Files
accounted/tests/pg/securitydefiner_write_rpc_tenant_guards.pg.test.ts
T
Jakob Wennberg 305f469fc3 harden(db): tenant backstop — payment company-consistency triggers + write-RPC guards (P0-2) (#680)
* harden(security): payment-row company-consistency triggers (tenant backstop)

invoice_payments and supplier_invoice_payments are the only two child tables
carrying BOTH a parent FK and their own company_id. A row whose company_id
disagrees with its parent's company_id is a tenant-isolation defect that would
surface a foreign tenant's payment in this company's AR/AP ledger. RLS scopes
by company_id but never cross-checks the parent, so nothing at the DB layer
guaranteed the invariant.

- Pre-flight DO block: fail the migration loudly (listing offending ids) if any
  existing row already violates child.company_id = parent.company_id, rather
  than arm a trigger over dirty data that can never be updated again.
- enforce_payment_company_consistency(): one INVOKER trigger function
  parameterized on TG_TABLE_NAME, wired BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE OF
  (company_id, parent_fk) on both payment tables; raises on mismatch. Matches
  the SECURITY posture of the sibling enforcement triggers in migration 017.
- pg-real coverage in tests/pg/payment-company-consistency.pg.test.ts: matching
  pair inserts ok; cross-tenant insert + cross-tenant UPDATE raise; both the
  customer and supplier side.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* harden(security): tenant guards on six SECURITY DEFINER write RPCs (backstop)

bulk_book_transactions, match_batch_allocate, mark_entry_as_opening_balance,
reserve_voucher_range, release_voucher_range and rotate_company_inbox are all
SECURITY DEFINER and EXECUTE-able by `authenticated`, so an authenticated user
could call them via PostgREST with ANOTHER company's p_company_id. Three already
carried an auth.uid()-based membership check and rotate_company_inbox an
owner/admin gate, but the two voucher-range RPCs had NO tenant check at all.

Adds the canonical claims-based guard (mirrors
20260615120000_link_voucher_rpcs_tenant_guard.sql lines 54-69) at the top of
each body: for anon/authenticated callers, membership of p_company_id
(public.user_company_ids()) is required else RAISE 42501; service_role and
no-claims callers (migrations, pg-harness, MCP / API-key paths whose company
scoping happens in TS) bypass BY DESIGN. Each function body is otherwise copied
verbatim from its latest definition; existing GRANTs re-applied.

pg-real coverage in tests/pg/securitydefiner_write_rpc_tenant_guards.pg.test.ts:
per RPC — userA session targeting companyB raises 42501; targeting own company
passes the guard (succeeds or yields a non-42501 domain outcome, documented
inline); a no-claims bare-pool cross-tenant call bypasses the new guard,
proving the service-role / MCP paths are unaffected.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore(db): renumber tenant-backstop migrations to 20260619130000/130100

PR1 (agent attribution) claimed the 20260619120000 version slot in the same
batch; Supabase migration versions must be unique across the repo, so the
tenant-backstop pair moves to 130000/130100. Filename-only change plus the
matching doc-comment references in the two pg tests.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs(db): restore source comments dropped in copied RPC bodies

The guarded redefinitions of bulk_book_transactions and match_batch_allocate
must be byte-verbatim copies of their latest sources (modulo the inserted
tenant-guard block) so the next CREATE OR REPLACE copy keeps full provenance.
Restores the Round-2/Round-3 compliance-fix annotations that were lost in the
copy. Verified mechanically: zero residual diff vs sources after stripping the
guard block, for all six functions.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(db): drop raise-guards from bulk_book/match_batch — they break the jsonb error contract

Local full-migration replay + pg-real run surfaced that prepending the
42501 raise-guard to bulk_book_transactions and match_batch_allocate
changes their error contract for authenticated cross-tenant callers: both
already enforce membership in-function and return structured domain errors
(BULK_BOOK_UNAUTHORIZED / BATCH_UNAUTHORIZED) that routes, MCP tools, and
their existing pg tests branch on. The guard added no isolation (they were
tenant-safe) but broke that contract. The migration now guards only the
four RPCs where it is sound: mark_entry_as_opening_balance (P0001→42501,
still an exception), rotate_company_inbox (already 42501), and the two
genuinely unguarded voucher-range RPCs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(db): compliance-review round — log hygiene, explicit INVOKER, anon revoke, UPDATE-path test

Addresses the compliance-swarm findings on this PR:
- Pre-flight dirty-data check now raises with COUNTS only; the row ids move
  to RAISE NOTICE so error pipelines do not ingest identifier dumps
  (ASVS V8.2.1 / SOC 2 CC6.1).
- enforce_payment_company_consistency() declares SECURITY INVOKER explicitly
  — the default was already INVOKER; this makes the security model
  self-documenting.
- REVOKE ... FROM PUBLIC, anon on reserve/release_voucher_range and
  rotate_company_inbox, matching the mark_entry_as_opening_balance pattern.
- Adds the missing supplier_invoice_payments UPDATE-path trigger probe
  (SOC 2 PI1.3).

Dismissed as by-design: the JWT-claim trust boundary (set_config requires
direct SQL access, which already bypasses by design — same model as
20260615120000).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat(db): voucher-range compliance guards + FK-rerouting trigger probes

Review round 2 on this PR:

Swedish compliance review (both pre-existing function behaviour, hardened
while the PR owns these bodies):
- reserve/release_voucher_range now refuse closed/locked fiscal periods
  (BFL 5 kap 5§ — the sequence of a locked period is räkenskapsinformation;
  mirrors mark_entry_as_opening_balance).
- release_voucher_range asserts no verifikat exist in the released range
  before rolling last_number back (BFL 5 kap 6-7§ — never re-issue or orphan
  posted verifikationsnummer). Neither guard can fire in the legit SIE-import
  flow, which only releases numbers above its highest inserted verifikat into
  an open period — and the import caller treats a failed release as non-fatal.

Greptile P2: the UPDATE OF <parent_fk> trigger leg was never probed — added
cross-tenant FK-rerouting rejection tests for both payment tables (the
supplier company_id UPDATE probe landed in the previous commit).

Verified: full migration replay on fresh supabase/postgres + 333/333 pg-real
green on an origin/main merge (incl. merged #678).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* fix(test): release-succeeds probe must persist — callBare rolls back

The legit-path release test asserted last_number after calling the RPC via
callBare, whose BEGIN...ROLLBACK wrapper undoes the UPDATE before the
assertion reads it (caught in CI; the local pre-push replay had validated the
branch's committed state, not the then-uncommitted test). Call the RPC
directly on the pool, like the engine pg tests do for persisting calls.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-06 10:42:41 +02:00

257 lines
11 KiB
TypeScript

/**
* pg-real test for the SECURITY DEFINER write-RPC tenant guards
* (20260619130100_securitydefiner_write_rpc_tenant_guards.sql).
*
* Four SECURITY DEFINER write RPCs are EXECUTE-able by `authenticated` and so,
* without an in-function tenant guard, an authenticated user could call them via
* PostgREST with ANOTHER company's p_company_id. The migration adds the canonical
* claims-based guard (mirrors 20260615120000_link_voucher_rpcs_tenant_guard.sql):
* for anon/authenticated callers, membership of p_company_id is required, else
* RAISE 42501; service_role / no-claims callers bypass BY DESIGN (MCP / API-key /
* migration / pg-harness paths whose company scoping happens elsewhere).
*
* bulk_book_transactions and match_batch_allocate are deliberately NOT guarded:
* they already enforce membership in-function and return structured domain
* errors (BULK_BOOK_UNAUTHORIZED / BATCH_UNAUTHORIZED) that routes, MCP tools,
* and their existing pg tests branch on — see the migration header.
*
* What each case asserts:
* - cross-tenant (userA's session, companyB's id) → RAISE with SQLSTATE 42501.
* - own company (userA's session, companyA's id) → the guard does NOT fire;
* the call either succeeds or fails with a NON-42501 domain error. For the
* two RPCs with no other gate (reserve/release_voucher_range) and for
* rotate_company_inbox the own-company call fully succeeds; for the others a
* non-guard outcome is sufficient and is documented inline.
* - no-claims bare-pool cross-tenant → guard bypassed (no 42501), proving the
* MCP / service-role paths are unaffected.
*
* The role-claim simulation technique (set request.jwt.claims + SET LOCAL ROLE)
* follows tests/pg/gl_lines_rpc_tenant_guard.pg.test.ts.
*/
import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest'
import { randomUUID } from 'node:crypto'
import { getPool } from './setup'
import { insertDraftJournalEntry, seedCompany } from './fixtures'
interface PgError extends Error {
code?: string
}
/**
* Run `sql` as an authenticated user session (request.jwt.claims role =
* authenticated + SET LOCAL ROLE authenticated) in its own transaction, always
* rolling back. Returns the thrown PgError (or null if it succeeded). A 42501
* guard rejection aborts the transaction, so each probe gets a fresh one.
*/
async function callAsUser(
userId: string,
sql: string,
params: unknown[],
): Promise<PgError | null> {
const client = await getPool().connect()
try {
await client.query('BEGIN')
await client.query(`SELECT set_config('request.jwt.claims', $1, true)`, [
JSON.stringify({ sub: userId, role: 'authenticated' }),
])
await client.query(`SELECT set_config('request.jwt.claim.sub', $1, true)`, [userId])
await client.query('SET LOCAL ROLE authenticated')
await client.query(sql, params)
return null
} catch (err) {
return err as PgError
} finally {
await client.query('ROLLBACK').catch(() => {})
client.release()
}
}
/**
* Run `sql` on the bare superuser pool with NO request.jwt.claims — the trusted
* bypass that migrations, this harness and the service-role / MCP API paths rely
* on. Wrapped in a rolled-back transaction so writes don't persist. Returns the
* thrown PgError or null.
*/
async function callBare(sql: string, params: unknown[]): Promise<PgError | null> {
const client = await getPool().connect()
try {
await client.query('BEGIN')
await client.query(sql, params)
return null
} catch (err) {
return err as PgError
} finally {
await client.query('ROLLBACK').catch(() => {})
client.release()
}
}
// Posted bank-account IB usable by mark_entry_as_opening_balance.
async function insertPostedManualIb(params: {
userId: string
companyId: string
fiscalPeriodId: string
}): Promise<string> {
const id = randomUUID()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.journal_entries
(id, user_id, company_id, fiscal_period_id, voucher_number, voucher_series,
entry_date, description, source_type, status)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5, 'A', '2026-01-01', 'Ingående balanser 2026', 'manual', 'draft')`,
[id, params.userId, params.companyId, params.fiscalPeriodId, Math.floor(Math.random() * 100000) + 1],
)
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.journal_entry_lines
(journal_entry_id, account_number, debit_amount, credit_amount)
VALUES ($1, '1930', 5000, 0),
($1, '2099', 0, 5000)`,
[id],
)
await getPool().query(`UPDATE public.journal_entries SET status = 'posted' WHERE id = $1`, [id])
return id
}
const MARK_OB = `SELECT public.mark_entry_as_opening_balance($1, $2)`
const RESERVE = `SELECT public.reserve_voucher_range($1, $2, $3, $4)`
const RELEASE = `SELECT public.release_voucher_range($1, $2, $3, $4, $5)`
const ROTATE = `SELECT public.rotate_company_inbox($1)`
describe('SECURITY DEFINER write RPCs — tenant-isolation guard', () => {
it('mark_entry_as_opening_balance: blocks cross-company, passes own, bypasses for no-claims', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
const b = await seedCompany()
const entryA = await insertPostedManualIb({
userId: a.userId,
companyId: a.companyId,
fiscalPeriodId: a.fiscalPeriodId,
})
// userA (member of A only) targeting companyB → 42501 before any work.
const cross = await callAsUser(a.userId, MARK_OB, [b.companyId, entryA])
expect(cross?.code).toBe('42501')
// Own company, owner of A, valid posted manual IB → full success (no raise).
const own = await callAsUser(a.userId, MARK_OB, [a.companyId, entryA])
expect(own).toBeNull()
// No-claims bare pool cross-referencing companyB with A's entry: guard
// bypassed. It then raises a NON-guard domain error ("Journal entry not
// found" — the entry is not in companyB), proving the bypass is real.
const bare = await callBare(MARK_OB, [b.companyId, entryA])
expect(bare?.code).not.toBe('42501')
})
it('reserve_voucher_range: blocks cross-company, passes own, bypasses for no-claims', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
const b = await seedCompany()
const cross = await callAsUser(a.userId, RESERVE, [b.companyId, b.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 10])
expect(cross?.code).toBe('42501')
// Own company → succeeds (void). No other gate exists on this RPC, so this
// is the cleanest proof the guard does not break the legitimate path.
const own = await callAsUser(a.userId, RESERVE, [a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 10])
expect(own).toBeNull()
// No-claims bare pool cross-tenant → the new tenant guard is bypassed. (The
// INSERT then writes auth.uid()=NULL into voucher_sequences.user_id, which is
// NOT NULL, so a 23502 surfaces — pre-existing behaviour for a true no-session
// caller; the point here is only that it is NOT the 42501 tenant guard.)
const bare = await callBare(RESERVE, [b.companyId, b.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 10])
expect(bare?.code).not.toBe('42501')
})
it('release_voucher_range: blocks cross-company, passes own, bypasses for no-claims', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
const b = await seedCompany()
const cross = await callAsUser(a.userId, RELEASE, [b.companyId, b.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 5, 10])
expect(cross?.code).toBe('42501')
// Own company → succeeds (void no-op against an empty sequence).
const own = await callAsUser(a.userId, RELEASE, [a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 5, 10])
expect(own).toBeNull()
const bare = await callBare(RELEASE, [b.companyId, b.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 5, 10])
expect(bare).toBeNull()
})
it('rotate_company_inbox: blocks cross-company, passes own, bypasses for no-claims', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
const b = await seedCompany()
const cross = await callAsUser(a.userId, ROTATE, [b.companyId])
expect(cross?.code).toBe('42501')
// Own company, owner of A → succeeds (creates an active inbox row).
const own = await callAsUser(a.userId, ROTATE, [a.companyId])
expect(own).toBeNull()
// No-claims bare pool cross-tenant → the NEW claims-based tenant guard is
// bypassed (role is not anon/authenticated). rotate_company_inbox is only
// ever called from a user session (auth.uid() present), so unlike the other
// five it has no service-role caller; the pre-existing owner/admin check
// (auth.uid() NULL → no membership) still raises 42501 here. Disambiguate by
// message: the bypass is proven by the new guard's message NOT appearing.
const bare = await callBare(ROTATE, [b.companyId])
expect(bare?.message ?? '').not.toMatch(/caller is not a member of company/i)
})
})
describe('voucher-range RPCs — period-lock + sequence-integrity guards (BFL 5 kap)', () => {
it('reserve_voucher_range refuses a closed fiscal period', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany({ isClosed: true })
const err = await callBare(RESERVE, [a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 10])
expect(err?.message).toMatch(/closed\/locked fiscal period/i)
})
it('reserve_voucher_range refuses a locked fiscal period', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
await getPool().query(`UPDATE public.fiscal_periods SET locked_at = now() WHERE id = $1`, [
a.fiscalPeriodId,
])
const err = await callBare(RESERVE, [a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 10])
expect(err?.message).toMatch(/closed\/locked fiscal period/i)
})
it('release_voucher_range refuses when verifikat exist in the released range', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
await insertDraftJournalEntry({
userId: a.userId,
companyId: a.companyId,
fiscalPeriodId: a.fiscalPeriodId,
status: 'posted',
voucherNumber: 5, // inside (3, 10] — rolling back to 3 would orphan it
})
const err = await callBare(RELEASE, [a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 3, 10])
expect(err?.message).toMatch(/verifikat exist in the released range/i)
})
it('release_voucher_range succeeds when the released range is empty (legit SIE-import path)', async () => {
const a = await seedCompany()
await getPool().query(
`INSERT INTO public.voucher_sequences (company_id, user_id, fiscal_period_id, voucher_series, last_number)
VALUES ($1, $2, $3, 'A', 10)`,
[a.companyId, a.userId, a.fiscalPeriodId],
)
// Highest inserted verifikat is 3 — numbers (3, 10] were reserved but unused.
await insertDraftJournalEntry({
userId: a.userId,
companyId: a.companyId,
fiscalPeriodId: a.fiscalPeriodId,
status: 'posted',
voucherNumber: 3,
})
// Direct pool call (NOT callBare, which wraps in BEGIN…ROLLBACK and would
// undo the release before the assertion below reads the sequence).
await getPool().query(RELEASE, [a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId, 'A', 3, 10])
const { rows } = await getPool().query(
`SELECT last_number FROM public.voucher_sequences
WHERE company_id = $1 AND fiscal_period_id = $2 AND voucher_series = 'A'`,
[a.companyId, a.fiscalPeriodId],
)
expect(rows[0]?.last_number).toBe(3)
})
})