feat(api): add tenant-scoped installation health and repair (#7661)

[milosde111]

Summary

• Add tenant-scoped /v1/app/installations health/repair/refresh siblings of the operator-only /v1/installations* routes, reusing /v1/app/maintainer-dashboard's exact loadControlPanelAccessScope pattern so a non-operator session only sees/acts on their own installations.
• Enforce ownership before the refresh side effect; operators / static API identities keep whole-fleet access (scope === null).
• Prove cross-tenant isolation in integration tests (tenant A cannot read or repair tenant B), including 401/403/400/404 branches and the account-login scope arm.
• Rate-limit the new refresh path as expensive, matching the operator route.

Closes #7661

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• API + auth + integration-test change only. Targeted suite: npx vitest run test/integration/app-installations-selfservice.test.ts test/unit/auth.test.ts. Confirmed the new test SOURCE has no PEM header literals (the false-positive that closed feat(api): tenant self-service for installation health/repair #8006). Remaining test:ci surfaces run in CI. No OpenAPI/UI artifact changes (same shape as the CI-green feat(api): tenant self-service for installation health/repair #8006 attempt).

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — API-only tenant scoping; no visible UI change.

Notes

• Does not add bulk pause-all-repos (Add installation-scoped bulk pause/dry-run endpoint (currently strictly per-repo) #7676).
• feat(api): tenant self-service for installation health/repair #8006 matched this design and was CI-green; it closed only on a secret-scan false positive from a PEM header string in the test source. This PR generates the refresh fixture key via node:crypto export so that literal never appears in the diff.
• Rebased onto current main before open; confirm no other open PR links Add tenant self-service for installation health/repair (currently operator-only) #7661 at push time (duplicate-of-open-PR closes siblings).

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-22 18:37:32 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds tenant-scoped `/v1/app/installations*` siblings to the operator-only installation health/repair routes, gating each on a new `resolveAppInstallationScope` helper that mirrors `/v1/app/maintainer-dashboard`'s `loadControlPanelAccessScope` pattern, and enforces ownership via `installationRecordInScope` before any refresh side effect. The scoping logic and route wiring are correct and traceable: operators/static identities get `scope === null` (whole fleet), sessions get filtered by installation id or account login, and the refresh route checks ownership on the existing health record before calling `refreshInstallationHealthForInstallation`. The new route is also correctly added to the `expensive` rate-limit class and the integration test suite explicitly proves cross-tenant isolation across all four routes and their error branches.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/api/routes.ts:2654-2711 — HTTP status codes (400/403/404) are repeated as inline literals across all four handlers instead of named constants; not a big deal here since the surrounding codebase does the same, but worth being consistent with.
• The long-file smell on src/api/routes.ts (now ~6700+ lines) predates this PR but this diff adds another ~90 lines to it — consider whether future installation-scope routes should move to a dedicated module.
• Consider extracting the four repeated `Number.isFinite(installationId)` + health-lookup + `installationRecordInScope` checks in the health/repair/repair-refresh handlers into one shared helper, since the three handlers duplicate nearly identical guard sequences (src/api/routes.ts:2662-2711).

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	#7661, #8006
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 (2 linked issues).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 229 registered-repo PR(s), 156 merged, 4 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	milosde111; Gittensor profile; 229 PR(s), 4 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: significant

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds tenant-scoped `/v1/app/installations*` read/repair/refresh routes that reuse `loadControlPanelAccessScope` from control-panel-roles.ts exactly as the issue's maintainer-dashboard pattern requires, enforces ownership before the refresh side effect, and includes integration tests explicitly proving tenant A cannot read or repair tenant B's installation. All three deliverables (scoped rea

Review context

• Author: milosde111
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, TypeScript, Cuda, HTML, MDX, Python, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 229 PR(s), 4 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 approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.39%. Comparing base (b788945) to head (b39bc25).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8069      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.82%   95.39%   +3.56%     
==========================================
  Files         734        2     -732     
  Lines       75023     2648   -72375     
  Branches    23040      888   -22152     
==========================================
- Hits        68889     2526   -66363     
+ Misses       5034       27    -5007     
+ Partials     1100       95    -1005     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rees	?
shard-1	31.87% <100.00%> (-22.40%)	⬇️
shard-2	44.10% <8.33%> (-8.47%)	⬇️
shard-3	69.67% <8.33%> (+14.56%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	95.22% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
src/auth/rate-limit.ts	99.13% <ø> (ø)

... and 732 files with indirect coverage changes