Skip to content

Community administrators now can use checkorder and checkinvoice commands#732

Open
Luquitasjeffrey wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
issue703
Open

Community administrators now can use checkorder and checkinvoice commands#732
Luquitasjeffrey wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
issue703

Conversation

@Luquitasjeffrey
Copy link
Collaborator

@Luquitasjeffrey Luquitasjeffrey commented Feb 2, 2026

Before you needed to be superadmin in order been able to run those commands

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • The checkorder and checkinvoice bot commands are now accessible to admin users.
    • Command behavior and error handling remain unchanged; only the permission requirement has been relaxed so admins can run these checks without altering outcomes.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 2, 2026

Walkthrough

The pull request changes two bot command handlers in bot/start.ts: checkorder and checkinvoice now use adminMiddleware instead of superAdminMiddleware, keeping their logic intact while lowering the required permission level.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Access control change
bot/start.ts
Replaced superAdminMiddleware with adminMiddleware for checkorder and checkinvoice. checkinvoice had its internal retrieval/validation block reordered but preserved existing error handling and eventual call to checkInvoiceMessage.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Poem

🐰 I nibble lines of code tonight,

Two gates trimmed to let admins light,
Logs stay steady, checks still run,
A smaller hop — but same fun! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title accurately summarizes the main change: replacing superAdminMiddleware with adminMiddleware to allow community administrators to use checkorder and checkinvoice commands.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch issue703

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
bot/start.ts (1)

582-595: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Add community scoping for non‑super admins in checkorder/checkinvoice.

By switching to adminMiddleware without adding the community checks used elsewhere, a community admin can query any order/invoice by ID across communities. That’s a permissions regression.

🔧 Suggested fix (apply to both commands)
   bot.command('checkorder', adminMiddleware, async (ctx: MainContext) => {
     try {
       const [orderId] = (await validateParams(ctx, 2, '\\<_order id_\\>'))!;
       if (!orderId) return;
       if (!(await validateObjectId(ctx, orderId))) return;
       const order = await Order.findOne({ _id: orderId });

       if (order === null) return;
+      if (!ctx.admin.admin) {
+        if (!order.community_id) return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+        if (order.community_id != ctx.admin.default_community_id) {
+          return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+        }
+      }

       const buyer = await User.findOne({ _id: order.buyer_id });
       const seller = await User.findOne({ _id: order.seller_id });

       await messages.checkOrderMessage(ctx, order, buyer, seller);
     } catch (error) {
       logger.error(error);
     }
   });
   bot.command(
     'checkinvoice',
     adminMiddleware,
     async (ctx: MainContext) => {
       try {
         const [orderId] = (await validateParams(ctx, 2, '\\<_order id_\\>'))!;
         if (!orderId) return;
         if (!(await validateObjectId(ctx, orderId))) return;
         const order = await Order.findOne({ _id: orderId });

         if (order === null) return;
+        if (!ctx.admin.admin) {
+          if (!order.community_id) return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+          if (order.community_id != ctx.admin.default_community_id) {
+            return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+          }
+        }
         if (!order.hash) return;

         const invoice = await getInvoice({ hash: order.hash });
         if (invoice === undefined) {
           throw new Error('invoice is undefined');
         }

Also applies to: 600-623

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
bot/start.ts (1)

582-624: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Scope community admins to their community before revealing order/invoice details.

With adminMiddleware, community admins can now call these commands. Without a community check, any admin can query any order/invoice by ID, which leaks cross‑community data. Add the same non‑super‑admin guard used elsewhere in this file (e.g., cancelorder/settleorder).

🔒 Proposed fix (apply to both handlers)
   bot.command('checkorder', adminMiddleware, async (ctx: MainContext) => {
     try {
       const [orderId] = (await validateParams(ctx, 2, '\\<_order id_\\>'))!;
       if (!orderId) return;
       if (!(await validateObjectId(ctx, orderId))) return;
       const order = await Order.findOne({ _id: orderId });

       if (order === null) return;
+
+      // Restrict community admins to their community orders
+      if (!ctx.admin.admin) {
+        if (!order.community_id) return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+        if (order.community_id != ctx.admin.default_community_id) {
+          return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+        }
+      }

       const buyer = await User.findOne({ _id: order.buyer_id });
       const seller = await User.findOne({ _id: order.seller_id });

       await messages.checkOrderMessage(ctx, order, buyer, seller);
     } catch (error) {
       logger.error(error);
     }
   });

   bot.command('checkinvoice', adminMiddleware, async (ctx: MainContext) => {
     try {
       const [orderId] = (await validateParams(ctx, 2, '\\<_order id_\\>'))!;
       if (!orderId) return;
       if (!(await validateObjectId(ctx, orderId))) return;
       const order = await Order.findOne({ _id: orderId });

       if (order === null) return;
+      // Restrict community admins to their community orders
+      if (!ctx.admin.admin) {
+        if (!order.community_id) return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+        if (order.community_id != ctx.admin.default_community_id) {
+          return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx);
+        }
+      }
       if (!order.hash) return;

       const invoice = await getInvoice({ hash: order.hash });
       if (invoice === undefined) {
         throw new Error('invoice is undefined');
       }

       await messages.checkInvoiceMessage(
         ctx,
         invoice.is_confirmed,
         invoice.is_canceled!,
         invoice.is_held!,
       );
     } catch (error) {
       logger.error(error);
     }
   });

Copy link
Contributor

@mostronatorcoder mostronatorcoder bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Missing community scope check ❌

The original issue (#703) explicitly states:

"but only for orders created within their own communities"

This PR changes superAdminMiddlewareadminMiddleware, which allows any admin (including community admins and dispute solvers) to query any order in the system, not just orders from their own community.

validateAdmin() passes if user.admin === true OR isDisputeSolver(community, user). A dispute solver in community A could use checkorder to inspect orders from community B — that's an information leak.

Required fix

After fetching the order, verify the admin has jurisdiction:

const order = await Order.findOne({ _id: orderId });
if (order === null) return;

// If not a super admin, verify the order belongs to the admin's community
if (!ctx.admin.admin && order.community_id) {
  if (String(order.community_id) !== String(ctx.admin.default_community_id)) {
    return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx, ctx.admin.tg_id);
  }
}

Same check needed in both checkorder and checkinvoice.

Code quality ✅

The refactoring from callback-style to flat bot.command() for checkinvoice is a nice cleanup.

CI ✅

All checks passing.

Summary

The change in middleware is correct directionally, but without the community scope check it's a privilege escalation — community admins can see orders from other communities. Request changes until the scope check is added.

}
});

bot.command('checkorder', superAdminMiddleware, async (ctx: MainContext) => {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🔴 Missing community scope check

This allows any admin/solver to query ANY order in the system. Per #703, community admins should only see orders from their own community.

Add after Order.findOne():

if (!ctx.admin.admin && order.community_id) {
  if (String(order.community_id) !== String(ctx.admin.default_community_id)) {
    return await messages.notAuthorized(ctx, ctx.admin.tg_id);
  }
}

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant