NSF command implementation (list, get, ln and rm) by ukumar-ks · Pull Request #169 · Keeper-Security/keeper-sdk-javascript

ukumar-ks · 2026-06-12T09:41:05Z

No description provided.

socket-security · 2026-06-12T10:57:07Z

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff	Package	Supply Chain Security	Vulnerability	Quality	Maintenance	License
	@keeper-security/keeperapi@17.2.3 ⏵ 17.2.7	⁺¹		⁺¹	⁺¹

View full report

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-15T08:35:23Z

    },
    "dependencies": {
        "@keeper-security/keeperapi": "17.2.6",
+        "protobufjs": "^7.6.1",


probably not needed as we are getting proto from keeperapi project

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-15T09:13:27Z

+    return {
+        userPermissions: entries
+            .filter(isFolderUserPermission)
+            .map((entry) => buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry)),
+        shareAdmins: entries
+            .filter(isFolderShareAdministrator)
+            .map((entry) => buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry)),
+        teamPermissions: entries
+            .filter((entry) => entry.accessType === Folder.AccessType.AT_TEAM)
+            .map(mapFolderPermission),
+    }


Suggested change

return {

userPermissions: entries

.filter(isFolderUserPermission)

.map((entry) => buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry)),

shareAdmins: entries

.filter(isFolderShareAdministrator)

.map((entry) => buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry)),

teamPermissions: entries

.filter((entry) => entry.accessType === Folder.AccessType.AT_TEAM)

.map(mapFolderPermission),

}

const userPermissions: NsfFolderAccessRow[] = [];

const shareAdmins: NsfFolderAccessRow[] = [];

const teamPermissions: NsfFolderPermission[] = [];

for (const entry of entries) {

if (isFolderUserPermission(entry)) {

userPermissions.push(buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry));

}

if (isFolderShareAdministrator(entry)) {

shareAdmins.push(buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry));

}

if (entry.accessType === Folder.AccessType.AT_TEAM) {

teamPermissions.push(mapFolderPermission(entry));

}

}

return { userPermissions, shareAdmins, teamPermissions };

There is no necessity for multiple loops -> 3x iterations to 1x

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-15T09:16:41Z

+function buildRecordFields(record: DRecord, unmask: boolean): NsfRecordView['fields'] {
+    return getRecordFields(record).flatMap((field) => {
+        if (NSF_TOP_LEVEL_FIELD_TYPES.has(field.type)) return []
+        const rawValue = Array.isArray(field.value) ? field.value[0] : field.value
+        if (rawValue == null || rawValue === '') return []
+        const value = !unmask && isSensitiveFieldType(field.type) ? NSF_MASKED_VALUE : String(rawValue)
+        return [{ type: field.type, label: field.label, value }]
+    })
+}


Suggested change

function buildRecordFields(record: DRecord, unmask: boolean): NsfRecordView['fields'] {

return getRecordFields(record).flatMap((field) => {

if (NSF_TOP_LEVEL_FIELD_TYPES.has(field.type)) return []

const rawValue = Array.isArray(field.value) ? field.value[0] : field.value

if (rawValue == null || rawValue === '') return []

const value = !unmask && isSensitiveFieldType(field.type) ? NSF_MASKED_VALUE : String(rawValue)

return [{ type: field.type, label: field.label, value }]

})

}

ffunction buildRecordFields(record: DRecord, unmask: boolean): NsfRecordView['fields'] {

return getRecordFields(record)

// Step 1: Remove top-level types up front

.filter(field => !NSF_TOP_LEVEL_FIELD_TYPES.has(field.type))

// Step 2: Map to items with unwrapped/validated values

.map(field => {

const rawValue = Array.isArray(field.value) ? field.value[0] : field.value;

return { field, rawValue };

})

// Step 3: Filter out fields with empty values

.filter(({ rawValue }) => rawValue != null && rawValue !== '')

// Step 4: Construct final object with masked value

.map(({ field, rawValue }) => {

const isSensitive = isSensitiveFieldType(field.type);

const finalValue = !unmask && isSensitive ? NSF_MASKED_VALUE : String(rawValue);

return {

type: field.type,

label: field.label,

value: finalValue

};

});

}

will something like this fit your usecase ?

Replaced the single flatMap with empty-array returns by an explicit pipeline

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-15T09:18:58Z

+            .map((ext) => ext.email || '')
+            .filter((email) => email.length > 0)


Suggested change

.map((ext) => ext.email || '')

.filter((email) => email.length > 0)

.flatMap((ext) => ext?.email ? [ext.email] : [])

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-15T09:25:12Z

+    message: string
+}
+
+async function resolveRecordKeyType(


should probably be a utility function and to be moved to utils

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-15T09:31:01Z

+    return response
+}
+
+export function removeRecordMessage(


Should probably be moved to keeper api

…cords

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-16T12:13:03Z

+                .map((value) => formatNsfFieldValue(value))
+                .filter((value) => value.length > 0)


probably these have to be interchanged ? I am unsure here but that reduces complexity maybe.

sgaddala-ks · 2026-06-16T12:15:20Z

+    return lines
+}
+
+async function fetchRecordPermissions(auth: Auth, recordUid: string): Promise<NsfRecordPermission[]> {


do we need promise as a return type here ? at end we are just returning a nullable array right ?

The async / Promise is required, the function calls await auth.executeRest(), so it cannot be synchronous.

…d-p1-dev Sync feature-kd-part1 updates (rest messages, proto, package) into feature-kd-p1-dev. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

ukumar-ks mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2026

Nsf-list and nsf-get commands #167

Closed

ukumar-ks marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2026 11:03

ukumar-ks requested review from THeflinKeeper, saldoukhov and tylerccarson as code owners June 12, 2026 11:03

ukumar-ks requested review from sali-ks and sgaddala-ks and removed request for THeflinKeeper, saldoukhov and tylerccarson June 12, 2026 11:03

ukumar-ks changed the title ~~Feature kd p1 dev~~ NSF command implementation (list, get, ln and rm) Jun 12, 2026

sgaddala-ks reviewed Jun 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

sgaddala-ks and others added 4 commits June 15, 2026 19:17

test-commit

c18c581

test commit 2

3a7d17e

code optimization and Pr improvement changes

9e7662e

Suggested Pr improvements

e3b921e

ukumar-ks force-pushed the feature-kd-p1-dev branch from dbb5f0d to e3b921e Compare June 15, 2026 13:48

ukumar-ks added 2 commits June 15, 2026 20:22

package update and restmessage sync changes

1ed514a

emove getDependenciesSync and KeeperDriveKind.FolderRecord for sub re…

28660e7

…cords

sgaddala-ks reviewed Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

code improve for data processing

6235975

sgaddala-ks approved these changes Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

ukumar-ks and others added 2 commits June 16, 2026 22:45

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/feature-kd-part1' into feature-k…

37e12f3

…d-p1-dev Sync feature-kd-part1 updates (rest messages, proto, package) into feature-kd-p1-dev. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

dependency update

0962af3

ukumar-ks merged commit a9c6dfb into feature-kd-part1 Jun 16, 2026
3 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

NSF command implementation (list, get, ln and rm)#169

NSF command implementation (list, get, ln and rm)#169
ukumar-ks merged 9 commits into
feature-kd-part1from
feature-kd-p1-dev

ukumar-ks commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

socket-security Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

ukumar-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 15, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

sgaddala-ks Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

ukumar-ks Jun 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

-    return {
-        userPermissions: entries
-            .filter(isFolderUserPermission)
-            .map((entry) => buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry)),
-        shareAdmins: entries
-            .filter(isFolderShareAdministrator)
-            .map((entry) => buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry)),
-        teamPermissions: entries
-            .filter((entry) => entry.accessType === Folder.AccessType.AT_TEAM)
-            .map(mapFolderPermission),
-    }
+const userPermissions: NsfFolderAccessRow[] = [];
+    const shareAdmins: NsfFolderAccessRow[] = [];
+    const teamPermissions: NsfFolderPermission[] = [];
+for (const entry of entries) {
+        if (isFolderUserPermission(entry)) {
+            userPermissions.push(buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry));
+        }
+        if (isFolderShareAdministrator(entry)) {
+            shareAdmins.push(buildFolderAccessRow(storage, folder, entry));
+        }
+        if (entry.accessType === Folder.AccessType.AT_TEAM) {
+            teamPermissions.push(mapFolderPermission(entry));
+        }
+    }
+    return { userPermissions, shareAdmins, teamPermissions };

-function buildRecordFields(record: DRecord, unmask: boolean): NsfRecordView['fields'] {
-    return getRecordFields(record).flatMap((field) => {
-        if (NSF_TOP_LEVEL_FIELD_TYPES.has(field.type)) return []
-        const rawValue = Array.isArray(field.value) ? field.value[0] : field.value
-        if (rawValue == null || rawValue === '') return []
-        const value = !unmask && isSensitiveFieldType(field.type) ? NSF_MASKED_VALUE : String(rawValue)
-        return [{ type: field.type, label: field.label, value }]
-    })
-}
+ffunction buildRecordFields(record: DRecord, unmask: boolean): NsfRecordView['fields'] {
+    return getRecordFields(record)
+        // Step 1: Remove top-level types up front
+        .filter(field => !NSF_TOP_LEVEL_FIELD_TYPES.has(field.type))
+        // Step 2: Map to items with unwrapped/validated values
+        .map(field => {
+            const rawValue = Array.isArray(field.value) ? field.value[0] : field.value;
+            return { field, rawValue };
+        })
+        // Step 3: Filter out fields with empty values
+        .filter(({ rawValue }) => rawValue != null && rawValue !== '')
+        // Step 4: Construct final object with masked value
+        .map(({ field, rawValue }) => {
+            const isSensitive = isSensitiveFieldType(field.type);
+            const finalValue = !unmask && isSensitive ? NSF_MASKED_VALUE : String(rawValue);
+            return {
+                type: field.type,
+                label: field.label,
+                value: finalValue
+            };
+        });
+}

		.map((ext) => ext.email \|\| '')
		.filter((email) => email.length > 0)

	.map((ext) => ext.email \|\| '')
	.filter((email) => email.length > 0)
	.flatMap((ext) => ext?.email ? [ext.email] : [])

		.map((value) => formatNsfFieldValue(value))
		.filter((value) => value.length > 0)

Conversation

ukumar-ks commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

socket-security Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

socket-security Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading