fix: Using create action permission for schema generation

[trishaanand]

Currently, schema generation uses execute permission on the datasource to execute open ended queries for schema generation. Limiting it to developers who have create action permission on the said datasource (and hence have been given rights to run any query on the said datasource) instead of execute datasource permission which is given to everyone.

Description

Tip

Add a TL;DR when the description is longer than 500 words or extremely technical (helps the content, marketing, and DevRel team).

Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change. Add links to Notion, Figma or any other documents that might be relevant to the PR.

Fixes #Issue Number
or
Fixes Issue URL

Warning

If no issue exists, please create an issue first, and check with the maintainers if the issue is valid.

Automation

/ok-to-test tags="@tag.All"

🔍 Cypress test results

Tip

🟢 🟢 🟢 All cypress tests have passed! 🎉 🎉 🎉
Workflow run: https://github.com/appsmithorg/appsmith/actions/runs/11702166169
Commit: 8946b48
Cypress dashboard.
Tags: @tag.All
Spec:

---

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 12:46:12 UTC

Communication

Should the DevRel and Marketing teams inform users about this change?

• Yes
• No

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Updated permission model for accessing datasource schema previews, enhancing security.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved error handling for specific exceptions, providing clearer feedback during errors.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl class, specifically modifying the permission checks in the getSchemaPreviewData method to require create permissions instead of execute permissions. Additionally, the error handling logic in the getStructure methods has been refined to enhance exception reporting, particularly for TimeoutException and StaleConnectionException. These updates improve the robustness of error handling while maintaining the overall control flow.

Changes

File	Change Summary
app/server/appsmith-server/src/main/java/com/appsmith/server/solutions/ce/DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl.java	Updated permission checks in getSchemaPreviewData to use getActionCreatePermission(). Refined error handling in getStructure methods, wrapping exceptions in AppsmithPluginException and explicitly defining handling for TimeoutException and StaleConnectionException.

Possibly related PRs

• test: fix DataSourceScheme #36339: This PR modifies the DatasourceSchema_spec.ts test file, which is related to the schema handling in the DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl class, enhancing the testing of schema retrieval.
• chore: Refactor UpdateSuperUserMigrationHelperCE for re-use in EE #36851: This PR refactors the UpdateSuperUserMigrationHelperCE class, which may involve user permissions similar to the permission checks modified in the getSchemaPreviewData method of the DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl class.

Suggested labels

Bug, High, Production, Needs Triaging, Query & JS Pod, Integrations Product

Suggested reviewers

• sharat87
• abhvsn
• AnaghHegde

🌟 In the realm of code, where changes take flight,
Permissions shift, making access just right.
Errors now wrapped in a clearer embrace,
With feedback refined, we enhance the pace.
So here's to the updates, both bold and bright,
In the world of Appsmith, we code with delight! 🎉

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

app/server/appsmith-server/src/main/java/com/appsmith/server/solutions/ce/DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl.java (2)

Line range hint 89-106: Consider externalizing error messages for i18n support.

The error messages are currently hardcoded. Consider:

1. Moving them to a message properties file for internationalization
2. Making support contact information configurable

---

Line range hint 89-106: Review security implications of error handling and caching.

A few security considerations:

1. Ensure error messages don't leak sensitive datasource information in production
2. Consider implementing cache invalidation when datasource permissions change
3. Add audit logging for schema generation attempts

Also applies to: 186-186

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between db713e9 and 8946b48.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• app/server/appsmith-server/src/main/java/com/appsmith/server/solutions/ce/DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl.java (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

app/server/appsmith-server/src/main/java/com/appsmith/server/solutions/ce/DatasourceStructureSolutionCEImpl.java (1)

186-186: Verify permission model consistency across schema operations.

The change from executePermission to actionCreatePermission enhances security by requiring higher privileges for schema generation. However, we should verify the consistency of this permission model across related operations.

✅ Verification successful

Let me search for more specific information about the schema-related operations to verify the permission model consistency.

---

Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide a final response regarding the permission model consistency:

Permission change is consistent with schema generation security model

The change from executePermission to actionCreatePermission in getSchemaPreviewData is intentional and consistent with the codebase's permission model:

• getStructure uses executePermission for basic schema retrieval
• getSchemaPreviewData uses actionCreatePermission for generating preview data, which requires higher privileges
• This separation aligns with the principle of least privilege, where schema preview generation requires elevated permissions compared to basic structure retrieval

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for other permission checks in related schema operations
rg -A 2 "getExecutePermission|getActionCreatePermission" --type java

Length of output: 56954

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for schema-related operations and their permission checks
ast-grep --pattern 'getSchema($$$) {
  $$$
}'

rg -B 2 -A 2 "getSchema|getStructure|getTableColumns" --type java

Length of output: 76411