Skip to content

Fix sharing.test.ts for discriminated union schema #130

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
hotlong merged 2 commits into from
Jan 25, 2026
Merged

Fix sharing.test.ts for discriminated union schema #130

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
74c0d36
Initial plan
Copilot Jan 25, 2026
97eaa87
Fix sharing.test.ts to match new schema structure
Copilot Jan 25, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
134 changes: 86 additions & 48 deletions packages/spec/src/permission/sharing.test.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ import {

describe('SharingRuleType', () => {
it('should accept valid sharing rule types', () => {
const validTypes = ['owner', 'criteria', 'manual', 'guest'];
const validTypes = ['owner', 'criteria'];

validTypes.forEach(type => {
expect(() => SharingRuleType.parse(type)).not.toThrow();
Expand All @@ -19,13 +19,15 @@ describe('SharingRuleType', () => {
it('should reject invalid sharing rule types', () => {
expect(() => SharingRuleType.parse('automatic')).toThrow();
expect(() => SharingRuleType.parse('public')).toThrow();
expect(() => SharingRuleType.parse('manual')).toThrow();
expect(() => SharingRuleType.parse('guest')).toThrow();
expect(() => SharingRuleType.parse('')).toThrow();
});
});

describe('SharingLevel', () => {
it('should accept valid sharing levels', () => {
const validLevels = ['read', 'edit'];
const validLevels = ['read', 'edit', 'full'];

validLevels.forEach(level => {
expect(() => SharingLevel.parse(level)).not.toThrow();
Expand All @@ -35,7 +37,6 @@ describe('SharingLevel', () => {
it('should reject invalid sharing levels', () => {
expect(() => SharingLevel.parse('write')).toThrow();
expect(() => SharingLevel.parse('delete')).toThrow();
expect(() => SharingLevel.parse('full')).toThrow();
});
});

Expand All @@ -60,7 +61,12 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
const rule: SharingRule = {
name: 'sales_team_access',
object: 'opportunity',
sharedWith: 'group_sales_team',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Open"',
sharedWith: {
type: 'group',
value: 'sales_team',
},
};

expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse(rule)).not.toThrow();
Expand All @@ -70,27 +76,35 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'valid_rule_name',
object: 'account',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).not.toThrow();

expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'InvalidRule',
object: 'account',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).toThrow();

expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'invalid-rule',
object: 'account',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).toThrow();
});

it('should apply default values', () => {
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_rule',
object: 'account',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
});

expect(rule.active).toBe(true);
Expand All @@ -105,38 +119,48 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
active: true,
object: 'opportunity',
type: 'criteria',
criteria: "stage = 'Closed Won' AND amount > 100000",
condition: "stage = 'Closed Won' AND amount > 100000",
accessLevel: 'edit',
sharedWith: 'group_executive_team',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'executive_team' },
});

expect(rule.label).toBe('Full Sharing Rule');
expect(rule.criteria).toContain('Closed Won');
expect(rule.condition).toContain('Closed Won');
});

it('should accept different sharing rule types', () => {
const types: Array<SharingRule['type']> = ['owner', 'criteria', 'manual', 'guest'];
// Test criteria-based rule
const criteriaRule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_criteria_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
});
expect(criteriaRule.type).toBe('criteria');

types.forEach(type => {
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_rule',
object: 'account',
type,
sharedWith: 'group_id',
});
expect(rule.type).toBe(type);
// Test owner-based rule
const ownerRule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_owner_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'owner',
ownedBy: { type: 'role', value: 'sales_rep' },
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
});
expect(ownerRule.type).toBe('owner');
});

it('should accept different access levels', () => {
const levels: Array<SharingRule['accessLevel']> = ['read', 'edit'];
const levels: Array<SharingRule['accessLevel']> = ['read', 'edit', 'full'];

levels.forEach(level => {
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
accessLevel: level,
sharedWith: 'group_id',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
});
expect(rule.accessLevel).toBe(level);
});
Expand All @@ -147,8 +171,9 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
name: 'owner_hierarchy_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'owner',
ownedBy: { type: 'role', value: 'sales_rep' },
accessLevel: 'read',
sharedWith: 'role_sales_manager',
sharedWith: { type: 'role', value: 'sales_manager' },
});

expect(rule.type).toBe('owner');
Expand All @@ -159,45 +184,49 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
name: 'high_value_accounts',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
criteria: "annual_revenue > 1000000 AND status = 'Active'",
condition: "annual_revenue > 1000000 AND status = 'Active'",
accessLevel: 'read',
sharedWith: 'group_executive_team',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'executive_team' },
});

expect(rule.type).toBe('criteria');
expect(rule.criteria).toBeDefined();
expect(rule.condition).toBeDefined();
});

it('should accept manual sharing rule', () => {
it('should accept user-specific sharing rule', () => {

Copilot AI Jan 25, 2026

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The test name "should accept user-specific sharing rule" is misleading. This test is actually validating a criteria-based sharing rule that happens to share with a user recipient. The test name suggests it's testing a different rule type, but 'user-specific' is not a rule type in the schema - it's just using 'user' as a recipient type. Consider renaming to something like "should accept criteria rule with user recipient" to more accurately describe what's being tested.

Suggested change
it('should accept user-specific sharing rule', () => {
it('should accept criteria rule with user recipient', () => {

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'manual_share',
name: 'user_specific_share',
object: 'opportunity',
type: 'manual',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'stage != "Closed Won"',
accessLevel: 'edit',
sharedWith: 'user_john_doe',
sharedWith: { type: 'user', value: 'john_doe' },
});

expect(rule.type).toBe('manual');
expect(rule.sharedWith.type).toBe('user');
});

it('should accept guest sharing rule', () => {

Copilot AI Jan 25, 2026

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The test name "should accept guest sharing rule" is misleading. After the schema changes, 'guest' is no longer a sharing rule type - it's now just a recipient type within the ShareRecipientType enum. This test is actually validating a criteria-based sharing rule that shares with guest recipients. Consider renaming to something like "should accept criteria rule with guest recipient" to accurately reflect the current schema structure.

Suggested change
it('should accept guest sharing rule', () => {
it('should accept criteria rule with guest recipient', () => {

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'public_access',
object: 'knowledge_article',
type: 'guest',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'published = true',
accessLevel: 'read',
sharedWith: 'guest_users',
sharedWith: { type: 'guest', value: 'guest_users' },
});

expect(rule.type).toBe('guest');
expect(rule.sharedWith.type).toBe('guest');
});
Comment on lines +196 to 220

Copilot AI Jan 25, 2026

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The tests don't cover the 'role_and_subordinates' recipient type, which is defined in ShareRecipientType enum (sharing.zod.ts:41). Consider adding a test case to validate that sharing rules can use this recipient type, e.g., sharedWith: { type: 'role_and_subordinates', value: 'sales_manager' }

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

it('should accept inactive sharing rule', () => {
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'disabled_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Inactive"',
active: false,
sharedWith: 'group_id',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
});

expect(rule.active).toBe(false);
Expand All @@ -209,22 +238,22 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
label: 'West Coast Territory Access',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
criteria: "billing_state IN ('CA', 'OR', 'WA')",
condition: "billing_state IN ('CA', 'OR', 'WA')",
accessLevel: 'edit',
sharedWith: 'group_west_coast_sales',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'west_coast_sales' },
});

expect(rule.criteria).toContain('CA');
expect(rule.condition).toContain('CA');
});

it('should handle department-based sharing', () => {
const rule = SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'finance_department_access',
object: 'invoice',
type: 'criteria',
criteria: "department = 'Finance'",
condition: "department = 'Finance'",
accessLevel: 'edit',
sharedWith: 'group_finance_team',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'finance_team' },
});

expect(rule.object).toBe('invoice');
Expand All @@ -235,9 +264,9 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
name: 'readonly_access',
object: 'contract',
type: 'criteria',
criteria: "status = 'Executed'",
condition: "status = 'Executed'",
accessLevel: 'read',
sharedWith: 'group_all_users',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'all_users' },
});

expect(rule.accessLevel).toBe('read');
Expand All @@ -248,9 +277,9 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
name: 'edit_access',
object: 'opportunity',
type: 'criteria',
criteria: "stage != 'Closed Won'",
condition: "stage != 'Closed Won'",
accessLevel: 'edit',
sharedWith: 'group_sales_reps',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'sales_reps' },
});

expect(rule.accessLevel).toBe('edit');
Expand All @@ -259,17 +288,23 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
it('should reject sharing rule without required fields', () => {
expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
object: 'account',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).toThrow();

expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_rule',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).toThrow();

expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
})).toThrow();
});
Comment on lines 288 to 309

Copilot AI Jan 25, 2026

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The test coverage for required fields should include validating that discriminated union requirements are enforced. Specifically, missing tests for:

  1. Owner-based rule without ownedBy field should be rejected
  2. Criteria-based rule without condition field should be rejected

These are critical validations for the discriminated union schema. Consider adding test cases like:

  • Testing that { name: 'test', object: 'account', type: 'owner', sharedWith: {...} } (missing ownedBy) throws an error
  • Testing that { name: 'test', object: 'account', type: 'criteria', sharedWith: {...} } (missing condition) throws an error

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

Expand All @@ -278,16 +313,19 @@ describe('SharingRuleSchema', () => {
name: 'test_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'invalid_type',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).toThrow();
});

it('should reject invalid access level', () => {
expect(() => SharingRuleSchema.parse({
name: 'test_rule',
object: 'account',
type: 'criteria',
condition: 'status = "Active"',
accessLevel: 'delete',
sharedWith: 'group_id',
sharedWith: { type: 'group', value: 'group_id' },
})).toThrow();
});
});
Loading