WIP: POC for multi account support #360
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several account management enhancements. A new authentication wrapper enables account switching based on headers or cookies, while dedicated API routes handle account linking, adding, and switching. New React components for account switching and adding accounts streamline the user experience, and middleware is added for OAuth account linking and active account header injection. Additionally, the Prisma schema is updated to adjust the Account and User models and to create new relationships with other entities. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant AS as AccountSwitcher Component
participant SA as Switch-Account API Endpoint
participant DB as Database
U->>AS: Select new account from dropdown
AS->>SA: POST request to switch-account API
SA->>DB: Validate account access
DB-->>SA: Return validation result
SA->>U: Success (set active account cookie)
U->>AS: Refresh session view
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant AE as AddEmailAccount Component
participant AA as Add-Account API Endpoint
participant O as OAuth Provider
participant AL as Account Linking Handler
U->>AE: Click "Add Account" button
AE->>AA: POST request to add-account API
AA->>U: Respond with Google OAuth URL & set cookies
U->>O: Redirect to OAuth Provider
O->>AL: Callback after authentication
AL->>U: Finalize account linking
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
apps/web/app/api/user/me/route.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 Error: Failed to load parser '@typescript-eslint/parser' declared in 'apps/web/.eslintrc.json': Cannot find module '@typescript-eslint/parser'
apps/web/components/SideNav.tsxOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 Error: Failed to load parser '@typescript-eslint/parser' declared in 'apps/web/.eslintrc.json': Cannot find module '@typescript-eslint/parser'
✨ Finishing Touches
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
apps/web/middleware.ts (1)
18-30: Middleware implementation looks good but lacks explicit error handling.The middleware implementation follows a good pattern by sequencing the middleware functions. However, there's no explicit error handling if either middleware function throws an exception.
Consider adding a try/catch block to prevent unhandled exceptions:
export async function middleware(request: NextRequest) { + try { // Apply the account linking middleware first (only runs on specific routes) const linkingResponse = await accountLinkingMiddleware(request); if (linkingResponse) return linkingResponse; // Apply the account switcher middleware next const response = await accountSwitcherMiddleware( request, NextResponse.next(), ); return response; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Middleware error:", error); + return NextResponse.next(); + } }apps/web/app/api/user/add-account/route.ts (1)
22-35: Cookie security considerations.The cookie implementation is generally good with proper security settings based on environment. However, there are some considerations for production environments.
Consider adding the
httpOnlyflag to prevent client-side JavaScript access to these cookies, especially since they contain sensitive linking information:response.cookies.set("link_account", "true", { path: "/", sameSite: "lax", secure: process.env.NODE_ENV === "production", + httpOnly: true, maxAge: 60 * 5, // 5 minutes }); response.cookies.set("original_user_id", session.user.id, { path: "/", sameSite: "lax", secure: process.env.NODE_ENV === "production", + httpOnly: true, maxAge: 60 * 5, // 5 minutes });apps/web/middleware/account-switcher.ts (1)
9-10: Remove unused parameterres.The
resparameter is not utilized within this middleware. Consider removing it from the function signature to keep the code clean and concise.-export async function accountSwitcherMiddleware( - req: NextRequest, - res: NextResponse, -) { +export async function accountSwitcherMiddleware(req: NextRequest) {apps/web/middleware/account-linking.ts (1)
25-27: Return explicit response for missing original user ID.Returning
undefinedhere might lead to ambiguous behavior in subsequent middleware. Consider returning a response object (e.g., a 400 status) to clearly signal this error condition.if (!originalUserId) { logger.error("Missing original user ID for account linking"); - return; + return NextResponse.json({ error: "Missing original user ID" }, { status: 400 }); }apps/web/components/AddEmailAccount.tsx (1)
54-67: Offer an explicit label or tooltip for the button.When
childrenis not provided, the default text is"Add Email Account". To improve consistency and user clarity, you might consider always providing a short label or tooltip explaining the button’s function.apps/web/components/AccountSwitcher.tsx (1)
24-106: Good implementation of account switching functionalityThis is a well-structured implementation of the account switcher component. I particularly like:
- The conditional rendering at line 70 to hide the switcher when there's only one account
- Proper session management with useSession and state updates via useEffect
- Good error handling in the account switching function
Consider enhancing the error handling in the UI to provide feedback to users when account switching fails. Currently, errors are only logged to the console (lines 59-60 and 62). Adding toast notifications or inline error messages would improve the user experience.
import { cn } from "@/utils"; import { AddEmailAccount } from "@/components/AddEmailAccount"; +import { useToast } from "@/components/ui/use-toast"; interface AccountSwitcherProps { className?: string; } export function AccountSwitcher({ className }: AccountSwitcherProps) { const { data: session } = useSession(); const router = useRouter(); + const { toast } = useToast(); const [activeEmail, setActiveEmail] = useState<string | null>(null);And then update the error handling:
} else { console.error("Failed to switch account"); + toast({ + title: "Account switch failed", + description: "Unable to switch account. Please try again.", + variant: "destructive", + }); } } catch (error) { console.error("Error switching account:", error); + toast({ + title: "Account switch error", + description: "An unexpected error occurred. Please try again.", + variant: "destructive", + }); }apps/web/app/api/user/switch-account/route.ts (1)
56-62: Consider making cookie expiration configurableThe cookie expiration time is hardcoded to 30 days. For a feature that manages account access, this value should ideally be configurable.
Consider extracting this to an environment variable or a configuration constant:
+// Cookie expiration time in days +const ACCOUNT_COOKIE_EXPIRATION_DAYS = 30; // Set a cookie to indicate the active account const response = NextResponse.json({ success: true }); response.cookies.set("active_account", email, { path: "/", sameSite: "lax", secure: process.env.NODE_ENV === "production", - maxAge: 60 * 60 * 24 * 30, // 30 days + maxAge: 60 * 60 * 24 * ACCOUNT_COOKIE_EXPIRATION_DAYS, });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
apps/web/app/api/auth/[...nextauth]/auth.ts(2 hunks)apps/web/app/api/auth/account-linking-handler/route.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/app/api/user/add-account/route.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/app/api/user/switch-account/route.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/components/AccountSwitcher.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/components/AddEmailAccount.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/components/TopNav.tsx(2 hunks)apps/web/middleware.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/middleware/account-linking.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/middleware/account-switcher.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (15)
apps/web/components/TopNav.tsx (2)
26-26: Import addition looks good.The import statement for the AccountSwitcher component is correctly added and follows the project's import pattern.
121-125: Account switcher integration looks clean.The AccountSwitcher component is well-integrated into the menu structure with proper padding. This implementation properly maintains the existing dropdown pattern while adding the new functionality.
apps/web/middleware.ts (2)
1-4: Import statements are appropriate.All necessary imports are included for the middleware functionality, with clear purpose for each imported item.
5-16: Configuration matcher is properly defined.The matcher configuration correctly excludes static assets and public files from middleware processing, which helps with performance.
apps/web/app/api/user/add-account/route.ts (4)
1-7: Necessary imports and logger setup look good.The imports are appropriate and the scoped logger follows project patterns.
8-12: Authentication check is correctly implemented.The route properly checks for an authenticated user session before proceeding.
14-20: Auth URL construction looks good.The implementation correctly builds the Google OAuth URL with proper parameters for account linking.
37-45: Error handling and logging look good.The implementation includes appropriate logging and error handling with proper status codes.
apps/web/app/api/auth/[...nextauth]/auth.ts (2)
4-4: Import addition is appropriate.The new import for cookies and headers is needed for the account switching functionality.
10-10: Correct renaming of auth function.Renaming the original auth function allows for extending its functionality while maintaining backward compatibility.
apps/web/middleware/account-switcher.ts (1)
12-19: Consider handling empty or invalid cookie values.If
active_accountis an empty string, it will still be set in the headers. You may want to verify that it's not empty or provide a fallback if an invalid value is encountered, to avoid potential downstream errors.apps/web/middleware/account-linking.ts (1)
19-21: Verify cookies if partially present.Currently, you strictly check
link_accountandoriginal_user_id. If other cookies relevant to account linking are later introduced, ensure you validate their presence, or degrade gracefully if they're not found.apps/web/components/AddEmailAccount.tsx (1)
34-43: Validate the redirection URL before using it.The code immediately redirects to
result.authUrl. IfauthUrlis missing or malformed, it could cause an unexpected redirect failure. Consider verifying thatauthUrlis present and valid before assigning it towindow.location.href.apps/web/app/api/auth/account-linking-handler/route.ts (1)
52-58: Clarify the logic for already-linked accounts.When the new account’s
userIdmatches theoriginalUserId, the handler immediately returns success. Ensure the calling code and UI are prepared for scenarios where the account is already linked, in order to properly notify or update the user interface.apps/web/app/api/user/switch-account/route.ts (1)
21-30: Temporary implementation needs a more detailed roadmapThe implementation is correctly validating user access to accounts, but as noted in the comments, this is a temporary solution.
Since this is marked as "temporary" with a TODO in the comments, it would be helpful to have more clarity on:
- What the proper account relationships will look like
- When this implementation is expected to be replaced
- How to track this technical debt
Consider creating a GitHub issue to track this and reference it in a comment.
| // Create a wrapper for the auth function to handle account switching | ||
| export const auth = async () => { | ||
| // Get the original session | ||
| const session = await originalAuth(); | ||
|
|
||
| // If no session, just return it | ||
| if (!session?.user) { | ||
| return session; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| // Check if there's an active account in headers or cookies | ||
| const headersList = headers(); | ||
| const activeAccount = | ||
| headersList.get("x-active-account") || | ||
| cookies().get("active_account")?.value; | ||
|
|
||
| // If there's no active account or it's the same as the current user, return the original session | ||
| if (!activeAccount || activeAccount === session.user.email) { | ||
| return session; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // For now, since we don't have a proper model to track connected accounts, | ||
| // we can only use the simplest implementation that allows a user | ||
| // to switch to their own email account | ||
| if (activeAccount !== session.user.email) { | ||
| logger.info("Account switch requested", { | ||
| from: session.user.email, | ||
| to: activeAccount, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Update the session with the active account's email | ||
| return { | ||
| ...session, | ||
| user: { | ||
| ...session.user, | ||
| email: activeAccount, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return session; | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| logger.error("Error in auth account switching", { error }); | ||
| return session; | ||
| } | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Account switching implementation needs security enhancement.
The account switching implementation works but has security implications that could be addressed.
The current implementation allows switching to any account specified in the header/cookie without verification that the account belongs to the user. Consider implementing verification that the requested account is actually linked to the user:
export const auth = async () => {
// Get the original session
const session = await originalAuth();
// If no session, just return it
if (!session?.user) {
return session;
}
try {
// Check if there's an active account in headers or cookies
const headersList = headers();
const activeAccount =
headersList.get("x-active-account") ||
cookies().get("active_account")?.value;
// If there's no active account or it's the same as the current user, return the original session
if (!activeAccount || activeAccount === session.user.email) {
return session;
}
+ // Verify that the requested account is linked to the user
+ const linkedAccounts = await getLinkedAccountsForUser(session.user.id);
+ if (!linkedAccounts.includes(activeAccount)) {
+ logger.warn("Attempted to switch to unlinked account", {
+ userId: session.user.id,
+ attemptedAccount: activeAccount
+ });
+ return session;
+ }
// For now, since we don't have a proper model to track connected accounts,
// we can only use the simplest implementation that allows a user
// to switch to their own email account
if (activeAccount !== session.user.email) {
logger.info("Account switch requested", {
from: session.user.email,
to: activeAccount,
});
// Update the session with the active account's email
return {
...session,
user: {
...session.user,
email: activeAccount,
},
};
}
return session;
} catch (error) {
logger.error("Error in auth account switching", { error });
return session;
}
};Note: This implementation requires creating a getLinkedAccountsForUser function that retrieves the linked accounts from your database.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| // Create a wrapper for the auth function to handle account switching | |
| export const auth = async () => { | |
| // Get the original session | |
| const session = await originalAuth(); | |
| // If no session, just return it | |
| if (!session?.user) { | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| // Check if there's an active account in headers or cookies | |
| const headersList = headers(); | |
| const activeAccount = | |
| headersList.get("x-active-account") || | |
| cookies().get("active_account")?.value; | |
| // If there's no active account or it's the same as the current user, return the original session | |
| if (!activeAccount || activeAccount === session.user.email) { | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| // For now, since we don't have a proper model to track connected accounts, | |
| // we can only use the simplest implementation that allows a user | |
| // to switch to their own email account | |
| if (activeAccount !== session.user.email) { | |
| logger.info("Account switch requested", { | |
| from: session.user.email, | |
| to: activeAccount, | |
| }); | |
| // Update the session with the active account's email | |
| return { | |
| ...session, | |
| user: { | |
| ...session.user, | |
| email: activeAccount, | |
| }, | |
| }; | |
| } | |
| return session; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| logger.error("Error in auth account switching", { error }); | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| }; | |
| // Create a wrapper for the auth function to handle account switching | |
| export const auth = async () => { | |
| // Get the original session | |
| const session = await originalAuth(); | |
| // If no session, just return it | |
| if (!session?.user) { | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| // Check if there's an active account in headers or cookies | |
| const headersList = headers(); | |
| const activeAccount = | |
| headersList.get("x-active-account") || | |
| cookies().get("active_account")?.value; | |
| // If there's no active account or it's the same as the current user, return the original session | |
| if (!activeAccount || activeAccount === session.user.email) { | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| // Verify that the requested account is linked to the user | |
| const linkedAccounts = await getLinkedAccountsForUser(session.user.id); | |
| if (!linkedAccounts.includes(activeAccount)) { | |
| logger.warn("Attempted to switch to unlinked account", { | |
| userId: session.user.id, | |
| attemptedAccount: activeAccount, | |
| }); | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| // For now, since we don't have a proper model to track connected accounts, | |
| // we can only use the simplest implementation that allows a user | |
| // to switch to their own email account | |
| if (activeAccount !== session.user.email) { | |
| logger.info("Account switch requested", { | |
| from: session.user.email, | |
| to: activeAccount, | |
| }); | |
| // Update the session with the active account's email | |
| return { | |
| ...session, | |
| user: { | |
| ...session.user, | |
| email: activeAccount, | |
| }, | |
| }; | |
| } | |
| return session; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| logger.error("Error in auth account switching", { error }); | |
| return session; | |
| } | |
| }; |
|
|
||
| // Update the account to be associated with the original user | ||
| await prisma.account.update({ | ||
| where: { | ||
| id: accountId, | ||
| }, | ||
| data: { | ||
| userId: originalUserId, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Delete the temporary user (if it's not the original user) | ||
| // But first check if there are any other accounts linked to it | ||
| const otherAccounts = await prisma.account.findMany({ | ||
| where: { | ||
| userId: tempUser.id, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| if (otherAccounts.length === 0) { | ||
| await prisma.user.delete({ | ||
| where: { | ||
| id: tempUser.id, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| logger.info("Deleted temporary user", { userId: tempUser.id }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Wrap account update and user deletion in a transaction.
The update of the newAccount user and potential deletion of tempUser could create inconsistencies if one operation fails. Consider wrapping these operations within a database transaction to maintain atomicity.
// Example with Prisma transaction
await prisma.$transaction(async (prismaTx) => {
await prismaTx.account.update({
where: { id: accountId },
data: { userId: originalUserId },
});
const otherAccounts = await prismaTx.account.findMany({
where: { userId: tempUser.id },
});
if (otherAccounts.length === 0) {
await prismaTx.user.delete({
where: { id: tempUser.id },
});
}
});📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| // Update the account to be associated with the original user | |
| await prisma.account.update({ | |
| where: { | |
| id: accountId, | |
| }, | |
| data: { | |
| userId: originalUserId, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| // Delete the temporary user (if it's not the original user) | |
| // But first check if there are any other accounts linked to it | |
| const otherAccounts = await prisma.account.findMany({ | |
| where: { | |
| userId: tempUser.id, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| if (otherAccounts.length === 0) { | |
| await prisma.user.delete({ | |
| where: { | |
| id: tempUser.id, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| logger.info("Deleted temporary user", { userId: tempUser.id }); | |
| } | |
| await prisma.$transaction(async (prismaTx) => { | |
| await prismaTx.account.update({ | |
| where: { id: accountId }, | |
| data: { userId: originalUserId }, | |
| }); | |
| const otherAccounts = await prismaTx.account.findMany({ | |
| where: { userId: tempUser.id }, | |
| }); | |
| if (otherAccounts.length === 0) { | |
| await prismaTx.user.delete({ | |
| where: { id: tempUser.id }, | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| }); |
| try { | ||
| const body = await request.json(); | ||
| const { email } = switchAccountSchema.parse(body); | ||
|
|
||
| // Check if the user can access this account | ||
| const hasAccess = await canAccessAccount(session.user.id, email); | ||
| if (!hasAccess) { | ||
| logger.error("Unauthorized access attempt", { | ||
| userId: session.user.id, | ||
| targetEmail: email, | ||
| }); | ||
| return NextResponse.json( | ||
| { error: "You don't have access to this account" }, | ||
| { status: 403 }, | ||
| ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Enhance validation to prevent account spoofing
The current implementation only checks if the target email matches the current user's email, which is a good start, but could be enhanced.
For a multi-account feature, especially in the context of a "Proof of Concept", it's important to verify that the user actually owns or has permission to access each account they're trying to switch to. Consider implementing additional checks such as:
- Verifying the email exists in your database
- Checking for explicit account linking records
- Implementing a more robust access control system
These enhancements would help prevent potential security issues where a user might attempt to spoof accounts.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify if there are any other checks for account ownership in the codebase
rg -A 5 "account.*ownership|account.*access|email.*verify" --type tsLength of output: 9218
Action Required: Strengthen Account Ownership Checks
After verifying the codebase, it appears that the only measure in place in apps/web/app/api/user/switch-account/route.ts is the call to canAccessAccount, which likely performs a basic check (e.g., matching the current session user against the target email). Other endpoints in our repository rely heavily on token and permission validations but do not include an explicit check that confirms whether the target email is indeed linked to the user’s account. To prevent account spoofing, please consider the following enhancements:
- Verify Email Existence: Before switching accounts, query the database to ensure the target email corresponds to a valid, existing account.
- Check Explicit Account Linkage: Implement checks to confirm that the target account is explicitly linked to the current user, rather than relying solely on email matching.
- Adopt More Robust Access Control: Consider aligning your checks with our other endpoints (e.g., those handling Google account tokens) by incorporating additional permissions or ownership verifications.
These changes will further safeguard against malicious attempts to access unauthorized accounts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (1)
1-529: Ensure account-switching middleware is in placeThis schema supports multi-account functionality, but you'll need middleware to handle account switching logic, authentication, and maintaining the active account context.
Make sure you have implemented or planned:
- Middleware to track the active account (via headers/cookies)
- Session management that includes active account information
- API endpoints for switching between accounts
- Proper error handling for account access permissions
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
apps/web/app/api/user/me/route.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/components/SideNav.tsx(2 hunks)apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma(13 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
apps/web/app/api/user/me/route.ts (1)
36-41: Good addition of accounts data to the user responseThis change correctly adds the account information to the user data returned by the API, which will enable the account switcher functionality in the UI.
apps/web/components/SideNav.tsx (2)
52-52: Good import of the new AccountSwitcher componentThis import enables the multi-account functionality in the sidebar.
259-259: Well-placed integration of the AccountSwitcher componentThe AccountSwitcher component is appropriately placed in the SidebarFooter, replacing the previously commented-out NavUser component.
apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (7)
16-17: Crucial schema change to enable multi-account supportRemoving the
@uniqueconstraint fromuserIdis a key change that allows a user to have multiple accounts, which is essential for the multi-account functionality.
28-45: Comprehensive account fields migrationYou've appropriately moved user-specific fields like email, image, and profile information to the Account model, which aligns with the multi-account architecture.
50-59: Well-structured account relationshipsThe relationships between Account and other entities are properly defined, which will ensure data integrity when working with multiple accounts.
106-106: Good model restructuringChanging
promptHistorytoapiKeysin the User model is a good decision that better represents the relationship between users and API keys.
264-266: Important relations for ExecutedRuleThe addition of account relation to ExecutedRule ensures that rules are properly associated with specific accounts, which is crucial for multi-account support.
333-334:❓ Verification inconclusive
Check for missing database migrations
Ensure that database migrations are created and tested for these schema changes. When adding required fields to existing models, you'll need a migration strategy to populate these fields for existing records.
Also applies to: 353-354, 374-375, 397-398, 426-427
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check for migration files in the repository fd "migration" --type dLength of output: 51
Action Required: Verify Comprehensive Database Migrations for Schema Changes
We've confirmed that the
apps/web/prisma/migrations/directory exists, which indicates that migration files are being generated. However, please double-check that a migration specifically covering the schema changes at:
- Lines 333-334 (
accountIdand its relation inschema.prisma)- Lines 353-354, 374-375, 397-398, and 426-427
...has been created and thoroughly tested. Also, ensure that the migration strategy includes populating the newly required fields for existing records safely to avoid data inconsistencies in production.
48-48:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify client requirements for auto-categorization
The default value for
autoCategorizeSendersis set to false. Consider whether this should be a user preference that carries over from existing accounts.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if this setting exists elsewhere in the codebase rg "autoCategorizeSenders" --type tsLength of output: 1795
Action: Confirm Auto-Categorization Setting Behavior with Client
The
autoCategorizeSendersfield inapps/web/prisma/schema.prismais currently set tofalseby default. Our search confirms this property is consistently used across the codebase (e.g., inapps/web/utils/actions/categorize.ts,apps/web/app/(app)/smart-categories/Uncategorized.tsx,apps/web/app/(app)/smart-categories/page.tsx, and related API modules). Please verify that this default value aligns with the client's requirements—specifically, whether existing account preferences should carry over or if this should be a user-configurable setting with a different default behavior.
Summary by CodeRabbit