⚡ Bolt: Optimized Blockchain Integrity Verification#399
⚡ Bolt: Optimized Blockchain Integrity Verification#399RohanExploit wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
- Added `previous_integrity_hash` to `Issue` model to enable O(1) link verification. - Updated `create_issue` to populate `previous_integrity_hash` and include more fields in the hash for better integrity. - Optimized `verify_blockchain_integrity` to reduce database queries from 2 to 1. - Maintained backward compatibility for legacy records. - Updated tests to reflect the new hash format and verification logic. Co-authored-by: RohanExploit <178623867+RohanExploit@users.noreply.github.com>
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
✅ Deploy Preview for fixmybharat canceled.
|
🙏 Thank you for your contribution, @RohanExploit!PR Details:
Quality Checklist:
Review Process:
Note: The maintainers will monitor code quality and ensure the overall project flow isn't broken. |
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR implements a performance optimization for the blockchain-style integrity verification system by adding a previous_integrity_hash column to store the predecessor's hash directly on each issue record. This reduces database queries from 2 to 1 during verification. The PR also expands the hash calculation to include additional fields (reference_id, latitude, longitude, user_email) for enhanced security coverage.
Changes:
- Added
previous_integrity_hashcolumn to the Issue model with database migration - Updated issue creation logic to compute and store blockchain hashes using expanded field set
- Modified verification endpoint to use stored predecessor hash with legacy fallback for backward compatibility
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| backend/models.py | Added previous_integrity_hash column definition to Issue model |
| backend/init_db.py | Added database migration to create previous_integrity_hash column |
| backend/routers/issues.py | Updated issue creation to compute and store hashes with more fields; updated verification to use stored hash with legacy fallback |
| tests/test_blockchain.py | Updated tests to use new hash format with all fields and set previous_integrity_hash on test issues |
| .jules/bolt.md | Added documentation of the optimization pattern and learning |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)
tests/test_blockchain.py:69
- Missing test coverage for the legacy fallback path. The verification logic has a fallback for legacy records where previous_integrity_hash is NULL (lines 641-646 in backend/routers/issues.py), but there's no test case that creates a legacy-format issue and verifies it. Consider adding a test case that creates an Issue with integrity_hash computed using the old format (description|category|prev_hash) and previous_integrity_hash=None, then verifies it successfully validates.
def test_blockchain_verification_success(client, db_session):
# Create first issue with new hash format and previous_integrity_hash
ref1 = "ref1"
hash1_content = f"{ref1}|First issue|Road|None|None|None|"
hash1 = hashlib.sha256(hash1_content.encode()).hexdigest()
issue1 = Issue(
reference_id=ref1,
description="First issue",
category="Road",
integrity_hash=hash1,
previous_integrity_hash=""
)
db_session.add(issue1)
db_session.commit()
db_session.refresh(issue1)
# Create second issue chained to first
ref2 = "ref2"
hash2_content = f"{ref2}|Second issue|Garbage|None|None|None|{hash1}"
hash2 = hashlib.sha256(hash2_content.encode()).hexdigest()
issue2 = Issue(
reference_id=ref2,
description="Second issue",
category="Garbage",
integrity_hash=hash2,
previous_integrity_hash=hash1
)
db_session.add(issue2)
db_session.commit()
db_session.refresh(issue2)
# Verify first issue
response = client.get(f"/api/issues/{issue1.id}/blockchain-verify")
assert response.status_code == 200
data = response.json()
assert data["is_valid"] == True
assert data["current_hash"] == hash1
# Verify second issue
response = client.get(f"/api/issues/{issue2.id}/blockchain-verify")
assert response.status_code == 200
data = response.json()
assert data["is_valid"] == True
assert data["current_hash"] == hash2
tests/test_blockchain.py:69
- Consider adding an integration test that creates an issue via the POST /api/issues endpoint and then verifies its blockchain integrity via the GET /api/issues/{id}/blockchain-verify endpoint. This would ensure the end-to-end flow works correctly, including reference_id generation, hash calculation with all the new fields, and previous_integrity_hash storage.
def test_blockchain_verification_success(client, db_session):
# Create first issue with new hash format and previous_integrity_hash
ref1 = "ref1"
hash1_content = f"{ref1}|First issue|Road|None|None|None|"
hash1 = hashlib.sha256(hash1_content.encode()).hexdigest()
issue1 = Issue(
reference_id=ref1,
description="First issue",
category="Road",
integrity_hash=hash1,
previous_integrity_hash=""
)
db_session.add(issue1)
db_session.commit()
db_session.refresh(issue1)
# Create second issue chained to first
ref2 = "ref2"
hash2_content = f"{ref2}|Second issue|Garbage|None|None|None|{hash1}"
hash2 = hashlib.sha256(hash2_content.encode()).hexdigest()
issue2 = Issue(
reference_id=ref2,
description="Second issue",
category="Garbage",
integrity_hash=hash2,
previous_integrity_hash=hash1
)
db_session.add(issue2)
db_session.commit()
db_session.refresh(issue2)
# Verify first issue
response = client.get(f"/api/issues/{issue1.id}/blockchain-verify")
assert response.status_code == 200
data = response.json()
assert data["is_valid"] == True
assert data["current_hash"] == hash1
# Verify second issue
response = client.get(f"/api/issues/{issue2.id}/blockchain-verify")
assert response.status_code == 200
data = response.json()
assert data["is_valid"] == True
assert data["current_hash"] == hash2
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| hash1_content = f"{ref1}|First issue|Road|None|None|None|" | ||
| hash1 = hashlib.sha256(hash1_content.encode()).hexdigest() | ||
|
|
||
| issue1 = Issue( | ||
| reference_id=ref1, | ||
| description="First issue", | ||
| category="Road", | ||
| integrity_hash=hash1 | ||
| integrity_hash=hash1, | ||
| previous_integrity_hash="" | ||
| ) | ||
| db_session.add(issue1) | ||
| db_session.commit() | ||
| db_session.refresh(issue1) | ||
|
|
||
| # Create second issue chained to first | ||
| hash2_content = f"Second issue|Garbage|{hash1}" | ||
| ref2 = "ref2" | ||
| hash2_content = f"{ref2}|Second issue|Garbage|None|None|None|{hash1}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test uses string literal "None" for null values in the hash (e.g., "None|None|None"), which matches the behavior of f-strings when formatting Python None values. However, this implicit behavior is not documented in the code or test comments. Consider adding a comment explaining that Python's f-string conversion of None to "None" is intentional and expected, or use an explicit conversion function for clarity.
| hash_content = f"{description}|{category}|{prev_hash}" | ||
| # Bolt: Improved integrity by including more fields in the hash | ||
| # Chaining logic: hash(ref_id|description|category|lat|lon|email|prev_hash) | ||
| hash_content = f"{ref_id}|{description}|{category}|{latitude}|{longitude}|{user_email}|{prev_hash}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When latitude, longitude, or user_email are None, the f-string will convert them to the string "None" in the hash content. While this is consistent with the test expectations (line 27, 43), it could lead to ambiguity. For example, a user_email of "None" (the string) vs None (the value) would produce the same hash. Consider using a more explicit representation like empty strings or "null" to avoid potential collisions, or add validation to prevent these field values from being the string "None".
| hash_content = f"{ref_id}|{description}|{category}|{latitude}|{longitude}|{user_email}|{prev_hash}" | |
| def _normalize_hash_field(value: Any) -> str: | |
| """Normalize values for hash generation to avoid None -> 'None' ambiguity.""" | |
| if value is None: | |
| return "null" | |
| return str(value) | |
| hash_content = "|".join( | |
| [ | |
| str(ref_id), | |
| str(description), | |
| str(category), | |
| _normalize_hash_field(latitude), | |
| _normalize_hash_field(longitude), | |
| _normalize_hash_field(user_email), | |
| str(prev_hash), | |
| ] | |
| ) |
| hash_content = f"{description}|{category}|{prev_hash}" | ||
| # Bolt: Improved integrity by including more fields in the hash | ||
| # Chaining logic: hash(ref_id|description|category|lat|lon|email|prev_hash) | ||
| hash_content = f"{ref_id}|{description}|{category}|{latitude}|{longitude}|{user_email}|{prev_hash}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The hash content uses pipe "|" as a delimiter, but none of the fields are sanitized or escaped. If description, category, or user_email contain pipe characters, it could lead to hash collisions or ambiguity. For example, "A|B" + "C" vs "A" + "B|C" would be indistinguishable. Consider using a delimiter that's guaranteed not to appear in the data, using length-prefixed encoding, or escaping pipe characters in the input fields before hashing.
| prev_issue = await run_in_threadpool( | ||
| lambda: db.query(Issue.integrity_hash).order_by(Issue.id.desc()).first() | ||
| ) | ||
| prev_hash = prev_issue[0] if prev_issue and prev_issue[0] else "" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a potential race condition in the blockchain chain creation. If two requests create issues simultaneously, both might fetch the same previous_integrity_hash (lines 175-178), leading to two issues with the same previous hash - creating a fork in the chain rather than a linear chain. Consider using a database lock or transaction isolation to ensure only one issue can be added to the chain at a time, or implement logic to detect and handle forks in the verification endpoint.
| action_plan=None, | ||
| integrity_hash=integrity_hash | ||
| integrity_hash=integrity_hash, | ||
| previous_integrity_hash=prev_hash # Bolt: Store predecessor hash for O(1) verification |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comment says "O(1) verification" but this is slightly misleading. The verification is O(1) in terms of database queries (1 query vs 2), but the computational complexity is still the same. Consider updating the comment to say "O(1) database queries" or "reduces database queries from 2 to 1" for clarity.
| previous_integrity_hash=prev_hash # Bolt: Store predecessor hash for O(1) verification | |
| previous_integrity_hash=prev_hash # Bolt: Store predecessor hash to enable O(1) database lookup during verification |
1 participant
This PR implements a significant performance optimization and integrity improvement for the blockchain-style report verification system.
💡 What: Added a
previous_integrity_hashcolumn to theIssuemodel and updated the verification logic to use this stored hash instead of querying the predecessor record. Also expanded the hash calculation to cover more critical fields (reference_id,latitude,longitude,user_email).🎯 Why: Previously, verifying a report's integrity required two database queries (one for the current record, one for the predecessor). This added unnecessary latency. By storing the predecessor's hash on the record itself, we achieve O(1) link verification relative to database round-trips.
📊 Impact: Reduces database queries by 50% for integrity verification checks. Improves security coverage of the cryptographic seal.
🔬 Measurement: Verified with
tests/test_blockchain.py. Legacy records remain verifiable through a fallback subquery mechanism.PR created automatically by Jules for task 12726119415941833147 started by @RohanExploit
Summary by cubic
Adds previous_integrity_hash to Issue and updates hashing to include reference_id, latitude, longitude, and user_email. This enables O(1) blockchain verification, cutting integrity-check DB calls from 2 to 1 and improving hash coverage while keeping legacy records valid.
Written for commit 9c60e6d. Summary will update on new commits.