Implement Permissions for Conversations

[NolanTrem]

Important

Implement permission checks for conversation operations, restricting non-superusers from accessing or modifying conversations they do not own, and update database schema to include user ownership.

• Behavior:
  • Implement permission checks in management_router.py for conversation-related endpoints, restricting non-superusers from accessing or modifying conversations they do not own.
  • Superusers can access all conversations without restrictions.
• Database:
  • Update conversations table in r2r_logger.py to include user_id and name columns.
  • Add verify_conversation_access() in r2r_logger.py to check user access to conversations.
• Services:
  • Add verify_conversation_access() in management_service.py to delegate access checks to the logging provider.
  • Modify create_conversation(), get_conversation(), add_message(), and edit_message() in management_service.py to include user ID in operations.

^{This description was created by for 5874be4. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 49c87ee in 1 minute and 54 seconds

More details

• Looked at 357 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. py/core/providers/logger/r2r_logger.py:267

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that user_ids are consistently treated as TEXT in the database queries to avoid type mismatches.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful.

2. py/core/main/services/management_service.py:677

• Draft comment:
  This function is a duplicate of an existing function in r2r_logger.py. Consider using the existing function directly instead of creating a new wrapper.

• r2r_logger.py

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment claims duplication, but I cannot verify this without seeing the other file. The function is newly added in this diff, so the comment is about a change. However, without strong evidence of duplication, the comment may not be useful. The comment could be speculative if the duplication is not confirmed.
  I might be missing the context from the other file, which could confirm the duplication. Without seeing the other file, I cannot be certain if the comment is correct.
  Given the rules, I should only keep comments with strong evidence of correctness. Without access to the other file, I cannot confirm the duplication claim.
  Delete the comment due to lack of strong evidence confirming the duplication claim.

Workflow ID: wflow_Qk6GyBj4HIt4dAUY

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Add a check to verify if the user has access to edit the message. This is crucial for maintaining security and preventing unauthorized edits.

Suggested change

	# TODO: Add a check to see if the user has access to the message
	if not await self.service.verify_message_access(message_id, auth_user.id): raise R2RException("You do not have access to edit this message.", 403)

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
yc_demo	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Oct 31, 2024 7:32pm
yc-demo	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Oct 31, 2024 7:32pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
recommendation_platform	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)			Oct 31, 2024 7:32pm

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 5874be4 in 15 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. py/core/main/api/management_router.py:788

• Draft comment:
  The change from user_ids = auth_user.id to user_ids = [auth_user.id] is correct. The conversations_overview function expects a list of user IDs, not a single ID.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The change from user_ids = auth_user.id to user_ids = [auth_user.id] is correct because the conversations_overview function expects a list of user IDs, not a single ID.

Workflow ID: wflow_g3SdFT6RUDxcWplL

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.