Fix validation issue in isJWT function

[Prathamesh061]

This PR fixes the validation issue in the isJWT function where it was returning true for a 2-part invalid JWT token. The fix is to check for len < 3 instead of len < 2 in the code.

Changes Made:

Updated the validation check for len < 3 in isJWT function
Testing:

Ran unit tests for the isJWT function and verified that it now returns false for 2-part invalid JWT tokens.

[WikiRik]

https://jwt.io/introduction does indeed mention that a JWT consists of 3 parts split by a dot so this does seem like a correct change to me. Could you add new tests that mark a two-part JWT as invalid?

[Prathamesh061]

Thank you for your review and feedback on my pull request. I have made the necessary changes to address the issue and will be adding new tests to ensure that the code works as expected. Thank you again for your help!

[Prathamesh061]

Hi WikiRiki,

I have added test cases for the isJWT validation. Could you please review the changes and let me know if there's anything else that needs to be done?

[WikiRik]

There are already some tests, could you change them here?

validator.js/test/validators.test.js

Lines 4669 to 4691 in 9ba1735

	it('should validate JWT tokens', () => {
	test({
	validator: 'isJWT',
	valid: [
	'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb2dnZWRJbkFzIjoiYWRtaW4iLCJpYXQiOjE0MjI3Nzk2Mzh9.gzSraSYS8EXBxLN_oWnFSRgCzcmJmMjLiuyu5CSpyHI',
	'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJsb3JlbSI6Imlwc3VtIn0.ymiJSsMJXR6tMSr8G9usjQ15_8hKPDv_CArLhxw28MI',
	'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJkb2xvciI6InNpdCIsImFtZXQiOlsibG9yZW0iLCJpcHN1bSJdfQ.rRpe04zbWbbJjwM43VnHzAboDzszJtGrNsUxaqQ-GQ8',
	'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqb2huIjp7ImFnZSI6MjUsImhlaWdodCI6MTg1fSwiamFrZSI6eyJhZ2UiOjMwLCJoZWlnaHQiOjI3MH19.YRLPARDmhGMC3BBk_OhtwwK21PIkVCqQe8ncIRPKo-E',
	'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzdWIiOiIxMjM0NTY3ODkwIiwibmFtZSI6IkpvaG4gRG9lIiwiaWF0IjoxNTE2MjM5MDIyfQ', // No signature
	],
	invalid: [
	'eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9',
	'$Zs.ewu.su84',
	'ks64$S/9.dy$§kz.3sd73b',
	],
	error: [
	[],
	{},
	null,
	undefined,
	],
	});
	});

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (9ba1735) 99.95% compared to head (8d050ed) 99.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2217   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.95%   99.95%           
=======================================
  Files         107      107           
  Lines        2405     2405           
  Branches      604      604           
=======================================
  Hits         2404     2404           
  Partials        1        1           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isJWT.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[Prathamesh061]

Hello WikiRiki,
I have reviewed the code and made some modifications to the tests in isjwt as you suggested. Please take a look and let me know if there are any issues or if you have any additional feedback.

[WikiRik]

One final comment but then it looks good to me

[WikiRik]

I think this one is redundant, the first one test you added is already 2 parts

[Prathamesh061]

You are right

[Prathamesh061]

Now all seems to be good. Is there anything else that needs to be done? please let me know

[pano9000]

@profnandaa could you kindly take a look here and merge this?

Thanks!

[chrislemus]

consider adding reference link eg. https://jwt.io/introduction

[Prathamesh061]

Thanks Chrislemus! for your valuable feedback.

[chrislemus]

I suggest adding a reference link for posterity (eg. https://jwt.io/introduction). Otherwise LGTM!

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for the fix.