fix(miner): validate commit SHA format in replay-snapshot path planner (#7796)

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Add /^[0-9a-f]{7,40}$/i validation to normalizeCommitSha (matching replay-task-generation.ts) so path-traversal-shaped values are rejected before path.join()n- Normalize valid SHAs to lowercase for deterministic snapshot paths
• Regression test for ../../../../../../tmp/evil-worktree-shaped input; update fixture SHAs across replay-snapshot tests to meet the 7-char minimum

Closes #7796

Test plan

• npm run typecheck passes locally
• npm run build:tsc in miner workspace emits matching .js
• CI validate-code + validate-tests green
• codecov/patch >= 99% on changed lines

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.54%. Comparing base (1b30e5b) to head (05db29c).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/loopover-miner/lib/replay-snapshot.ts	75.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (75.00%) is below the target coverage (99.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7830      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.65%   88.54%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         730       89     -641     
  Lines       76959    21318   -55641     
  Branches    22789     3698   -19091     
==========================================
- Hits        68229    18877   -49352     
+ Misses       7684     2256    -5428     
+ Partials     1046      185     -861     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	?
shard-2	26.92% <75.00%> (-24.61%)	⬇️
shard-3	7.69% <25.00%> (-42.55%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
packages/loopover-miner/lib/replay-snapshot.ts	26.92% <75.00%> (-73.08%)	⬇️

... and 641 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-21 14:27:12 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI pending · dirty

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
Adds the same 7-40 hex-char SHA regex used in replay-task-generation.ts to normalizeCommitSha in replay-snapshot.ts, closing the path-traversal gap where a crafted commitSha like `../../../../../../tmp/evil-worktree` reached path.join() unchecked. The fix is applied at the correct source layer (the normalize function itself, before the value is ever used to build a path), lowercasing valid SHAs for deterministic snapshot paths, and the regression test asserts the traversal-shaped input throws. Fixture SHAs across the test files are bumped to 7+ hex chars to satisfy the new minimum, which is mechanical and consistent with the new validation.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• codecov/patch is at 75% on changed lines — the compiled replay-snapshot.js is counted as diff surface but isn't part of src/**, and the .ts hunk itself is small, so double-check which uncovered branches the tool is flagging (e.g., a SHA between 40-hex boundary or an empty-after-trim case) and add a case if it's a real gap in replay-snapshot.ts.
• validate-tests (1) failed with no detail provided; per BASE BRANCH STATUS this branch is 6 commits behind default, which is a plausible cause worth ruling out with a rebase before treating it as a defect in this diff.
• The compiled replay-snapshot.js diff is generated output mirroring the .ts change 1:1 — fine, but worth confirming the build step is what produced it rather than a hand-edit, since hand-edited generated files tend to drift.
• Add a boundary-length test (39 vs 41 hex chars) if not already covered, since the regex's {7,40} bound is exactly the kind of off-by-one branch codecov's branch-counting would want exercised.
• Consider whether normalizeRepoFullName has a similar unchecked-value-into-path-join risk worth a follow-up issue, given this PR already found one path-traversal gap in a sibling normalizer.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7796
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 395 registered-repo PR(s), 185 merged, 36 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 395 PR(s), 36 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds the exact /^[0-9a-f]{7,40}$/i validator to normalizeCommitSha in replay-snapshot.ts, rejecting non-hex/path-traversal-shaped values before path.join, and includes a regression test using the exact '../../../../../../tmp/evil-worktree' example from the issue plus updated fixture SHAs.

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Svelte, TypeScript, Markdown, MDX
• Official Gittensor activity: 395 PR(s), 36 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (conflicts with the base branch — resolve and open a fresh PR). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.