fix: reject expiration timestamp 0 and accept far-future timestamps in getEventExpiration()#708
Open
Priyanshubhartistm wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…n getEventExpiration()
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: b2df8e4 The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
Collaborator
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
getEventExpiration()insrc/utils/event.tsusedMath.log10(expirationTime) < 10as a bounds check on the NIP-40expirationtag. This has two bugs:Math.log10(0) === -Infinity, which is< 10, so an expiration of0(Unix epoch) was accepted as valid.> 9,999,999,999) failed the< 10check and was silently discarded, treated as "no expiration."Replaced the check with
expirationTime > 0, which accepts any positive safe integer and rejects non-positive values, with no arbitrary digit-count ceiling.Related Issue
Closes #707
Motivation and Context
An expiration of
0should never be treated as a valid future expiration, and a relay shouldn't silently ignore legitimate (if far-future) expiration timestamps just because they cross an arbitrary digit-count boundary.How Has This Been Tested?
test/unit/utils/event.spec.tsunder the existingNIP-40 > getEventExpirationsuite:expiration: '0'→undefinedexpiration: '10000000000'(year 2287+) → returned as-ispnpm run test:unit(1395 passing) andpnpm run test:cli(73 passing)pnpm run lint,pnpm run check:deps,pnpm run build,pnpm run verify:cli:build,pnpm run cover:unit— all pass.Screenshots (if appropriate):
N/A — pure logic fix, no UI/API surface change.
Types of changes
Checklist: