563fa0513dcaeecd22bbbbcafde1afecfad9056e
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 peter
|
b1086e05dc |
fix(auth): stop drawing a reset form the link can no longer fill (E9.5 S4)
Reported from UAT: delete an account, then open its password-reset link. The card drew the full "set
a new password" form — because a `#reset=` fragment was present, and nothing more — and only after
the user had typed a password did the server answer 400. Measured first: no security hole. A user's
tokens cascade away with the row, so nothing can be set on a deleted or a re-created account. What
was left is a dead end of exactly the kind this epic exists to remove, and it is not rare: a reset
link lives one hour, mail is slow or lands in spam, and whoever got two mails clicks the older one.
password-reset/check answers whether a link is still usable WITHOUT spending it, so asking can never
cost the user their one real attempt — the property the tests pin hardest. It gets its own limiter,
because opening a link must not eat the budget for requesting one, and a throttled caller is told
"ok", never "dead": this check may only ever save someone a wasted form, so when it cannot answer it
degrades to the old behaviour instead of declaring a live link finished. The confirm endpoint stays
the authority, and its failure raises the same named screen, since the token can die between the two
calls or the probe itself may have failed.
A too-short password is deliberately NOT that screen. The length check runs before the token is
spent, so a typo costs the link nothing, and the card tells the two 400s apart by `reason` so only
one of them takes the form down.
Both email-link confirmations (verify, password-reset/confirm) now answer in the {code, reason}
shape S4 introduced. They were the last refusals a user meets by simply clicking an old link while
still being answered in hardcoded English under a bilingual UI. The seven remaining bare strings in
this module (register, request-access, the demo guards, set-password) sit behind client-side
validation the UI does first; they are logged as a follow-up rather than swept in silently here.
One bug found by the UAT itself, in the new code: the check went out FOUR times per opened link —
StrictMode double-invokes effects and the shell remounts the card as the session probe settles.
Harmless per request, but against a per-IP limit it would exhaust the budget in two reloads and then
silently fall back to drawing the form unchecked: nothing errors, the feature just stops working.
Deduped in a module-level map holding the in-flight promise (a ref dies with the remount that causes
it); a failed probe drops itself so a blip is never cached as "dead". The test renders the card
twice, because with one render the guard would rot undetected.
UAT on localdev: the reported scenario end to end (delete the account, open the link) shows the named
screen and no form; a live link still opens the form and completes; the CTA lands on the request-a-
link form; one probe per opened link. Throwaway accounts removed.
|
||
|
peter
|
ed91c83dd7 |
fix(auth): name the state and the address behind a refused sign-in (E9.5 S4)
"Your account is awaiting admin approval." was true and useless. It never said WHICH mailbox the account was on, and on 2026-09-03 that silence hid a Gmail alias mismatch for a day: a registration as np.temu@gmail.com met a Google claim of nptemu@gmail.com, and every screen in the funnel agreed to say nothing about it. Every refusal password-login can answer with now uses the codebase's structured {code, reason} detail, built in one helper. The three that arrive AFTER the password is proven carry the address on the account plus both gate flags; the two that answer before it (invalid, rate_limited) carry nothing, so a wrong password and an unknown account stay byte-identical. The frontend renders the first three as a named screen in place of the form — there is nothing to retype once the password is correct — with an icon, the two-gate checklist, the address in monospace, and a resend CTA where one helps. Reporting each gate from its own flag is the payoff of S1: approved-but-unverified is a real state now, and a screen that assumed a sequence would send that user off to wait for an admin who has already decided. The Google access-request notice names the address too, and says so when the request was already on file under ANOTHER spelling of the same mailbox — the honest version of "we didn't open a second one", stated only when it applies. It moved from the query string to the fragment: the notice now carries an address, and a query string lands in every reverse-proxy access log. Same reasoning that put the verify/reset tokens there, and the same owner already clears it. urlencode, not an f-string, because URLSearchParams reads a bare + in a fragment as a space and would mangle exactly the +tag addresses this epic exists to protect. upsert_pending_invite returns the row it settled on beside the is-new flag, since the row's stored address is what the notice has to name and what mail will go to. Deviation from the PendingScreen mockup, deliberately: no "Sign out" button and no separate "Not your address?" link. The mockup drew the panel in the app shell; the accepted decision (a) keeps the pending user session-less, so there is no session to end, and the address is named directly above a "Back to sign in" that answers the same question. UAT on localdev, both languages: all three refusals with the typed spelling deliberately differing from the stored one (the panel named the stored one), the resend CTA carrying the typed address into the resend form, and both access-request banners with a +tag address surviving the fragment round trip. Throwaway accounts and the language switch reverted. |