del(ruleKey);
-
-			// when
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: {
-					clientId: clientId,
-				},
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				userScope: {
-					userId: "user1",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-
-			// then - should not throw, should return empty array
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([]);
-		});
-
-		test("returns all matches when the candidate set exceeds the FT.SEARCH page size", async () => {
-			// Regression: under the production traffic profile of a high-volume
-			// bot attack, the greedy `@field:{X} | @field:{Y}` query returns
-			// thousands of candidate rules sharing the dominant ja4 fingerprint.
-			// FT.SEARCH's LIMIT (1000) silently truncated the candidate set,
-			// dropping less-frequent block rules — they never reached the
-			// JS-side specificity sort, so verify let the bot through.
-			// FT.AGGREGATE WITHCURSOR paginates the result and returns all of
-			// them. This test inserts > 1000 rules so the old code would
-			// truncate; the target block rule must still come back.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const popularJa4 = `t13d1516h2_${getUniqueString()}`;
-
-			const targetBlockRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				ja4Hash: popularJa4,
-				coords: "[[[867,60]]]",
-			};
-
-			// 1500 noise rules sharing the popular ja4 but with distinct coords.
-			// 1500 > REDIS_BATCH_SIZE (1000) — guarantees the targetBlockRule's
-			// FT index position has at least a 1/3 chance of sitting past the
-			// truncation boundary on any given run. With pagination, it must
-			// always come back regardless of indexed order.
-			const noiseRules: AccessRule[] = Array.from({ length: 1500 }, (_, i) => ({
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				ja4Hash: popularJa4,
-				coords: `[[[${i % 1024},${60 + (i % 32)}]]]`,
-				description: `noise-${i}`,
-			}));
-
-			await insertRules([targetBlockRule, ...noiseRules]);
-
-			const indexRecordsCount = await getIndexRecordsCount(indexName);
-			expect(indexRecordsCount).toBe(1501);
-
-			const found = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				userScope: {
-					ja4Hash: popularJa4,
-					coords: "[[[867,60]]]",
-				},
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-
-			expect(found.length).toBe(1501);
-			expect(found).toContainEqual(targetBlockRule);
-		}, 60_000);
-
-		test("keeps a Block rule's messageKey through the request-time block lookup", async () => {
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId,
-				userId,
-				messageKey: ResultReason.TOO_MANY_LOCALHOST,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: { userId },
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					blockOnly: true,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([accessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("finds rules with matchingFieldsOnly when only userId is set and all IP fields are missing", async () => {
-			// This is the exact scenario from the production error where the query
-			// contained duplicate ismissing(@numericIpMaskMin) ismissing(@numericIpMaskMax)
-			// given
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			// when - matchingFieldsOnly=true adds ismissing for all schema fields not in the scope
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: {
-						clientId: clientId,
-					},
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: {
-						userId: userId,
-					},
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			// then
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([accessRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("findRulesRanked does not throw when a matched candidate is missing @type", async () => {
-			// Production repro: under 3.6.40 we observed
-			//   "Could not find the value for a parameter name, consider
-			//    using EXISTS if applicable for type"
-			// from the FT.AGGREGATE pipeline in findRulesRanked. The cause
-			// is SEVERITY_EXPR = `(@type == "block")` — a bare @type
-			// reference that fails when a candidate document lacks the
-			// `type` field. Candidates can reach the pipeline without
-			// `type` two ways: (a) a partial-write / rehash race in the
-			// writer, (b) a stale RediSearch index entry pointing at a
-			// hash whose `type` field has been HDEL'd. Either way the
-			// whole aggregate fails and the catch in findRulesRanked
-			// returns [], i.e. NO rules match — a Block rule that should
-			// fire silently lets the request through.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			// Simulate the malformed-doc scenario by removing the `type`
-			// field from the hash. The RediSearch index still references
-			// the doc (type is not part of the index schema) but the
-			// APPLY LOAD will pull an undefined @type.
-			const ruleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(accessRule);
-			await redisClient.hDel(ruleKey, "type");
-
-			// when - matchingFieldsOnly=true routes through findRulesRanked
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: { userId: userId },
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			// then - the typeless doc must not crash the pipeline.
-			// `type` is required to reconstruct an AccessRule, so the
-			// doc is dropped from the result rather than returned with
-			// a default. The remaining valid rules (none here) come back.
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([]);
-		});
-
-		test("findRulesRanked returns the valid rule and skips a typeless ghost candidate", async () => {
-			// Same scenario as the previous test but with a co-resident
-			// valid rule. The typeless ghost must not poison the
-			// pipeline — the valid rule still has to come back so the
-			// block decision sticks.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const validRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				ja4Hash: "t13d1313h2_valid",
-			};
-			const ghostRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				ja4Hash: "t13d1313h2_ghost",
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([validRule, ghostRule]);
-
-			// Strip `type` from the ghost only.
-			const ghostKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(ghostRule);
-			await redisClient.hDel(ghostKey, "type");
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: { userId: userId },
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([validRule]);
-		});
-
-		test("findRulesRanked preserves bigint precision for IPv6 numericIp values", async () => {
-			// Production repro: under 3.6.40.1 we saw
-			//   "Cannot convert 5.59112965392e+37 to a BigInt"
-			// from the FT.AGGREGATE path in findRulesRanked whenever a
-			// matched candidate carries an IPv6 numericIp. The cause is
-			// that RediSearch indexes NUMERIC fields as 8-byte doubles
-			// and FT.AGGREGATE LOAD reads from that index buffer (not
-			// the underlying hash), so any value past
-			// Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER round-trips as scientific
-			// notation. `z.coerce.bigint()` then throws and the whole
-			// aggregate gets caught + returned as []. The aggregate is
-			// now used purely as a ranker over @__key; the field values
-			// come back via HGETALL, which preserves the original
-			// 38-digit string stored in the hash. This test inserts a
-			// rule with the same shape as the failing prod query — an
-			// IPv6 numericIp + matching userScope — and asserts the
-			// rule is returned with the bigint intact.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-			// 38-digit IPv6 value past Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER. Anything
-			// > 2**53 demonstrates the precision loss; this specific
-			// value matches the order of magnitude of the prod error.
-			const ipv6NumericIp = 55878094658432211238406371356040233102n;
-
-			const accessRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				numericIp: ipv6NumericIp,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([accessRule]);
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: { userId: userId, numericIp: ipv6NumericIp },
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toEqual([accessRule]);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[0]?.numericIp).toBe(ipv6NumericIp);
-		});
-
-		test("findRulesRanked preserves rank order over multiple candidates", async () => {
-			// Assumption under test: the FT.AGGREGATE -> HGETALL refactor
-			// preserves the rank order produced by SORTBY @_rank DESC.
-			// reply.results is rank-sorted; the for-of loop pushes
-			// __key in iteration order; multi.exec() returns pipeline
-			// results in queue order; the non-empty filter is stable;
-			// parseRedisRecords' flatMap is stable. Verified end-to-end
-			// here by inserting two rules whose specificity differs by
-			// exactly one extra populated field, and asserting the more
-			// specific rule comes back at index [0].
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-			const ja4 = `t13d1313h2_${getUniqueString()}`;
-
-			// 4 populated scalar fields ⇒ _spec = 4
-			const moreSpecificRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				ja4Hash: ja4,
-				countryCode: "GB",
-			};
-			// 2 populated scalar fields ⇒ _spec = 2
-			const lessSpecificRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				ja4Hash: ja4,
-			};
-
-			// Insert deliberately in the LEAST-specific-first order so
-			// that any accidental "preserve insertion order" code path
-			// (e.g. forgetting SORTBY entirely) would produce
-			// [lessSpecific, moreSpecific] and the assertion would
-			// catch it.
-			await insertRules([lessSpecificRule, moreSpecificRule]);
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: {
-						userId: userId,
-						ja4Hash: ja4,
-						countryCode: "GB",
-					},
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toHaveLength(2);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[0]).toEqual(moreSpecificRule);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[1]).toEqual(lessSpecificRule);
-		});
-
-		test("findRulesRanked ranks Block over Restrict at equal specificity", async () => {
-			// Assumption under test: SEVERITY_EXPR contributes its
-			// weight correctly through the HGETALL retrieval — Block
-			// rules tied on specificity with Restrict rules still come
-			// back first. RANK_EXPR = (_spec * 2) + _sev so at equal
-			// spec the Block (_sev = 1) outranks the Restrict (_sev = 0)
-			// by 1 point.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-
-			const blockRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-			};
-			const restrictRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				description: "tiebreaker-restrict",
-			};
-
-			// Insert restrict first; if SEVERITY tiebreaker is dropped
-			// silently the result would lead with the restrict.
-			await insertRules([restrictRule, blockRule]);
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: { userId: userId },
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toHaveLength(2);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[0]?.type).toBe(AccessPolicyType.Block);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[1]?.type).toBe(AccessPolicyType.Restrict);
-		});
-
-		test("findRulesRanked: keys DEL'd between aggregate and HGETALL drop out without reordering survivors", async () => {
-			// Assumption under test: the race window between
-			// FT.AGGREGATE and the HGETALL fanout is handled by the
-			// non-empty filter, AND the surviving entries keep their
-			// relative rank order (Array.filter is stable). Mirrors the
-			// existing greedy-path "returns remaining rules when a
-			// matched document's hash key has been deleted" test but
-			// asserts the matchingFieldsOnly=true (ranked) path.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const userId = getUniqueString();
-
-			// 3 specificity levels: the middle one will be DEL'd
-			// mid-pipeline. The other two must still come back in the
-			// correct rank order.
-			const topRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				ja4Hash: "t13d_top",
-				countryCode: "GB",
-			};
-			const middleRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-				ja4Hash: "t13d_mid",
-			};
-			const bottomRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId: clientId,
-				userId: userId,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([topRule, middleRule, bottomRule]);
-
-			// Drop the middle rule's hash directly. The RediSearch
-			// index still references it for a window; FT.AGGREGATE
-			// returns 3 keys, HGETALL returns one empty + two
-			// populated. The filter must drop the empty one and the
-			// remaining two must stay in the {top, bottom} order.
-			const middleKey = getAccessRuleRedisKey(middleRule);
-			await redisClient.del(middleKey);
-
-			const foundAccessRules = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId: clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Exact,
-					userScope: {
-						userId: userId,
-						ja4Hash: "t13d_top",
-						countryCode: "GB",
-					},
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				},
-				true,
-			);
-
-			expect(foundAccessRules).toHaveLength(2);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[0]).toEqual(topRule);
-			expect(foundAccessRules[1]).toEqual(bottomRule);
-		});
-
-		test("blockOnly filter returns only Block rules even when Restrict rules share the same user scope", async () => {
-			// Mix the two policy types across the same (clientId, ja4Hash)
-			// space so the strict-match query would otherwise return both.
-			// Without blockOnly, the result includes Restrict rules; with
-			// blockOnly the Redis-side `@type:{block}` clause excludes
-			// them before the JS sees the candidates.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const ja4Hash = "t13d_blockonly";
-
-			const block1: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-			};
-			const block2: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-				coords: "[[[1,2]]]",
-			};
-			const restrict1: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-			};
-			const restrict2: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-				coords: "[[[3,4]]]",
-			};
-			const blockOtherClient: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId: getUniqueString(),
-				ja4Hash,
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([
-				block1,
-				block2,
-				restrict1,
-				restrict2,
-				blockOtherClient,
-			]);
-
-			// Greedy / no blockOnly → both Block and Restrict for this
-			// clientId come back. The other-client rule is excluded by
-			// the greedy policy scope match (different clientId AND set).
-			const mixed = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: { clientId },
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				userScope: { ja4Hash },
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-			});
-			const mixedTypes = mixed.map((r) => r.type).sort();
-			expect(mixed).toHaveLength(4);
-			expect(mixedTypes).toEqual([
-				AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-			]);
-
-			// Same query with blockOnly → only the two Block rules for
-			// this clientId. Restrict rules must be filtered server-side.
-			const blockOnly = await accessRulesReader.findRules({
-				policyScope: { clientId },
-				policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				userScope: { ja4Hash },
-				userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				blockOnly: true,
-			});
-			expect(blockOnly).toHaveLength(2);
-			for (const rule of blockOnly) {
-				expect(rule.type).toBe(AccessPolicyType.Block);
-				expect(rule.clientId).toBe(clientId);
-			}
-			const blockHashes = new Set(blockOnly.map((r) => r.coords));
-			expect(blockHashes).toEqual(new Set([undefined, "[[[1,2]]]"]));
-		});
-
-		test("blockOnly composes with matchingFieldsOnly on the ranked hot path — Restrict rules never come back", async () => {
-			// Exercises the production hot path: greedy user-scope match
-			// with matchingFieldsOnly=true (the FT.AGGREGATE-ranked
-			// branch). The greedy ja4 query is permissive enough that
-			// `ruleApplies` is still the last word on whether a rule
-			// applies; the only guarantee this layer is supposed to
-			// uphold is that Restrict candidates are gone before JS sees
-			// them. That's what blockOnly is for.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-			const ja4Hash = "t13d_hotpath";
-
-			const blockMatch: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-			};
-			const restrictMatch: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-			};
-			const restrictMatchWithCoords: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId,
-				ja4Hash,
-				coords: "[[[5,6]]]",
-			};
-
-			await insertRules([blockMatch, restrictMatch, restrictMatchWithCoords]);
-
-			const found = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-					userScope: { ja4Hash },
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-					blockOnly: true,
-				},
-				true, // matchingFieldsOnly — ranked path
-			);
-
-			// Restrict rules must not appear; at least the matching
-			// Block rule must be present.
-			expect(found.some((r) => r.type === AccessPolicyType.Restrict)).toBe(
-				false,
-			);
-			expect(
-				found.some(
-					(r) => r.type === AccessPolicyType.Block && r.ja4Hash === ja4Hash,
-				),
-			).toBe(true);
-		});
-
-		test("specific-IP Restrict rule survives when many higher-specificity irrelevant rules co-exist (2026-07-10 Twickets regression)", async () => {
-			// Regression guard for the 2026-07-10 Twickets incident: a
-			// portal-authored Restrict rule with scope
-			// `clientId + numericIp` (specificity 2, severity 0) was
-			// silently dropped from the frictionless access-policy lookup
-			// when the tenant had many higher-specificity irrelevant
-			// rules on the same clientId. The old FT.AGGREGATE ranker
-			// used for non-block lookups capped candidates at top-20 by
-			// populated-field count; those 20 slots got filled by rules
-			// with clientId + numericIp + numericIpMaskMin (SIMD_REPLAY
-			// v6 shape, specificity 3, severity 1) or
-			// clientId + ja4Hash + coords (SUDDEN_VOLUME_INCREASE shape,
-			// specificity 3, severity 1) that all matched the greedy
-			// `ismissing(@headHash) | ismissing(@coords) | ismissing(@headersHash)`
-			// disjunction. None of them applied to the request under
-			// `ruleApplies` — they were emitted from other users'
-			// activity — so the JS-side ranker returned [] and the
-			// frictionless decision fell through to `default_pow`.
-			//
-			// The split-query path can't hit that failure: each probe
-			// hits a discriminating posting list, so the ip:exact probe
-			// returns exactly the rules that literally match this IP.
-			const clientId = getUniqueString();
-
-			// The rule that must survive: a portal "Too Many Requests"
-			// Restrict/image rule scoped only to (clientId, numericIp).
-			const targetIp = 1376899398n; // 82.17.209.70 — Twickets rule
-			const targetRule: AccessRule = {
-				type: AccessPolicyType.Restrict,
-				clientId,
-				numericIp: targetIp,
-				description: "Too Many Requests",
-			};
-
-			// 40 irrelevant Block rules with higher specificity than
-			// the target rule. Two shapes drawn from the live Twickets
-			// tenant that dominated the top-20:
-			//
-			//   (a) SIMD_REPLAY v6-style — clientId + numericIp +
-			//       numericIpMaskMin. These have a *different* numericIp
-			//       from the request, so the exact-IP probe skips them.
-			//   (b) SUDDEN_VOLUME_INCREASE-style — clientId + ja4Hash +
-			//       coords. Different ja4Hash from the request so those
-			//       probes miss them too.
-			//
-			// Under the old ranker every one of these would fill the top
-			// slots and push the target rule off the end.
-			const irrelevantRules: AccessRule[] = [];
-			for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
-				irrelevantRules.push({
-					type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-					clientId,
-					numericIp: BigInt(2000000000 + i),
-					numericIpMaskMin: BigInt(2000000000 + i),
-					numericIpMaskMax: BigInt(2000000000 + i),
-					description: "SIMD_REPLAY",
-				});
-			}
-			for (let i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
-				irrelevantRules.push({
-					type: AccessPolicyType.Block,
-					clientId,
-					ja4Hash: `t13d_other_${i}`,
-					coords: `[[[${100 + i},${200 + i}]]]`,
-					description: "SUDDEN_VOLUME_INCREASE",
-				});
-			}
-
-			await insertRules([targetRule, ...irrelevantRules]);
-
-			// Frictionless access-policy lookup shape — greedy match,
-			// matchingFieldsOnly=true, no blockOnly.
-			const found = await accessRulesReader.findRules(
-				{
-					policyScope: { clientId },
-					policyScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-					userScope: {
-						numericIp: targetIp,
-						ja4Hash: "t13d1516h2_request_ja4",
-						userAgentHash: "sha256:request_ua",
-						userId: getUniqueString(),
-					},
-					userScopeMatch: FilterScopeMatch.Greedy,
-				},
-				true, // matchingFieldsOnly — production hot path
-			);
-
-			// The target rule MUST come back. Under the old ranker it
-			// was truncated; under the split path the ip:exact probe
-			// returns exactly this one rule, so it can't be crowded
-			// out by irrelevant candidates from other probes.
-			const targetFound = found.find(
-				(r) =>
-					r.type === AccessPolicyType.Restrict &&
-					r.numericIp === targetIp &&
-					r.description === "Too Many Requests",
-			);
-			expect(targetFound).toBeDefined();
-		});
-	});
-
-	afterAll(async () => {
-		await redisClient.flushAll();
-	});
-});