docs: ensure the document/api collection is in sync with the current work #334
Conversation
kshitij-k-osmosys
added
the
documentation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@kshitij-k-osmosys has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 2 minutes and 3 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces new environment variables Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
kshitij-k-osmosys
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (12)
apps/api/.env.example (1)
9-9: LGTM! Consider adding a brief comment.The addition of
SALT_ROUNDS=10is appropriate. This is a commonly used default value that provides a good balance between security and performance for most applications.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this variable, for example:
-SALT_ROUNDS=10 +SALT_ROUNDS=10 # Number of salt rounds for password hashingapps/api/docs/development-setup.md (2)
52-53: Improve documentation for new security-related environment variablesThe addition of
SALT_ROUNDSandAPI_KEY_SECRETis good, but the documentation could be improved:
For
SALT_ROUNDS:
- Add a brief explanation of its purpose (e.g., "Used for password hashing with bcrypt").
- Mention that 10 is a reasonable default, but users can adjust based on their security needs and performance requirements.
For
API_KEY_SECRET:
- Add a comment explaining its use (e.g., "Secret key for generating and validating API keys").
- Replace
your-secretwith guidance on generating a secure secret, such as "Use a long, random string. You can generate one usingopenssl rand -hex 32".Consider applying these changes:
- SALT_ROUNDS=10 - API_KEY_SECRET=your-secret + SALT_ROUNDS=10 # Number of salt rounds for password hashing (bcrypt). Adjust based on security needs and performance. + API_KEY_SECRET=your-secret # Secret for API key generation/validation. Replace with a secure random string (e.g., run: openssl rand -hex 32)Also, consider adding these new variables to the "Security configuration" section if one exists, or create such a section to group security-related variables.
Line range hint
1-53: Enhance documentation clarity and completenessThe setup guide is comprehensive, but there are a few areas for improvement:
API Documentation: The PR objectives mention updates to API documentation, but this file doesn't cover it. Consider adding a section about where to find and how to update the API documentation.
Cleanup Variables: The cleanup-related environment variables (CLEANUP_IDLE_RESOURCES, IDLE_TIMEOUT, CLEANUP_INTERVAL) could benefit from more detailed explanations about their purpose and impact.
Consistency: Some variables have inline explanations while others don't. Consider adding brief explanations for all variables for consistency.
Here's an example of how you could improve the explanations:
- CLEANUP_IDLE_RESOURCES=false # Cleans up idle queues if inactive for the specified duration, default false - IDLE_TIMEOUT=30m # How long the queue should be idle before being considered for deletion, default 30m - CLEANUP_INTERVAL=7d # Frequency for running the cleanup, use formats from https://github.com/vercel/ms, default 7d + CLEANUP_IDLE_RESOURCES=false # Enable/disable automatic cleanup of idle resources + IDLE_TIMEOUT=30m # Duration a resource must be idle before considered for cleanup (e.g., 30m = 30 minutes) + CLEANUP_INTERVAL=7d # Frequency of running the cleanup process (e.g., 7d = 7 days)Also, consider adding a new section at the end of the file:
## API Documentation For information on how to access and update the API documentation, please refer to [link to API docs]. Ensure that any changes to the API are reflected in the documentation.This addition will address the API documentation update mentioned in the PR objectives.
apps/api/docs/production-setup.md (1)
Line range hint
1-190: Overall document structure and content is good, with a minor suggestion for improvement.The production setup document is well-structured and provides comprehensive information on prerequisites, server configuration, and deployment methods (both PM2 and Docker). The addition of new environment variables is consistent with the document's purpose of reflecting the latest features.
To further improve the Docker deployment section, consider adding a brief explanation of what each container (api, mariadb, redis) does. This would help users understand the overall architecture of the deployed application.
For example, you could add:
Our Docker setup consists of three main containers: 1. osmox-api: The main application container running the OsmoX API. 2. osmox-mariadb: A MariaDB database container for persistent data storage. 3. osmox-redis: A Redis container for caching and temporary data storage.This addition would provide users with a clearer understanding of the Docker-based deployment architecture.
apps/api/OsmoX.postman_collection.json (8)
Line range hint
1-4373: Overall structure reviewThe Postman collection is well-organized with separate folders for different types of notifications and API functionalities. It includes comprehensive test cases for various scenarios, which is a good practice for ensuring API reliability.
However, there are a few areas that could be improved:
- Consider adding environment variables for common values like base URLs and API keys to make the collection more flexible and easier to maintain.
- Some test scripts are repeated across multiple requests. Consider using Postman's pre-request scripts or collection-level scripts to reduce duplication.
- The collection doesn't seem to include documentation for the API endpoints. Adding descriptions for each request would improve usability.
To improve maintainability and reduce duplication, consider implementing the following changes:
Create environment variables for common values:
- Add a
baseUrlvariable forhttp://localhost:3000- Use
{{baseUrl}}instead of hardcoded URLs in all requestsMove common test scripts to collection-level pre-request scripts:
- Create a collection-level pre-request script with common test functions
- Use these functions in individual request test scripts
Add descriptions for each request in the collection:
- Use Postman's description field to provide details about each endpoint's purpose and usage
These changes will make the collection more maintainable and easier to use for other team members.
Line range hint
3960-4031: Authentication section reviewThe Authentication section is well-structured with test cases covering various scenarios. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:
The successful login test doesn't verify the structure of the returned token. Consider adding a check for the token format (e.g., JWT).
There's no test for token expiration. Consider adding a test case to verify that the token expires after a certain period.
The error messages in the failed login attempts are quite specific. This could potentially help attackers in enumerating valid usernames. Consider using more generic error messages.
To enhance security and test coverage, consider implementing the following changes:
- Add a token format check in the successful login test:
pm.test("Token is in valid JWT format", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var token = jsonData.data.login.token; pm.expect(token).to.match(/^[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\.[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\.?[A-Za-z0-9-_.+/=]*$/); });
- Add a test case for token expiration (this would require setting up an endpoint to check token validity):
pm.test("Token expires after specified time", function () { // Store the token var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.environment.set("authToken", jsonData.data.login.token); // Wait for token to expire (adjust time as needed) setTimeout(function() { pm.sendRequest({ url: pm.environment.get("baseUrl") + "/check-token", method: 'GET', header: { 'Authorization': 'Bearer ' + pm.environment.get("authToken") } }, function (err, res) { pm.expect(res.code).to.equal(401); }); }, 3600000); // 1 hour });
- Update error messages to be more generic:
pm.test("Response for failed login with invalid credentials", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(401); pm.expect(pm.response.json().errors[0].message).to.equal("Invalid credentials"); });These changes will improve the security posture of your authentication tests and provide more comprehensive coverage.
Line range hint
32-3959: Notifications sections reviewThe notifications sections are comprehensive, covering various channels like SMTP, Mailgun, WhatsApp, SMS, etc. Each section includes tests for successful sending, error cases, and API key validation, which is commendable. However, there are some areas for improvement:
There's significant repetition in the test scripts across different notification types. This could lead to maintenance issues if changes are needed.
Some edge cases might be missing, such as testing with very large payloads or special characters in the message content.
The error handling tests are good, but they could be more specific in some cases.
To improve the notification tests, consider the following changes:
- Create a common test function for notification responses:
function testNotificationResponse(channelType) { pm.test("Response is valid JSON", function () { pm.response.to.be.json; }); pm.test("Response has valid 'status' and 'data' properties", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData).to.have.property("status", "success"); pm.expect(jsonData).to.have.property("data").to.be.an("object"); }); pm.test("Response contains a valid 'notification' object", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.data).to.have.property("notification").to.be.an("object"); }); pm.test(`Response 'channelType' is ${channelType}`, function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.data.notification).to.have.property("channelType", channelType); }); pm.test("Response 'deliveryStatus' is 1", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.data.notification).to.have.property("deliveryStatus", 1); }); }
- Add tests for edge cases:
pm.test("Handles large payloads", function() { // Generate a large payload var largePayload = "a".repeat(1000000); // Send request with large payload // Assert that the response is handled correctly }); pm.test("Handles special characters", function() { // Generate a payload with special characters var specialChars = "!@#$%^&*()_+{}|:<>?~`-=[]\\;',./"; // Send request with special characters // Assert that the response is handled correctly });
- Make error handling tests more specific:
pm.test("Invalid API key returns correct error", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(401); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.status).to.equal("fail"); pm.expect(jsonData.data).to.equal("Invalid x-api-key"); pm.expect(jsonData).to.not.have.property("notification"); });Implementing these changes will make your notification tests more maintainable, comprehensive, and specific in error handling.
Line range hint
4373-4715: Applications section reviewThe Applications section includes tests for fetching and creating applications, covering success cases, error cases for non-admin users, and bad requests. While the coverage is good, there are opportunities to enhance the tests:
The success test for fetching applications doesn't verify the structure of the returned application objects.
The create application test doesn't check if the created application has the correct properties.
Error messages could be more specific to help in debugging.
To improve the application tests, consider implementing the following changes:
- Enhance the fetch applications success test:
pm.test("Fetched applications have correct structure", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var applications = jsonData.data.applications.applications; pm.expect(applications).to.be.an("array").that.is.not.empty; applications.forEach(function(app) { pm.expect(app).to.have.all.keys('applicationId', 'name', 'userId', 'createdOn', 'updatedOn', 'status'); pm.expect(app.applicationId).to.be.a('number'); pm.expect(app.name).to.be.a('string'); pm.expect(app.userId).to.be.a('number'); pm.expect(app.createdOn).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); pm.expect(app.updatedOn).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); pm.expect(app.status).to.be.a('number'); }); });
- Improve the create application success test:
pm.test("Created application has correct properties", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var createdApp = jsonData.data.application; pm.expect(createdApp).to.have.all.keys('applicationId', 'name', 'userId', 'createdOn', 'updatedOn', 'status'); pm.expect(createdApp.name).to.equal(pm.variables.get("newAppName")); pm.expect(createdApp.userId).to.equal(pm.variables.get("userId")); pm.expect(createdApp.status).to.equal(1); // Assuming 1 means active });
- Make error messages more specific:
pm.test("Non-admin user receives correct error", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(403); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.equal("Access Denied. Not an ADMIN."); pm.expect(jsonData.data).to.be.null; }); pm.test("Bad request returns correct error", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(400); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.include("Invalid input"); pm.expect(jsonData.data).to.be.null; });These changes will make your application tests more robust, providing better validation of the returned data and more specific error checking.
Line range hint
4716-5110: Providers section reviewThe Providers section includes tests for fetching and creating providers, covering success cases, error cases for non-admin users, and bad requests. Similar to the Applications section, there are opportunities to enhance these tests:
The success test for fetching providers doesn't verify the structure of the returned provider objects.
The create provider test doesn't check if the created provider has the correct properties.
Error messages could be more specific to help in debugging.
To improve the provider tests, consider implementing the following changes:
- Enhance the fetch providers success test:
pm.test("Fetched providers have correct structure", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var providers = jsonData.data.providers.providers; pm.expect(providers).to.be.an("array").that.is.not.empty; providers.forEach(function(provider) { pm.expect(provider).to.have.all.keys('providerId', 'name', 'channelType', 'configuration', 'isEnabled', 'userId', 'createdOn', 'updatedOn', 'status'); pm.expect(provider.providerId).to.be.a('number'); pm.expect(provider.name).to.be.a('string'); pm.expect(provider.channelType).to.be.a('number'); pm.expect(provider.configuration).to.be.an('object'); pm.expect(provider.isEnabled).to.be.a('number'); pm.expect(provider.userId).to.be.a('number'); pm.expect(provider.createdOn).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); pm.expect(provider.updatedOn).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); pm.expect(provider.status).to.be.a('number'); }); });
- Improve the create provider success test:
pm.test("Created provider has correct properties", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var createdProvider = jsonData.data.provider; pm.expect(createdProvider).to.have.all.keys('providerId', 'name', 'channelType', 'configuration', 'isEnabled', 'userId', 'createdOn', 'updatedOn', 'status'); pm.expect(createdProvider.name).to.equal(pm.variables.get("newProviderName")); pm.expect(createdProvider.channelType).to.equal(pm.variables.get("channelType")); pm.expect(createdProvider.isEnabled).to.equal(1); pm.expect(createdProvider.userId).to.equal(pm.variables.get("userId")); pm.expect(createdProvider.status).to.equal(1); // Assuming 1 means active });
- Make error messages more specific:
pm.test("Non-admin user receives correct error for provider operations", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(403); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.equal("Access Denied. Not an ADMIN."); pm.expect(jsonData.data).to.be.null; }); pm.test("Bad request for provider operations returns correct error", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(400); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.include("Invalid input for provider"); pm.expect(jsonData.data).to.be.null; });These changes will make your provider tests more robust, providing better validation of the returned data and more specific error checking, similar to the improvements suggested for the Applications section.
Line range hint
5111-5298: Webhook section reviewThe Webhook section includes tests for registering webhooks, covering success cases and error cases for existing providers and unknown providers. While these tests cover the basic scenarios, there's room for improvement:
The success test doesn't verify all properties of the registered webhook.
There are no tests for updating or deleting webhooks.
Edge cases like invalid URLs or rate limiting are not covered.
To enhance the webhook tests, consider implementing the following changes:
- Improve the success test for webhook registration:
pm.test("Registered webhook has correct properties", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var webhook = jsonData.data.webhook; pm.expect(webhook).to.have.all.keys('webhookUrl', 'providerId', 'createdOn', 'updatedOn', 'status'); pm.expect(webhook.webhookUrl).to.equal(pm.variables.get("webhookUrl")); pm.expect(webhook.providerId).to.equal(pm.variables.get("providerId")); pm.expect(webhook.status).to.equal(1); // Assuming 1 means active pm.expect(webhook.createdOn).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); pm.expect(webhook.updatedOn).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); });
- Add tests for updating and deleting webhooks:
// Update webhook test pm.test("Update webhook succeeds", function () { // Implement test for updating a webhook }); // Delete webhook test pm.test("Delete webhook succeeds", function () { // Implement test for deleting a webhook });
- Add tests for edge cases:
pm.test("Registration fails with invalid URL", function () { // Implement test with an invalid URL }); pm.test("Registration respects rate limits", function () { // Implement test to check rate limiting behavior }); pm.test("Registration fails with duplicate URL for same provider", function () { // Implement test to check uniqueness constraint });
- Improve error case tests:
pm.test("Error for existing provider webhook is correct", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(409); // Assuming 409 Conflict is used for this case var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.equal("Webhook already exists for this provider"); }); pm.test("Error for unknown provider is correct", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(404); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.equal("Provider not found"); });These additions and improvements will make your webhook tests more comprehensive, covering more scenarios and providing more detailed validations.
Line range hint
5299-5373: Server Keys section reviewThe Server Keys section includes tests for generating new API keys, covering success cases and error cases for unknown applications. While these tests cover the basic functionality, there are several areas where they can be improved and expanded:
The success test doesn't verify the format or properties of the generated API key.
There are no tests for key revocation or expiration.
Security considerations like key strength and rate limiting are not addressed.
To enhance the server key tests, consider implementing the following changes:
- Improve the success test for key generation:
pm.test("Generated API key has correct format and properties", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var apiKey = jsonData.data.generateApiKey; pm.expect(apiKey).to.be.a('string'); pm.expect(apiKey).to.match(/^[A-Za-z0-9]{32}$/); // Assuming 32-character alphanumeric key // If the response includes additional properties, test them as well // For example: // pm.expect(jsonData.data.keyDetails).to.have.property('expiresAt'); // pm.expect(jsonData.data.keyDetails.expiresAt).to.be.a('string').and.to.match(/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}T\d{2}:\d{2}:\d{2}.\d{3}Z$/); });
- Add tests for key revocation and expiration:
pm.test("Revoke API key succeeds", function () { // Implement test for revoking an API key }); pm.test("Expired API key is rejected", function () { // Implement test to verify that an expired key is not accepted });
- Add security-related tests:
pm.test("API key generation is rate limited", function () { // Implement test to verify rate limiting on key generation }); pm.test("Generated API key has sufficient entropy", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); var apiKey = jsonData.data.generateApiKey; // Calculate entropy (this is a simplified example) var entropy = calculateEntropy(apiKey); pm.expect(entropy).to.be.at.least(128); // Assuming we want at least 128 bits of entropy }); function calculateEntropy(string) { // Implement a function to calculate the entropy of the generated key // This is a placeholder and should be replaced with a proper entropy calculation return string.length * 6; // Assuming 6 bits of entropy per character as a rough estimate }
- Improve error case test:
pm.test("Error for unknown application is correct", function () { pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.equal(404); var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData.errors[0].message).to.equal("Application not found"); });
- Add test for key uniqueness:
pm.test("Generated API keys are unique", function () { // Generate two keys in succession // Verify that they are different });These additions and improvements will make your server key tests more comprehensive, addressing important aspects of key generation, security, and error handling. Remember to adjust the specific expectations and error messages to match your actual API behavior.
Line range hint
1-5373: Final overall review of the Postman collectionThe OsmoX Postman collection is a comprehensive set of API tests covering various aspects of the application, including authentication, notifications, applications, providers, webhooks, and server keys. The collection demonstrates good test coverage for happy paths and some error scenarios.
Positive aspects:
- Wide coverage of API endpoints and functionalities.
- Inclusion of both success and error cases for most endpoints.
- Structured organization of requests into logical folders.
Areas for improvement:
- Consistency in test structure and naming across different sections.
- More extensive coverage of edge cases and security scenarios.
- Reusability of common test logic.
- Documentation of requests and test cases.
To improve the overall quality and maintainability of the Postman collection, consider implementing the following general improvements:
Standardize test structure:
Create a common test template that includes standard checks (e.g., response status, JSON validity) and can be easily adapted for each endpoint.Implement environment variables:
Use environment variables for common values like base URLs, test user credentials, and API keys to make the collection more flexible and secure.Utilize pre-request scripts:
Move common setup logic (e.g., authentication) to pre-request scripts to reduce duplication and improve maintainability.Enhance error case coverage:
Systematically add tests for various error scenarios, including invalid inputs, unauthorized access, and rate limiting.Add data-driven tests:
Use Postman's data files feature to create data-driven tests, allowing for more comprehensive coverage with less duplication.Improve documentation:
Add detailed descriptions for each request and folder, explaining the purpose of the tests and any special considerations.Implement test suites:
Group related tests into test suites to allow for more organized and targeted test runs.Add performance tests:
Include basic performance tests to ensure API endpoints respond within acceptable time frames.Enhance security testing:
Add more tests specifically targeting security aspects, such as input validation, authentication edge cases, and authorization checks.Implement cleanup scripts:
Add post-request scripts to clean up any data created during tests, ensuring a clean state for subsequent test runs.Example of a standardized test structure:
// Pre-request script (collection level) if (!pm.environment.get("authToken")) { // Perform login and set authToken } // Tests (request level) pm.test("Status code is 200", function () { pm.response.to.have.status(200); }); pm.test("Response is valid JSON", function () { pm.response.to.be.json; }); pm.test("Response has expected structure", function () { var jsonData = pm.response.json(); pm.expect(jsonData).to.have.property("status"); pm.expect(jsonData).to.have.property("data"); // Add more specific structure checks }); // Add endpoint-specific tests here // Post-request script (collection level) // Clean up created data if necessaryImplementing these suggestions will significantly improve the quality, maintainability, and effectiveness of your Postman collection, making it a more robust tool for API testing and documentation.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- apps/api/.env.example (1 hunks)
- apps/api/OsmoX.postman_collection.json (3 hunks)
- apps/api/docs/development-setup.md (1 hunks)
- apps/api/docs/production-setup.md (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
apps/api/docs/development-setup.md (1)
Line range hint
1-53: Overall documentation reviewThe updates to the development setup documentation are valuable, particularly the addition of security-related environment variables. However, there are a few areas that could be further improved:
- Consistency: Ensure all environment variables have clear, concise explanations.
- Grouping: Consider grouping related variables (e.g., security, cleanup) for better organization.
- Completeness: Address the API documentation updates mentioned in the PR objectives.
These improvements will enhance the clarity and usefulness of the setup guide for developers.
To ensure all environment variables in the
.env.examplefile are properly documented here, please run the following script:' | cut -d '=' -f1)
for var in $doc_vars; do
if ! grep -q "^$var=" apps/api/.env.example; then
echo "Warning: $var is documented but not present in .env.example"
fi
doneThis script will help ensure that all environment variables are consistently documented across both files. </blockquote></details> <details> <summary>apps/api/docs/production-setup.md (1)</summary><blockquote> Line range hint `1-190`: **Summary: Documentation update meets objectives with room for minor improvements** This update to the production setup documentation largely meets the PR objectives of reflecting the latest features. The addition of new environment variables (`SALT_ROUNDS` and `API_KEY_SECRET`) indicates the integration of new features or enhanced security measures. To fully meet the objectives and improve the documentation: 1. Add brief explanations for the new environment variables as suggested earlier. 2. Consider the minor improvement suggested for the Docker deployment section. Once these small changes are made, the documentation will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date guide for setting up OsmoX in a production environment, fully aligning with the PR objectives. </blockquote></details> </blockquote></details> </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->
kshitij-k-osmosys
changed the title
API PR Checklist
Pre-requisites
.env.examplefile with the required values as applicable.PR Details
PR details have been updated as per the given format (see below)
feat: add admin login endpoint)Additional Information
ready for reviewshould be added if the PR is ready to be reviewed)Note: Reviewer should ensure that the checklist and description have been populated and followed correctly, and the PR should be merged only after resolving all conversations and verifying that CI checks pass.
Description:
.env.examplefileproduction setupanddevelopment setupgenerateServerKeyapi-collectionRelated changes:
NA
Screenshots:
NA
Query request and response:
NA
Documentation changes:
NA
Test suite/unit testing output:
NA
Pending actions:
NA
Additional notes:
NA
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
SALT_ROUNDS(set to 10) andAPI_KEY_SECRET(placeholder value) for enhanced security configurations.Bug Fixes
Documentation