feat: update auth logic, upgrade project structure #34

hejkerooo · 2025-12-04T09:21:17Z

Total scope:

Reduce amount of RPC calls,
Update project structure,
Enforce BASE_URLS in most places of the projects with fallback with cache manager,
Add more detailed errors, add more logs,
Add new endpoint GET /token to return access token from pallet auth server,
Enforce strict npm engine,
Endpoint /config returns base urls details and app version/git sha

Docker tag: feat-auth-0.1

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T10:47:22Z

src/util/logger.ts

-        translateTime: 'SYS:HH:MM:ss',
-      },
+  const loggerOptions = typeof options === 'string' ? { name: options } : options;
+  const defaultLevel = loggerOptions.level ?? 'info';


I believe it's good opportunity to introduce log level

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T10:55:06Z

src/config.ts

+  LOG_FILE_PATH: z
+    .string()
+    .optional()
+    .describe('Full path to log file (e.g., /var/log/app.log or ./logs/app.log)'),


Please add information if no value is provided then file logging is disabled

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T10:59:32Z

src/util/logger.ts

+      { level: defaultLevel, stream: prettyTransport },
+    ];
+
+    return pino({ ...loggerOptions, level: defaultLevel }, pino.multistream(streams));


is this log going to include PID in each log? I would say it's necessary so we can distinguish it for each deployment

by default already had pid

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:09:07Z

src/util/logger.ts

+// Cache for transport instances to prevent duplicate worker processes
+const transportCache = new Map<string, ReturnType<typeof pino.transport>>();

 export const createLogger = (options: string | LoggerOptions): Logger => {


this function became too big, can you split it into smaller ones so it's more readable?

also what I'm thinking you should add logs to some buffer while you createLogger and later print logger configuration (paths etc.)

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:09:41Z

src/util/logger.ts

+    // If path ends with / or \, append default filename
+    if (logFilePath.endsWith('/') || logFilePath.endsWith('\\')) {
+      logFilePath = path.join(logFilePath, 'app.log');
+    } else if (path.extname(logFilePath) === '') {


why not use .length === 0 or ideally .trim().length === 0

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:10:21Z

src/util/logger.ts

+
+    // Parse path for pino-roll configuration
+    const parsedPath = path.parse(logFilePath);
+    const baseFileName = parsedPath.name; // filename without extension


why do we need to reassign here?

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:10:28Z

src/util/logger.ts

+    // Parse path for pino-roll configuration
+    const parsedPath = path.parse(logFilePath);
+    const baseFileName = parsedPath.name; // filename without extension
+    const extension = parsedPath.ext !== '' ? parsedPath.ext : '.log';


same as above comment about length

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:29:44Z

src/routes/admin.ts

+        });
+
+        // Perform graceful shutdown after response is sent
+        setTimeout(() => {


I think it's better to just send SIGTERM and add event listener on it.

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:30:13Z

src/routes/admin.ts

+
+        // Send response immediately before shutdown
+        res.status(200).json({
+          success: true,


200 indicates that request was successful

but IMO it's incorrect - we don't know if shutdown was successful

WNA had query check server are up/down.

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:54:42Z

src/routes/admin.ts

+        }, 100); // Small delay to ensure response is sent
+      } catch (error) {
+        adminLogger.error({ error }, 'error initiating shutdown');
+        res.status(500).json({


this will lead to error where response is sent twice

had checking in shutdown.ts.

if (isShuttingDown) { logger.warn('shutdown already in progress'); return; }

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:55:30Z

src/shutdown.ts

+    // 5. Clear timeout and complete
+    clearTimeout(shutdownTimeout);
+    logger.info('graceful shutdown completed');
+    process.exit(0);


you need to drain also fastq queues

hejkerooo

health module should not be responsible for any of this

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:58:29Z

src/health/health.ts

+        const solutionInfos: SolutionInfo[] = solutions.map((solution) => {
+          // Extract name from solutionId (format: "name.uuid")
+          // Example: "newTestGPSaaS.1348d595-ccc4-4a38-85ad-f0e31cc7f410" -> "newTestGPSaaS"
+          const name = solution.solutionId.includes('.')


why this functionality? what is the purpose? It's not deterministic

that get solution name only for UI display

hejkerooo · 2026-01-14T11:59:33Z

src/health/health.ts

  };
 };
+
+const getOperatorInfo = async (timeoutMs: number = 5000): Promise<OperatorInfo | undefined> => {


move it to some different place and export it as public function.

any place that suitable. try not create new file for this

feat: update auth logic, upgrade project structure

2ca8077

hejkerooo requested a review from KaamilW as a code owner December 4, 2025 09:21

hejkerooo marked this pull request as draft December 4, 2025 09:21

hejkerooo added 3 commits December 4, 2025 10:27

feat: update thrown errors

975ffc7

feat: enforce node and npm version

8be1dc7

feat: generate env vars docs on pre-commit

2a7f37e

hejkerooo force-pushed the feat/auth branch from cc8fbf4 to ddb5fba Compare December 4, 2025 09:48

feat: reduce amount of rpc calls

3e7c8af

hejkerooo force-pushed the feat/auth branch from ddb5fba to 3e7c8af Compare December 4, 2025 09:59

hejkerooo added 2 commits December 4, 2025 11:05

feat: add token router

f6aa938

fix: use correct api auth url

f6df7bc

hejkerooo requested a review from soanvig December 4, 2025 10:12

hejkerooo marked this pull request as ready for review December 4, 2025 10:14

soanvig approved these changes Dec 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

hejkerooo commented Jan 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

azam-ismail force-pushed the feat/auth branch 3 times, most recently from 4d7c708 to f6df7bc Compare January 15, 2026 07:48

feat: update auth logic, upgrade project structure #34

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: update auth logic, upgrade project structure #34

Uh oh!

Conversation

hejkerooo commented Dec 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hejkerooo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

hejkerooo commented Dec 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading