refactor: fetch api-key from .env and call agent token API #1473
Conversation
WalkthroughRemoved all token-extraction and token-file creation from provisioning scripts and services. Provisioning now writes/reads only the agent endpoint (CONTROLLER_ENDPOINT). Agent spin-up and common utility use AGENT_API_KEY from environment to request a base token; no token JSON files are created, read, or deleted. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
autonumber
participant User
participant ProvSvc as AgentProvisioningService
participant Script as start_agent.sh
participant FS as Filesystem
participant AgentSvc as AgentService
participant Common as CommonService
participant Controller as ControllerEndpoint
User->>ProvSvc: request agent start
ProvSvc->>Script: run start script
Script->>FS: write agent endpoint JSON (CONTROLLER_ENDPOINT)
Note right of Script #f6f3d7: Token extraction/JSON creation removed
ProvSvc->>FS: read endpoint JSON
ProvSvc-->>User: return agentEndPoint
User->>AgentSvc: request spin-up with agentEndPoint
AgentSvc->>Common: getBaseAgentToken(agentEndPoint)
Common->>Common: dotenv loads AGENT_API_KEY
Common->>Controller: POST /token (Authorization: AGENT_API_KEY)
Controller-->>Common: returns token
Common-->>AgentSvc: base token
AgentSvc-->>User: agent registered
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
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. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
libs/common/src/common.service.ts (1)
311-325: Validate AGENT_API_KEY before use.The
AGENT_API_KEYis read from the environment without validation. If it's undefined or empty, it will be passed to the Authorization header, potentially causing unclear failures downstream.Apply this diff to add validation:
async getBaseAgentToken(agentEndPoint: string): Promise<string> { const normalizedBaseUrl = await this.normalizeUrlWithProtocol(agentEndPoint); this.logger.log(`Fetching base agent token from ${normalizedBaseUrl}`); const apikey = process.env.AGENT_API_KEY; + if (!apikey) { + throw new BadRequestException('AGENT_API_KEY environment variable is not configured'); + } const agentBaseWalletDetils = await this.httpPost(`${normalizedBaseUrl}${CommonConstants.URL_AGENT_TOKEN}`, '', { headers: { Accept: 'application/json', Authorization: apikey } }); if (!agentBaseWalletDetils) { throw new NotFoundException(ResponseMessages.common.error.fetchBaseWalletToken); } return agentBaseWalletDetils.token; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/start_agent.sh(0 hunks)apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts(2 hunks)apps/agent-service/src/agent-service.service.ts(1 hunks)libs/common/src/common.service.ts(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/start_agent.sh
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/agent-service/src/agent-service.service.ts (1)
529-529: LGTM! Token retrieval now environment-based.The updated call to
getBaseAgentTokenwith a single argument correctly aligns with the refactored signature that retrieves the API key from environment variables.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts (1)
45-45: Validate AGENT_API_KEY before use
In apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts (line 45), add a guard to throw a clear error ifprocess.env.AGENT_API_KEYis undefined instead of passing"undefined"to the shell script.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts (1)
1-11: LGTM!The import reorganization and dotenv configuration are clean and follow standard practices.
Signed-off-by: pranalidhanavade <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: pranalidhanavade <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: pranalidhanavade <[email protected]>
pranalidhanavade
force-pushed
the
fetch-agent-token-via-api-in-credo-controller
branch
from
117068f to
3ef3ca2
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
libs/common/src/common.service.ts (1)
8-18: Prefer NestJS ConfigModule over dotenv for better DI and testing.While
dotenv.config()works, NestJS applications typically use@nestjs/config'sConfigModulefor environment variable management. This provides better dependency injection, type safety, and testability.Consider refactoring to use ConfigModule:
- Install
@nestjs/configif not already present:npm install @nestjs/config
- Import ConfigModule in your root module (e.g.,
app.module.ts):import { ConfigModule } from '@nestjs/config'; @Module({ imports: [ ConfigModule.forRoot({ isGlobal: true, cache: true, }), // other imports ], }) export class AppModule {}
- Inject ConfigService in CommonService:
import { ConfigService } from '@nestjs/config'; @Injectable() export class CommonService { constructor( private readonly httpService: HttpService, private readonly configService: ConfigService ) {} // Use this.configService.get<string>('AGENT_API_KEY') instead of process.env.AGENT_API_KEY }This approach centralizes configuration, improves testing (easier to mock), and provides better type safety.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
.env.demo(0 hunks).env.sample(0 hunks)apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/docker_start_agent.sh(1 hunks)apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/fargate.sh(0 hunks)apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/start_agent.sh(1 hunks)apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/start_agent_ecs.sh(0 hunks)apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts(2 hunks)apps/agent-service/src/agent-service.service.ts(1 hunks)libs/common/src/common.service.ts(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
- apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/start_agent_ecs.sh
- apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/fargate.sh
- .env.sample
- .env.demo
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- apps/agent-service/src/agent-service.service.ts
🔇 Additional comments (3)
apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/docker_start_agent.sh (1)
228-240: Clean refactoring: token extraction removed successfully.The endpoint file now contains only
CONTROLLER_ENDPOINT, and all token-related logic has been removed. The refactoring aligns well with the PR objectives.apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts (1)
59-79: Well done: addresses all previous review comments.The implementation now includes:
- Clear error messages with proper grammar
- JSON parsing wrapped in try-catch with specific error handling
- Validation for the presence of
CONTROLLER_ENDPOINT- Appropriate logging at each step
The refactoring successfully removes token handling while maintaining robust endpoint parsing.
apps/agent-provisioning/AFJ/scripts/start_agent.sh (1)
231-243: Retain endpoint file creation—it's consumed by the service
The TypeScript service (apps/agent-provisioning/src/agent-provisioning.service.ts) reads and parses this JSON to extract CONTROLLER_ENDPOINT and will error if it’s missing. Removing this logic will break endpoint discovery.
Signed-off-by: pranalidhanavade <[email protected]>
|
3 participants
What
Summary by CodeRabbit
Refactor
Chores