Skip to content

fix: Use Memberships with OWNER role for platform owner lookup #22475

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.

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

Open
wants to merge 21 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sahitya-chandra
Copy link
Contributor

@sahitya-chandra sahitya-chandra commented Jul 14, 2025

What does this PR do?

Replaced the logic for identifying the platform owner from the Profiles table (ordered by createdAt) with a direct lookup in the Memberships table using the 'OWNER' role. This prevents managed users from being mistakenly treated as platform owners if the original owner is deleted.

Visual Demo (For contributors especially)

A visual demonstration is strongly recommended, for both the original and new change (video / image - any one).

Video Demo (if applicable):

  • Show screen recordings of the issue or feature.
  • Demonstrate how to reproduce the issue, the behavior before and after the change.

Image Demo (if applicable):

  • Add side-by-side screenshots of the original and updated change.
  • Highlight any significant change(s).

Mandatory Tasks (DO NOT REMOVE)

  • I have self-reviewed the code (A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected).
  • I have updated the developer docs in /docs if this PR makes changes that would require a documentation change. If N/A, write N/A here and check the checkbox.
  • I confirm automated tests are in place that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.

How should this be tested?

  • Are there environment variables that should be set?
  • What are the minimal test data to have?
  • What is expected (happy path) to have (input and output)?
  • Any other important info that could help to test that PR

Checklist

  • I haven't read the contributing guide
  • My code doesn't follow the style guidelines of this project
  • I haven't commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I haven't checked if my changes generate no new warnings

Summary by cubic

Changed platform owner lookup to use the Memberships table with the OWNER role instead of Profiles, ensuring only valid owners are identified.

  • Bug Fixes
    • Prevents managed users from being set as platform owners if the original owner is deleted.

@sahitya-chandra sahitya-chandra requested review from a team as code owners July 14, 2025 11:49
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jul 14, 2025

@sahitya-chandra is attempting to deploy a commit to the cal Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jul 14, 2025

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@graphite-app graphite-app bot added the community Created by Linear-GitHub Sync label Jul 14, 2025
@graphite-app graphite-app bot requested a review from a team July 14, 2025 11:49
@github-actions github-actions bot added api area: API, enterprise API, access token, OAuth platform Anything related to our platform plan 💻 refactor labels Jul 14, 2025
Copy link

graphite-app bot commented Jul 14, 2025

Graphite Automations

"Add consumer team as reviewer" took an action on this PR • (07/14/25)

1 reviewer was added to this PR based on Keith Williams's automation.

"Add community label" took an action on this PR • (07/14/25)

1 label was added to this PR based on Keith Williams's automation.

"Add ready-for-e2e label" took an action on this PR • (08/13/25)

1 label was added to this PR based on Keith Williams's automation.

cubic-dev-ai[bot]
cubic-dev-ai bot previously approved these changes Jul 14, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@cubic-dev-ai cubic-dev-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

cubic reviewed 2 files and found no issues. Review PR in cubic.dev.

@sahitya-chandra sahitya-chandra changed the title refactor: Fix platform owner lookup to use Memberships with OWNER role fix: Use Memberships with OWNER role for platform owner lookup Jul 14, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 15, 2025

Walkthrough

ApiAuthStrategy now injects MembershipsRepository and uses membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId) with a fallback to findPlatformAdminUserId(client.organizationId) in oAuthClientStrategy instead of profilesRepository.getPlatformOwnerUserId(...). MembershipsRepository gained two methods: findPlatformOwnerUserId and findPlatformAdminUserId, each querying memberships for teamId = organizationId, role = OWNER/ADMIN and accepted = true and returning userId or null. AuthModule no longer imports ProfilesModule. The ApiAuthStrategy constructor parameter order changed and the owner-not-found error message was updated.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Replace profilesRepository.getPlatformOwnerUserId usage in oAuthClientStrategy (#22466, CAL-6090)
Use membership-based lookup for platform owner instead of profile-based lookup (#22466, CAL-6090)

Out-of-scope changes

Code Change Explanation
Added findPlatformAdminUserId method (apps/api/v2/src/modules/memberships/memberships.repository.ts) Linked issues requested replacing profile-based owner lookup; adding an ADMIN fallback was not specified and is an extra behavior beyond the stated objective.
Top-level Jest mock for @calcom/prisma/client in platform-plan.guard.spec.ts (apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts) Test scaffolding unrelated to the refactor objective; not referenced in linked issues.
Top-level Jest mocks in slots.service.spec.ts for AvailableSlotsService and MembershipRole (apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts) Test-only changes unrelated to the owner-lookup refactor requested by the linked issues.

Possibly related PRs

Tip

🔌 Remote MCP (Model Context Protocol) integration is now available!

Pro plan users can now connect to remote MCP servers from the Integrations page. Connect with popular remote MCPs such as Notion and Linear to add more context to your reviews and chats.

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

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.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR/Issue comments)

Type @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Status, Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Status Page to check the current availability of CodeRabbit.
  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8ee7b12 and 764ab75.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (3 hunks)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/memberships/memberships.repository.ts (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: Install dependencies / Yarn install & cache
  • GitHub Check: Security Check
🔇 Additional comments (3)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/memberships/memberships.repository.ts (1)

23-36: LGTM! The method correctly implements platform owner lookup.

The implementation properly queries the membership table with the correct filters (teamId, role, accepted) and handles the null case appropriately. This addresses the issue where the previous approach could incorrectly identify managed users as platform owners.

apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (2)

7-7: LGTM! Dependency injection implemented correctly.

The MembershipsRepository is properly imported and injected following the established patterns in the codebase.

Also applies to: 62-62


188-188: LGTM! Method call change correctly implements the fix.

The change from profilesRepository.getPlatformOwnerUserId to membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId properly addresses the issue where managed users could be incorrectly identified as platform owners. The new approach correctly validates actual ownership through membership roles.

Copy link
Contributor

@Devanshusharma2005 Devanshusharma2005 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hey @sahitya-chandra thanks for the pr, can you please address the unit test failing. Also it will be good to add a loom.

@sahitya-chandra
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kart1ka sir, I am unable to create a loom video of this fix because locally running the api needs x_cal_secret which I don't have...

@Ryukemeister
Copy link
Contributor

other than the one small change looks good to me, @supalarry can you have a look at this as well?

Copy link
Contributor

@supalarry supalarry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great stuff and thank you for the PR! Have one note below:

@@ -172,7 +174,7 @@ export class ApiAuthStrategy extends PassportStrategy(BaseStrategy, "api-auth")
throw new UnauthorizedException("ApiAuthStrategy - oAuth client - Invalid client secret");
}

const platformCreatorId = await this.profilesRepository.getPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId);
const platformCreatorId = await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would add a new function 'findPlatformAdminUserId' that does the same thing as 'findPlatformOwnerUserId' but with role 'MembershipRole.ADMIN' and then have

const platformCreatorId = await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId) || await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformAdminUserId(client.organizationId;

as a fallback just in case owner of platform is not part of the platform anymore and rest of people who were added were added as admins.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@supalarry added the admin fallback

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (1)

7-12: Import MembershipsRepository: good direction; remove now-unused ProfilesRepository import

Switching to MembershipsRepository aligns with the PR objective. ProfilesRepository is no longer used in this file—clean it up to avoid dead dependencies and potential lint failures.

Apply this diff to drop the unused import:

@@
-import { ProfilesRepository } from "@/modules/profiles/profiles.repository";
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (1)

177-185: Use nullish coalescing for fallback and update error message to reflect admin fallback

  • Prefer ?? over || to avoid treating a legitimate userId 0 as falsy (defensive correctness).
  • Error message should mention owner/admin since we now fallback to admin.

Apply this diff:

@@
-    const platformCreatorId =
-      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId)) ||
-      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformAdminUserId(client.organizationId));
+    const platformCreatorId =
+      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId)) ??
+      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformAdminUserId(client.organizationId));
@@
-    if (!platformCreatorId) {
-      throw new UnauthorizedException(
-        "ApiAuthStrategy - oAuth client - No owner ID found for this OAuth client"
-      );
-    }
+    if (!platformCreatorId) {
+      throw new UnauthorizedException(
+        "ApiAuthStrategy - oAuth client - No owner or admin found for this OAuth client"
+      );
+    }

Happy to add unit tests covering:

  • Owner present
  • Owner absent, admin present (fallback)
  • Owner/admin both absent (Unauthorized)
  • Regression: managed user not selected
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dac6353 and 1b35049.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (3 hunks)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/memberships/memberships.repository.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/memberships/memberships.repository.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
**/*.ts

📄 CodeRabbit Inference Engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

**/*.ts: For Prisma queries, only select data you need; never use include, always use select
Ensure the credential.key field is never returned from tRPC endpoints or APIs

Files:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts
**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit Inference Engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

Flag excessive Day.js use in performance-critical code; prefer native Date or Day.js .utc() in hot paths like loops

Files:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
  • GitHub Check: Install dependencies / Yarn install & cache
🔇 Additional comments (3)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (3)

177-179: LGTM: Owner/Admin lookup via Memberships fixes the managed-user bug

Using Memberships with OWNER (and ADMIN as fallback) correctly resolves the platform owner deterministically and prevents managed users from being misidentified.


177-179: Repository methods comply with Prisma select-only guideline
Both findPlatformOwnerUserId and findPlatformAdminUserId in apps/api/v2/src/modules/memberships/memberships.repository.ts already:

  • Filter by accepted: true and the correct MembershipRole
  • Use select: { userId: true }
  • Do not use any include

No changes required.


7-12: AuthModule correctly imports MembershipsModule

AuthModule (apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/auth.module.ts) imports MembershipsModule, which exports MembershipsRepository. Dependency injection for MembershipsRepository in ApiAuthStrategy will work at runtime—no changes needed.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (1)

175-183: Use nullish coalescing and update exception message in ApiAuthStrategy

  • File: apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (lines 175–183)

Switch the fallback from || to ?? so a valid userId (even if ever 0) isn’t treated as falsy, and tweak the error text to mention both owner and admin.

-    const platformCreatorId =
-      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId)) ||
-      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformAdminUserId(client.organizationId));
+    const platformCreatorId =
+      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformOwnerUserId(client.organizationId)) ??
+      (await this.membershipsRepository.findPlatformAdminUserId(client.organizationId));

-    if (!platformCreatorId) {
-      throw new UnauthorizedException(
-        "ApiAuthStrategy - oAuth client - No owner ID found for this OAuth client"
-      );
-    }
+    if (!platformCreatorId) {
+      throw new UnauthorizedException(
+        "ApiAuthStrategy - oAuth client - No owner or admin found for this OAuth client"
+      );
+    }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1b35049 and e4f66b2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
**/*.ts

📄 CodeRabbit Inference Engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

**/*.ts: For Prisma queries, only select data you need; never use include, always use select
Ensure the credential.key field is never returned from tRPC endpoints or APIs

Files:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts
**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit Inference Engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

Flag excessive Day.js use in performance-critical code; prefer native Date or Day.js .utc() in hot paths like loops

Files:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
  • GitHub Check: Install dependencies / Yarn install & cache
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/strategies/api-auth/api-auth.strategy.ts (1)

7-7: Switch to MembershipsRepository import is appropriate

Importing MembershipsRepository aligns with the new owner resolution logic and prevents false-positives from Profiles-based lookups. No concerns here.

supalarry
supalarry previously approved these changes Aug 12, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@supalarry supalarry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

amazing!

@anikdhabal anikdhabal dismissed stale reviews from Ryukemeister and Devanshusharma2005 August 13, 2025 05:18

stale

@anikdhabal anikdhabal enabled auto-merge (squash) August 13, 2025 05:19
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Aug 13, 2025

E2E results are ready!

@kart1ka
Copy link
Contributor

kart1ka commented Aug 13, 2025

@sahitya-chandra Could you please fix the failing tests?

auto-merge was automatically disabled August 14, 2025 06:10

Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts (1)

14-18: Remove redundant jest.mock for AvailableSlotsService

You already provide AvailableSlotsService via Nest DI with a useValue mock below. The top-level jest.mock here is redundant and risks diverging behavior if the service’s shape changes. Rely on the DI-provided mock only.

-jest.mock("@/lib/services/available-slots.service", () => ({
-  AvailableSlotsService: jest.fn().mockImplementation(() => ({
-    getAvailableSlots: jest.fn(),
-  })),
-}));
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f0db84d and c5a196b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts (1 hunks)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
**/*.ts

📄 CodeRabbit Inference Engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

**/*.ts: For Prisma queries, only select data you need; never use include, always use select
Ensure the credential.key field is never returned from tRPC endpoints or APIs

Files:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts
**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit Inference Engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

Flag excessive Day.js use in performance-critical code; prefer native Date or Day.js .utc() in hot paths like loops

Files:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: Install dependencies / Yarn install & cache
  • GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis

Comment on lines +9 to +15
jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => ({
MembershipRole: {
OWNER: "OWNER",
ADMIN: "ADMIN",
MEMBER: "MEMBER",
},
}));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Verification agent

🧩 Analysis chain

Prefer partial mocking over full module override for @calcom/prisma/client

Fully overriding the Prisma client module with just MembershipRole risks breaking any transitive imports that rely on other exports. Use a partial mock that preserves the original exports and only overrides MembershipRole. Also consider centralizing this mock in a shared Jest setup to avoid duplication across specs.

Apply this safer partial mock:

-jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => ({
-  MembershipRole: {
-    OWNER: "OWNER",
-    ADMIN: "ADMIN",
-    MEMBER: "MEMBER",
-  },
-}));
+jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => {
+  const actual = jest.requireActual("@calcom/prisma/client");
+  return {
+    ...actual,
+    MembershipRole: {
+      OWNER: "OWNER",
+      ADMIN: "ADMIN",
+      MEMBER: "MEMBER",
+    },
+  };
+});

If you want to deduplicate this across specs, add the following to a global Jest setup file (e.g., jest.setup.ts) and reference it in your Jest config:

// jest.setup.ts
jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => {
  const actual = jest.requireActual("@calcom/prisma/client");
  return {
    ...actual,
    MembershipRole: { OWNER: "OWNER", ADMIN: "ADMIN", MEMBER: "MEMBER" },
  };
});

Run this to find all occurrences to consolidate:


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
rg -n -A 2 $'jest\\.mock\\(["\\\']@calcom/prisma/client["\\\']'

Length of output: 188


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

echo "Looking for jest.mock uses of @calcom/prisma/client (double- and single-quoted)..."
rg -n -A2 -S "jest.mock('@calcom/prisma/client'" || true
rg -n -A2 -S 'jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client"' || true

echo
echo "Fallback: searching for any reference to @calcom/prisma/client..."
rg -n -S "@calcom/prisma/client" || true

Length of output: 36773


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

echo "== platform-plan.guard.spec.ts =="
sed -n '1,240p' apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts || true

echo
echo "== slots.service.spec.ts =="
sed -n '1,240p' apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts || true

echo
echo "== Files that import @calcom/prisma/client and contain jest.mock =="
rg -n -l "@calcom/prisma/client" | while read -r f; do
  if rg -n "jest.mock" "$f" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
    echo
    echo "File: $f"
    rg -n -A2 "jest.mock" "$f" || true
  fi
done

Length of output: 40221


Prefer partial mocking + centralize @calcom/prisma/client mock

Full-module overrides of @calcom/prisma/client are present and can break transitive imports. Replace with a partial mock (preserve the real exports, override only MembershipRole) and centralize the mock in a Jest setup file.

Files that need changes:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts

Apply this replacement in each spec (example diff):

-jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => ({
-  MembershipRole: {
-    OWNER: "OWNER",
-    ADMIN: "ADMIN",
-    MEMBER: "MEMBER",
-  },
-}));
+jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => {
+  const actual = jest.requireActual("@calcom/prisma/client");
+  return {
+    ...actual,
+    MembershipRole: {
+      OWNER: "OWNER",
+      ADMIN: "ADMIN",
+      MEMBER: "MEMBER",
+    },
+  };
+});

To deduplicate, add a global setup file and reference it from your Jest config:

// jest.setup.ts
jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => {
  const actual = jest.requireActual("@calcom/prisma/client");
  return {
    ...actual,
    MembershipRole: { OWNER: "OWNER", ADMIN: "ADMIN", MEMBER: "MEMBER" },
  };
});

Add it to your Jest config (setupFiles or setupFilesAfterEnv), e.g.:

// jest.config.js
module.exports = {
  setupFiles: ["<rootDir>/jest.setup.ts"],
};

To find other occurrences to consolidate, run:

rg -n -F -A2 -e "jest.mock('@calcom/prisma/client'" -e 'jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client"' || true

Comment on lines +20 to +26
jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => ({
MembershipRole: {
OWNER: "OWNER",
ADMIN: "ADMIN",
MEMBER: "MEMBER",
},
}));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Verification agent

🧩 Analysis chain

Use partial mock for @calcom/prisma/client and consider centralizing it

Same rationale as in PlatformPlanGuard spec: retain all original exports and override only MembershipRole. This avoids accidental breakage of other Prisma exports used by transitive imports. Also consider moving this to a shared Jest setup.

-jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => ({
-  MembershipRole: {
-    OWNER: "OWNER",
-    ADMIN: "ADMIN",
-    MEMBER: "MEMBER",
-  },
-}));
+jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => {
+  const actual = jest.requireActual("@calcom/prisma/client");
+  return {
+    ...actual,
+    MembershipRole: {
+      OWNER: "OWNER",
+      ADMIN: "ADMIN",
+      MEMBER: "MEMBER",
+    },
+  };
+});

To consolidate across specs:


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
rg -n -A 2 $'jest\\.mock\\(["\\\']@calcom/prisma/client["\\\']'

Length of output: 188


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
echo "Searching repository for occurrences of '@calcom/prisma/client' with surrounding context..."
rg -n --hidden --no-ignore -S "@calcom/prisma/client" -g '!node_modules' -A 3 -B 3 || true

Length of output: 209304


Use a partial mock for @calcom/prisma/client and centralize it

Replace full-module mocks with a partial mock (jest.requireActual) so only MembershipRole is overridden — this preserves all other Prisma exports transitive imports may rely on. Prefer moving the override into a shared Jest setup file.

Files to update:

  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/slots/slots-2024-09-04/services/slots.service.spec.ts (jest.mock at lines ~20–26)
  • apps/api/v2/src/modules/auth/guards/billing/platform-plan.guard.spec.ts (jest.mock at lines ~9–12)

Proposed change (replace the existing jest.mock in each spec):

-jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => ({
-  MembershipRole: {
-    OWNER: "OWNER",
-    ADMIN: "ADMIN",
-    MEMBER: "MEMBER",
-  },
-}));
+jest.mock("@calcom/prisma/client", () => {
+  const actual = jest.requireActual("@calcom/prisma/client");
+  return {
+    ...actual,
+    MembershipRole: {
+      OWNER: "OWNER",
+      ADMIN: "ADMIN",
+      MEMBER: "MEMBER",
+    },
+  };
+});

To find all spec files that mock the prisma client, run:

#!/bin/bash
rg -n --hidden --no-ignore -S -e "jest\\.mock\\([\"']@calcom/prisma/client[\"']" -g '!node_modules' || true

@kart1ka
Copy link
Contributor

kart1ka commented Aug 14, 2025

@sahitya-chandra We still have a test failing.

@sahitya-chandra
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kart1ka I'm still working on it sir...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
api area: API, enterprise API, access token, OAuth community Created by Linear-GitHub Sync Medium priority Created by Linear-GitHub Sync platform Anything related to our platform plan ready-for-e2e 💻 refactor
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

refactor: v2 get platform owner id
7 participants