objectstack-ai
diff --git a/‎.changeset/endpoint-policy-keys.md‎
Lines changed: 15 additions & 0 deletions b/‎.changeset/endpoint-policy-keys.md‎
Lines changed: 15 additions & 0 deletions
diff --git a/‎packages/runtime/src/api-endpoint-step.test.ts‎
Lines changed: 123 additions & 0 deletions b/‎packages/runtime/src/api-endpoint-step.test.ts‎
Lines changed: 123 additions & 0 deletions
diff --git a/‎packages/runtime/src/api-endpoint-step.ts‎
Lines changed: 81 additions & 9 deletions b/‎packages/runtime/src/api-endpoint-step.ts‎
Lines changed: 81 additions & 9 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+"@objectstack/runtime": minor
+---
+
+声明式端点的策略键接线:`authRequired` / `rateLimit` / `cacheTtl`(#5040 E4)
+
+新增 `packages/runtime/src/endpoint-policy.ts` —— `ApiEndpointSchema` 三个策略键的唯一读取方,并接入端点派发步(匹配命中 → 策略链 → 答复)。三个键全部复用既有原语,零发明:
+
+- `authRequired`:复用 `shouldDenyAnonymous` 与 `ANONYMOUS_DENY_*` 常量,未认证得到与 `/meta`、`/ai`、`/security` 完全相同的 401 包络。默认值由 schema 物化(缺省即 `true`),执行器读不到「未声明」这个中间态;`authRequired: false` 是唯一的开门方式,且在 diff 中可见。
+- `rateLimit`:复用 #5006 的 `deriveBucketConfig` / `resolveRateLimitKey` / `SharedTokenBucketLimiter`,桶键为 `apiep:<端点名>:<主体或 IP>` —— 与 server 级预算各自独立计量,互不侵蚀。超限答与 server 级限流器逐字节一致的 429 + `Retry-After`。
+- `cacheTtl`:仅响应头语义(不实现服务端缓存,#5091 已裁)。正值 → `Cache-Control: private, max-age=<ttl>`(`private` 是安全规则:任何响应都可能是按主体裁剪过的);`0`/负值 → `no-store`;缺省 → 不发头;非 GET → 不发头并 warn 点名。
+
+链序按 #5040 §3:**先限流、后鉴权**、再算缓存头 —— 凭据爆破本就是匿名流量,先答 401 会让扫号者完全绕开计量。
+
+**结构性不可达、零现网行为变更**:非空 `apis:` 在 publish/validate 仍被硬拒(E7 翻转前),且派发步在未获得策略上下文时的答复与此前逐字节相同。
@@ -18,13 +18,19 @@
 import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
 import { ApiEndpointSchema, type ApiEndpoint } from '@objectstack/spec/api';
 import type { ApiEndpointMatch } from '@objectstack/spec/contracts';
+import type { CounterStore } from '@objectstack/plugin-auth';
 
 import {
     APP_ENDPOINT_SEGMENT,
     appEndpointMountPrefix,
     isAppEndpointPath,
     runAppEndpointStep,
 } from './api-endpoint-step.js';
+import {
+    createEndpointRateLimiterRegistry,
+    endpointBucketKey,
+    type EndpointPolicyContext,
+} from './endpoint-policy.js';
 
 /** A declared endpoint in the ADR-0121 D1 shape, defaults materialized. */
 const TASKS: ApiEndpoint = ApiEndpointSchema.parse({
@@ -142,4 +148,121 @@ describe('a match answers 501 until the executor lands (#5040 E5)', () => {
         // is how two spellings of "the same path" start to disagree.
         expect(calls).toEqual([{ path: '/api/v1/apps/showcase/tasks', method: 'GET' }]);
     });
+
+    it('names the keys it did NOT evaluate when no policy context was threaded', async () => {
+        // Truthfulness of the report is the point: this seam's whole job today
+        // is telling an operator what did and did not happen.
+        const { service } = matcherFor([TASKS]);
+        const answer = await step('/api/v1/apps/showcase/tasks', 'GET', service);
+        const hint = String((answer!.body as { error: { hint: unknown } }).error.hint);
+        expect(hint).toContain('not evaluated');
+        expect(hint).toContain('authRequired');
+        expect(answer!.headers).toBeUndefined();
+    });
+});
+
+/**
+ * The policy chain, seen from the step (#5040 E4 / #5091).
+ *
+ * The module-level cases live in `endpoint-policy.test.ts`; what is asserted
+ * here is the WIRING — that the chain runs between the match and the answer,
+ * that a denial short-circuits (no 501, no execution slot reached), and that a
+ * pass still ends in the 501 until E5 lands.
+ */
+describe('the policy chain runs between the match and the answer', () => {
+    /** An endpoint that is open to anonymous callers unless a case says otherwise. */
+    const OPEN: ApiEndpoint = ApiEndpointSchema.parse({
+        ...TASKS, name: 'showcase_open', authRequired: false,
+    });
+
+    function policyContext(overrides: Partial<EndpointPolicyContext> = {}): EndpointPolicyContext {
+        const entries = new Map<string, unknown>();
+        const store: CounterStore = {
+            get: async <T,>(key: string) => entries.get(key) as T | undefined,
+            set: async (key: string, value: unknown) => { entries.set(key, value); },
+        };
+        return {
+            limiters: createEndpointRateLimiterRegistry({ resolveCache: async () => store }),
+            ...overrides,
+        };
+    }
+
+    const policedStep = (endpoints: ApiEndpoint[], policy: EndpointPolicyContext, method = 'GET') =>
+        runAppEndpointStep({
+            method,
+            path: endpoints[0]!.path,
+            prefix: '/api/v1',
+            metadataService: matcherFor(endpoints).service as never,
+            policy,
+        });
+
+    it('answers 401 instead of 501 when the endpoint requires auth and the caller has none', async () => {
+        const answer = await policedStep([TASKS], policyContext());
+        expect(answer?.status).toBe(401);
+        const body = answer!.body as { success: boolean; error: Record<string, unknown> };
+        expect(body.error.code).toBe('UNAUTHENTICATED');
+        // The 501 is NOT also emitted: a denial is the answer, not a stage.
+        expect(JSON.stringify(body)).not.toContain('NOT_IMPLEMENTED');
+    });
+
+    it('answers 429 with the Retry-After header once the endpoint budget is spent', async () => {
+        const limited = ApiEndpointSchema.parse({
+            ...OPEN, name: 'showcase_limited', rateLimit: { enabled: true, windowMs: 1_000, maxRequests: 1 },
+        });
+        const policy = policyContext();
+
+        expect((await policedStep([limited], policy))?.status).toBe(501);   // within budget
+        const over = await policedStep([limited], policy);
+
+        expect(over?.status).toBe(429);
+        // The header rides on the ANSWER, so the transport writes it with the
+        // body — a 429 whose Retry-After got lost tells a client nothing.
+        expect(over?.headers).toEqual({ 'Retry-After': '1' });
+        expect((over!.body as { error: { code: string } }).error.code).toBe('RATE_LIMIT_EXCEEDED');
+    });
+
+    it('reaches the 501 only after the chain passed, and says so', async () => {
+        const answer = await policedStep([OPEN], policyContext());
+        expect(answer?.status).toBe(501);
+        const hint = String((answer!.body as { error: { hint: unknown } }).error.hint);
+        expect(hint).toContain('enforced');
+        expect(hint).toContain('#5040');
+    });
+
+    it('never puts the cacheTtl header on the 501 — but the verdict still carries it', async () => {
+        // Exposure, not application: `Cache-Control` describes a successful body
+        // that does not exist yet (execution is E5), and telling a client to
+        // cache a 501 for 30s would be worse than saying nothing. The header
+        // lives on the policy verdict, which is what the executor will read —
+        // asserted directly in `endpoint-policy.test.ts`.
+        const cached = ApiEndpointSchema.parse({ ...OPEN, name: 'showcase_cached', cacheTtl: 30 });
+        const answer = await policedStep([cached], policyContext());
+        expect(answer?.status).toBe(501);
+        expect(answer?.headers).toBeUndefined();
+    });
+
+    it('resolves the caller once and keys the endpoint bucket with it', async () => {
+        const seen: Array<Record<string, unknown>> = [];
+        const entries = new Map<string, unknown>();
+        const store: CounterStore = {
+            get: async <T,>(k: string) => entries.get(k) as T | undefined,
+            set: async (k: string, v: unknown) => { entries.set(k, v); },
+        };
+        const limited = ApiEndpointSchema.parse({
+            ...TASKS, name: 'showcase_tasks', rateLimit: { enabled: true, windowMs: 1_000, maxRequests: 5 },
+        });
+
+        const answer = await policedStep([limited], {
+            limiters: createEndpointRateLimiterRegistry({ resolveCache: async () => store }),
+            headers: { cookie: 'session=abc' },
+            remoteAddress: '203.0.113.9',
+            resolvePrincipalId: async (headers) => { seen.push(headers); return 'usr_7'; },
+        });
+
+        // Authenticated, so the 401 gate passes and the bucket keys by principal
+        // rather than by address — one lookup serving both.
+        expect(answer?.status).toBe(501);
+        expect(seen).toEqual([{ cookie: 'session=abc' }]);
+        expect([...entries.keys()]).toEqual([endpointBucketKey('showcase_tasks', 'principal:usr_7')]);
+    });
 });
@@ -27,16 +27,28 @@
  * drive `matchEndpoint` through a stub, exactly as #5040 §5 prescribes for
  * every E-series unit that lands before the flip.
  *
+ * ## The policy chain (#5040 E4) now runs between the match and the answer
+ *
+ * `authRequired` / `rateLimit` / `cacheTtl` are enforced by
+ * {@link applyEndpointPolicies}, in the order #5040 §3 fixes, whenever the
+ * caller supplies a {@link EndpointPolicyContext}. A denial (401 / 429) is the
+ * answer; a pass still ends in the 501 below, because the thing that would run
+ * the endpoint is E5.
+ *
+ * That ordering is structural, not stylistic: execution lands INSIDE the
+ * post-policy branch, which is unreachable without a policy context. Wiring an
+ * executor without wiring policies is therefore not something a future change
+ * can do by forgetting — it would have nowhere to put the call.
+ *
  * What it does NOT do yet, so nobody reads more into it than is here:
- * `rateLimit`, `authRequired`, `cacheTtl`, `inputMapping` / `outputMapping`
- * (E4) and target execution — `object_operation` via `callData`, `flow` via the
- * automation service (E5). Those insert BETWEEN the match and the answer, in
- * the order #5040 §3 fixes.
+ * `inputMapping` / `outputMapping` and target execution — `object_operation`
+ * via `callData`, `flow` via the automation service (E5).
  */
 
 import { DispatcherErrorCode } from '@objectstack/spec/api';
 import type { ApiEndpointMatch, IMetadataService } from '@objectstack/spec/contracts';
 import { apiErrorResponse } from './error-envelope.js';
+import { applyEndpointPolicies, type EndpointPolicyContext } from './endpoint-policy.js';
 
 /**
  * The platform's single reserved carve-out segment for app-declared endpoints
@@ -81,6 +93,17 @@ export function isAppEndpointPath(path: string, runtimePrefix: string): boolean
 export interface AppEndpointStepAnswer {
     status: number;
     body: unknown;
+    /**
+     * Headers that are part of THIS answer and must be written with it — today
+     * only `Retry-After` on a rate-limit denial, where the header carries the
+     * one piece of information the client needs to behave.
+     *
+     * Note what is NOT here: the `Cache-Control` computed from `cacheTtl`. It
+     * describes a successful response body that does not exist yet, and telling
+     * a client to cache a 501 would be worse than saying nothing. It stays on
+     * the policy verdict until execution lands (#5040 E5).
+     */
+    headers?: Record<string, string>;
 }
 
 export interface AppEndpointStepInput {
@@ -98,6 +121,19 @@ export interface AppEndpointStepInput {
      * depend on its landing).
      */
     metadataService: Pick<IMetadataService, 'matchEndpoint'> | undefined;
+    /**
+     * Request context + services for the policy chain (#5040 E4): the caller's
+     * headers and peer address, the principal lookup, the endpoint limiter
+     * registry, `trustProxy`.
+     *
+     * Optional ONLY because the dispatch seam that calls this step does not
+     * thread it yet — that plumbing lands with the executor wiring (#5040 E5),
+     * which is the same change that needs the request body and the environment
+     * anyway. Omitting it does not open anything: the terminal answer without a
+     * policy context is the 501 below, so no request can be SERVED unpoliced,
+     * and execution can only be added on the far side of the chain.
+     */
+    policy?: EndpointPolicyContext;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -130,16 +166,52 @@ export async function runAppEndpointStep(
     const match: ApiEndpointMatch | undefined = await metadataService.matchEndpoint({ path, method });
     if (!match) return undefined;
 
+    if (!input.policy) {
+        // No policy context threaded yet (see `AppEndpointStepInput.policy`).
+        // The answer is the same 501 this seam has always given, and the hint
+        // says which keys were NOT evaluated — a report that is wrong about
+        // what ran is worse than no report.
+        return notImplemented(match, method, path,
+            'The mounting seam is in place; execution (target dispatch, mappings) lands with #5040 E5. This '
+            + 'request reached the step without a policy context, so authRequired / rateLimit / cacheTtl were '
+            + 'not evaluated — nothing was served either. Until the E7 flip a non-empty `apis:` is rejected at '
+            + 'publish, so no reachable deployment can produce this answer.');
+    }
+
+    const verdict = await applyEndpointPolicies({ ...input.policy, endpoint: match.endpoint, method });
+    if (verdict.verdict === 'deny') {
+        return {
+            status: verdict.status,
+            body: verdict.body,
+            ...(verdict.headers ? { headers: verdict.headers } : {}),
+        };
+    }
+
+    // ── Everything past this line has been through the policy chain ──────
+    // This is where target execution lands (#5040 E5), and it is the ONLY place
+    // it can land: the branch is unreachable without a policy context, and the
+    // deny above short-circuits before it. `verdict.responseHeaders` carries the
+    // `Cache-Control` that the executor's success answer should apply — it is
+    // deliberately not applied to the 501 (see `AppEndpointStepAnswer.headers`).
+    return notImplemented(match, method, path,
+        'Policies (authRequired / rateLimit / cacheTtl) were enforced and this request passed them; target '
+        + 'execution lands with #5040 E5. Until the E7 flip a non-empty `apis:` is rejected at publish, so no '
+        + 'reachable deployment can produce this answer.');
+}
+
+/** The one 501 body this step answers with, whichever branch produced it. */
+function notImplemented(
+    match: ApiEndpointMatch,
+    method: string,
+    path: string,
+    hint: string,
+): AppEndpointStepAnswer {
     return apiErrorResponse({
         code: DispatcherErrorCode.enum.NOT_IMPLEMENTED,
         httpStatus: 501,
         message:
             `Declarative endpoint '${match.endpoint.name}' claims ${method} ${path}, but the endpoint `
             + 'executor is not enabled in this build. It lands in 17.x (#5040).',
-        extra: {
-            hint: 'The mounting seam is in place; execution (target dispatch, authRequired / rateLimit / '
-                + 'cacheTtl / mappings) lands with #5040 E4–E5. Until then a non-empty `apis:` is rejected '
-                + 'at publish, so no reachable deployment can produce this answer.',
-        },
+        extra: { hint },
     });
 }