feat: add asynchronous support to ip restriction middleware #3831
Conversation
PR Code Suggestions ✨ |
|
Important Review skippedBot user detected. To trigger a single review, invoke the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes introduce asynchronous support into the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant Middleware as IPRestrictMiddleware
participant SyncOps as Synchronous Methods
Client->>Middleware: __acall__(request)
Middleware->>Middleware: Asynchronously retrieve client info and check for blocks
alt Block Detected
Middleware->>Middleware: increment_block_count_async()
Middleware-->>Client: Return HttpResponseForbidden
else No Block
Middleware->>Middleware: record_ip_async()
Middleware-->>Client: Forward processed request
end
Note over Middleware,SyncOps: Retains synchronous __call__ for backward compatibility
🪧 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 (
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py (2)
166-203: Consider unifying sync and async logic & handle empty IP edge cases.
- Duplicate logic: The
__acall__method largely mirrors the synchronousprocess_request_sync. Extracting common operations (e.g., IP/user-agent checking, block counting) into shared helper functions would reduce duplication.- Empty IP scenario: If
ipis empty, callingipaddress.ip_address(ip)will raise aValueError. Verify that this cannot happen in practice or handle it explicitly to avoid potential runtime exceptions.
205-243: Refactor duplicated logic for maintainability.
process_request_syncfunnels requests through essentially the same checks as__acall__. Consider consolidating these checks into shared helpers to avoid future drift.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py(4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py
1-1: asyncio imported but unused
Remove unused import: asyncio
(F401)
🪛 GitHub Actions: CI/CD Optimized
blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py
[error] 1-4: Ruff: Found 1 error (1 fixed, 0 remaining). Pre-commit hook made changes.
🔇 Additional comments (5)
blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py (5)
4-4: Import ofsync_to_asyncis appropriate.This import is actually used for bridging synchronous database calls in an async context. No concerns here.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: CI/CD Optimized
[error] 1-4: Ruff: Found 1 error (1 fixed, 0 remaining). Pre-commit hook made changes.
91-96: Asynchronous block count increment looks good.Bridging to the synchronous
increment_block_countusingsync_to_asyncis a valid approach. No immediate issues noted.
126-134: Asynchronous IP recording is well-structured.Creating an async wrapper around
_record_ipmaintains consistency with the existing logic and leveragessync_to_asyncappropriately.
136-162: Verify the selective deletion behavior under manual transaction mode.When
transaction.get_autocommit()isFalse, this code deletes any other records with the same(ip, path)except the current one. Please confirm that this is intentional, as it could potentially remove multiple records in an unanticipated way.Would you like me to generate a script that analyzes usage patterns of
_record_ipin the codebase to ensure that this deletion logic is correct?
164-165: Synchronous middleware invocation is neatly delegated.Redirecting to
process_request_syncpreserves the original flow without duplicating the entire request-handling logic here.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Thank you! |
|
@CodeRabbit add a giphy image saying thank you |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @DonnieBLT I don't have the ability to directly embed GIFs, but here's a link to a thank you GIF from Giphy: Thank You GIF |
@CodeRabbit please commit a suggestion to fix this diff --git a/blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py b/blt/middleware/ip_restrict.py
|
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @DonnieBLT I can help with fixing the trailing whitespace in your code. The issue is simply extra whitespace at the end of several lines that should be removed. Here's the corrected code: # For line 128-130
if not ip:
return
await sync_to_async(self._record_ip)(ip, agent, path)
# For line 196
# Record IP information
await self.record_ip_async(ip, agent, request.path)
# Continue with the request
# For line 236
# Record IP information
if ip:
self._record_ip(ip, agent, request.path)
# Continue with the requestThe changes involve removing trailing whitespace from several lines. You'll need to apply these changes yourself as I don't have the ability to directly commit to your repository. |
But you can do code change suggestions inline with- please do that |
|
@coderabbitai please approve if this looks good |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. 🧩 Analysis chainThe file content is not provided in the execution results. Let me try to access the PR changes to check their current state: @DonnieBLT I don't have enough information to approve the PR right now. I wasn't able to access the current state of the code in the PR. Based on the information from the PR summary and our previous conversation:
If those whitespace issues have been fixed and you've verified the async functionality works as expected, the PR appears to be addressing a legitimate need. However, for a proper approval, I would need to see the current state of the code after any changes you've made. Would you like me to check the code again, or are you confident the PR is ready for approval? 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 9476 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 102387
I approve this PR. It's a well-executed enhancement that will improve compatibility with asynchronous views. |
User description
👋 Hi there! This PR was automatically generated by Autofix 🤖
This fix was triggered by DB
Fixes BLT-DJANGO-1EK
asgiref.sync.sync_to_asyncfor compatibility with asynchronous views.__acall__method to handle requests asynchronously.If you have any questions or feedback for the Sentry team about this fix, please email [email protected] with the Run ID: 8427.
PR Type
Enhancement
Description
Added asynchronous support to IP restriction middleware.
Implemented
__acall__method for async request handling.Created async helper functions for IP recording and block count increment.
Refactored synchronous logic for better compatibility and maintainability.
Changes walkthrough 📝
ip_restrict.py
Added async support and refactored middleware logicblt/middleware/ip_restrict.py
increment.
__acall__method for handling async requests.sync_to_asyncfor compatibility with async views.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Refactor