tegwick
dd3ce4c109
secrets-engine confirmed T03, and re-verifying against the regenerated destroy fixture found something neither repository can fix alone: a pdp_digest recorded at issue time can never equal the request_digest of a request that carries the claim in its context, because the claim is part of the context that is hashed. Embedding the claim changes the very digest the claim would need to name. Not fixture staleness. It holds for every dual-control request whose claim travels in context -- the shape GH-DEC-2026-008 had just ruled mandatory. Left unresolved that ruling was unimplementable for exactly the case it was written for, and destroy would have been permanently un-allowable in production, failing closed forever on a check that could never pass. flex-auth owns the canonical request digest, so the fix is ours. binding.approval_binding_digest is the same material with context.approval removed, emitted only when a claim was carried. An approval issued against a claim-free Check records that Check's request_digest; the claim-bearing request reproduces it here. DELIBERATELY ADDITIVE, and the reason matters. The tempting fix is to drop context.approval from request_digest entirely. That is wrong: request_digest is the replay identity, and two requests differing only in which approval was presented must not share one, because their decisions differ -- one allows, the other denies dual_control_required. Collapsing them would let an allow obtained with a valid claim be replayed against a request carrying none. So request_digest still covers the claim and still moves; approval_binding_digest deliberately does not, and is documented as not a replay identity. The tests assert the two functions DISAGREE on a claim-bearing request, which is approval-engine's formulation of how to defend a distinction that looks like duplication. The fixture now demonstrates the property rather than asserting it: its claim's pdp_digest equals the envelope's approval_binding_digest with pdp_path true, and changing the claim's contents moved request_digest while leaving approval_binding_digest untouched. Two files a consumer can diff. Also picked up approval-engine's new required binding.pdp_path via the cross-repo schema test added yesterday -- which is the test doing exactly what it was built for, one day later. T03 is done. secrets-engine's own digest-material defect, which our two real envelopes caught, is recorded in the workplan. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JTbVXpEiXA7mNJVpDnEPcB Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 412054@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 3968fae1-8d59-4209-9bd6-c22594b8ab19
86 lines
3.5 KiB
Go
86 lines
3.5 KiB
Go
package api
|
|
|
|
import "testing"
|
|
|
|
func claimBearing() CheckRequest {
|
|
return CheckRequest{
|
|
Tenant: "tenant:platform",
|
|
Subject: SubjectRef{ID: "secrets-engine", Type: "service"},
|
|
Action: "destroy",
|
|
Resource: ResourceRef{ID: "lane:glas-primary", Type: "secret-catalog-lane", System: "secrets-engine"},
|
|
Context: map[string]any{
|
|
"approval": map[string]any{"kind": "approval-claim", "valid_now": true},
|
|
},
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func claimFree() CheckRequest {
|
|
r := claimBearing()
|
|
r.Context = nil
|
|
return r
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestApprovalBindingDigestSurvivesAttachingTheClaim is the property the whole
|
|
// field exists for. An approval's pdp_digest is recorded at issue time against a
|
|
// claim-free Check; the request that later carries the claim must still be able
|
|
// to name it.
|
|
func TestApprovalBindingDigestSurvivesAttachingTheClaim(t *testing.T) {
|
|
atIssue := RequestDigest(claimFree())
|
|
atExecute := ApprovalBindingDigest(claimBearing())
|
|
if atIssue != atExecute {
|
|
t.Fatalf("approval binding digest moved when the claim was attached:\n issue: %s\n execute: %s", atIssue, atExecute)
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestRequestDigestStillMovesWhenTheClaimIsAttached guards the reason this is a
|
|
// second digest rather than a redefinition of the first. request_digest remains
|
|
// the full replay identity: attaching a claim changes the request, so it must
|
|
// change the digest. Collapsing the two would let an allow obtained with a valid
|
|
// claim be replayed against a request carrying none.
|
|
func TestRequestDigestStillMovesWhenTheClaimIsAttached(t *testing.T) {
|
|
if RequestDigest(claimFree()) == RequestDigest(claimBearing()) {
|
|
t.Fatal("request_digest ignored context.approval — replay identity must cover the claim")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestTheTwoDigestsDisagreeOnAClaimBearingRequest asserts the distinction is
|
|
// real rather than decorative. A test that the two functions disagree is how a
|
|
// distinction that looks like duplication is defended.
|
|
func TestTheTwoDigestsDisagreeOnAClaimBearingRequest(t *testing.T) {
|
|
req := claimBearing()
|
|
if RequestDigest(req) == ApprovalBindingDigest(req) {
|
|
t.Fatal("the two digests agree on a claim-bearing request; one of them is not doing its job")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestApprovalBindingDigestEqualsRequestDigestWithoutAClaim keeps the field
|
|
// honest for every consumer that never sends one.
|
|
func TestApprovalBindingDigestEqualsRequestDigestWithoutAClaim(t *testing.T) {
|
|
req := claimFree()
|
|
if RequestDigest(req) != ApprovalBindingDigest(req) {
|
|
t.Fatal("digests differ on a claim-free request; they must be the same value")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestBindingOmitsApprovalDigestWhenNoClaimIsPresent avoids publishing a field
|
|
// that would read as a second identity on every ordinary decision.
|
|
func TestBindingOmitsApprovalDigestWhenNoClaimIsPresent(t *testing.T) {
|
|
if got := NewDecisionBinding(claimFree()).ApprovalBindingDigest; got != "" {
|
|
t.Fatalf("expected no approval_binding_digest on a claim-free request, got %q", got)
|
|
}
|
|
if got := NewDecisionBinding(claimBearing()).ApprovalBindingDigest; got == "" {
|
|
t.Fatal("expected approval_binding_digest on a claim-bearing request")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// TestOtherContextClaimsStillBindUnderTheApprovalDigest confirms the exclusion is
|
|
// surgical: only the approval key leaves the material.
|
|
func TestOtherContextClaimsStillBindUnderTheApprovalDigest(t *testing.T) {
|
|
a := claimBearing()
|
|
a.Context["purpose"] = "rotate-exposed-key"
|
|
b := claimBearing()
|
|
b.Context["purpose"] = "something-else"
|
|
if ApprovalBindingDigest(a) == ApprovalBindingDigest(b) {
|
|
t.Fatal("approval binding digest ignored a non-approval context claim")
|
|
}
|
|
}
|