Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions .changeset/encode-device-authorization-request.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
---
'@shopify/cli-kit': patch
---

Encode device authorization request parameters safely.
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -63,11 +63,48 @@ describe('requestDeviceAuthorization', () => {
expect(shopifyFetch).toBeCalledWith('https://fqdn.com/oauth/device_authorization', {
method: 'POST',
headers: {'Content-type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'},
body: 'client_id=clientId&scope=scope1 scope2',
body: 'client_id=clientId&scope=scope1+scope2',
})
Comment thread
dmerand marked this conversation as resolved.
expect(got).toEqual(dataExpected)
})

test('encodes special characters in authorization scopes', async () => {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we testing the behavior of URLSearchParams? I feel like we could get away with much simpler testing here...

// Given
const response = new Response(JSON.stringify(data))
vi.mocked(shopifyFetch).mockResolvedValue(response)
vi.mocked(identityFqdn).mockResolvedValue('fqdn.com')
vi.mocked(clientId).mockReturnValue('clientId')
const scopes = ['scope&name', 'scope=value', 'scope%value']

// When
await requestDeviceAuthorization(scopes)

// Then
expect(shopifyFetch).toHaveBeenCalledWith('https://fqdn.com/oauth/device_authorization', {
method: 'POST',
headers: {'Content-type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'},
body: 'client_id=clientId&scope=scope%26name+scope%3Dvalue+scope%25value',
})
})

test('omits empty authorization scope values', async () => {
// Given
const response = new Response(JSON.stringify(data))
vi.mocked(shopifyFetch).mockResolvedValue(response)
vi.mocked(identityFqdn).mockResolvedValue('fqdn.com')
vi.mocked(clientId).mockReturnValue('clientId')

// When
await requestDeviceAuthorization([])

// Then
expect(shopifyFetch).toHaveBeenCalledWith('https://fqdn.com/oauth/device_authorization', {
method: 'POST',
headers: {'Content-type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'},
body: 'client_id=clientId',
})
})

test('opens the browser directly in an interactive terminal', async () => {
// Given
const outputInfo = vi.spyOn(output, 'outputInfo')
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -152,10 +152,8 @@ export async function pollForDeviceAuthorization(code: string, interval = 5): Pr
}

function convertRequestToParams(queryParams: {client_id: string; scope: string}): string {
return Object.entries(queryParams)
.map(([key, value]) => value && `${key}=${value}`)
.filter((hasValue) => Boolean(hasValue))
.join('&')
// URLSearchParams applies form encoding so scope values cannot change the request structure.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we need a lot of justification for the use of URLSearchParams over a hand-rolled conversion function 😆

return new URLSearchParams(Object.entries(queryParams).filter(([, value]) => Boolean(value))).toString()
}

/**
Expand Down
Loading