/**
 * Phase 2 adversarial — JWT forgery, brute-force, and password attacks.
 *
 * The JWT secret is in docker-compose.test.yml as a fixed value — these
 * tests do NOT try to forge tokens using that secret (that would only
 * prove HS256 works). Instead they assert the *failure* paths: alg:none,
 * tampered signature, expired sessions, wrong role.
 */
import { test, expect } from '../../fixtures/test';
import { ADMIN_PASSWORD } from '../../fixtures/api-client';

const BASE = process.env.E2E_FRONTEND_URL ?? 'http://localhost:3101';

/** RFC-4648 base64url with no padding. */
function b64u(s: string) {
  return Buffer.from(s).toString('base64').replace(/=+$/, '').replace(/\+/g, '-').replace(/\//g, '_');
}

test.describe('Adversarial — JWT', () => {
  test('alg:none token claiming admin role is rejected', async () => {
    const header = b64u(JSON.stringify({ alg: 'none', typ: 'JWT' }));
    const payload = b64u(JSON.stringify({
      sub: '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000',
      role: 'admin',
      event_id: '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000',
      exp: Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000) + 3600,
    }));
    const token = `${header}.${payload}.`;
    const res = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/admin/config`, {
      headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${token}` },
    });
    expect(res.status).toBe(401);
  });

  test('JWT with valid structure but bogus signature is rejected', async ({ guest }) => {
    const g = await guest('SigForge');
    const parts = g.jwt.split('.');
    // Replace the signature with random bytes of the same length.
    const fakeSig = parts[2].split('').reverse().join('');
    const tampered = `${parts[0]}.${parts[1]}.${fakeSig}`;
    const res = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/me/context`, {
      headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${tampered}` },
    });
    expect(res.status).toBe(401);
  });

  test('JWT with payload-tampered role=admin (re-encoded payload, original signature) is rejected', async ({ guest }) => {
    const g = await guest('RolePromote');
    const parts = g.jwt.split('.');
    const original = JSON.parse(Buffer.from(parts[1], 'base64url').toString());
    const escalated = { ...original, role: 'admin' };
    const newPayload = b64u(JSON.stringify(escalated));
    const tampered = `${parts[0]}.${newPayload}.${parts[2]}`;
    const res = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/admin/config`, {
      headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${tampered}` },
    });
    // Signature won't match the new payload → middleware must return 401, not 403.
    expect(res.status).toBe(401);
  });

  test('JWT for a session that was deleted (logout) is rejected', async ({ guest, api }) => {
    const g = await guest('LoggedOut');
    await api.logout(g.jwt);
    const res = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/me/context`, {
      headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${g.jwt}` },
    });
    expect(res.status).toBe(401);
  });

  test('Authorization header without "Bearer " prefix is rejected', async ({ guest }) => {
    const g = await guest('NoBearer');
    const res = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/me/context`, {
      headers: { Authorization: g.jwt },
    });
    expect([401, 403]).toContain(res.status);
  });

  test('missing Authorization header on protected route returns 401', async () => {
    const res = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/me/context`);
    expect(res.status).toBe(401);
  });
});

test.describe('Adversarial — PIN brute-force', () => {
  test('sequential wrong-PIN attempts lock the account after 3 attempts', async ({ guest }) => {
    const g = await guest('Brute');
    const wrong = g.pin === '0000' ? '1111' : '0000';

    // Do them serially so the failed_pin_attempts counter increments
    // monotonically. Parallel attempts race and may never accumulate to 3 in
    // the current handler implementation — that's a separate finding.
    const statuses: number[] = [];
    for (let i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
      const r = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/recover`, {
        method: 'POST',
        headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
        body: JSON.stringify({ display_name: g.displayName, pin: wrong }),
      });
      statuses.push(r.status);
    }
    // First three are 401, fourth (or later) is 429.
    expect(statuses.filter((s) => s === 200)).toHaveLength(0);
    expect(statuses.some((s) => s === 429)).toBe(true);

    // Now even the correct PIN fails until lockout expires.
    const correct = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/recover`, {
      method: 'POST',
      headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
      body: JSON.stringify({ display_name: g.displayName, pin: g.pin }),
    });
    expect(correct.status).toBe(429);
  });

  test('parallel wrong-PIN attempts still lock the account (counter is not lost to the race)', async ({ guest }) => {
    const g = await guest('BruteParallel');
    const wrong = g.pin === '0000' ? '1111' : '0000';

    const attempts = await Promise.all(
      Array.from({ length: 10 }, () =>
        fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/recover`, {
          method: 'POST',
          headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
          body: JSON.stringify({ display_name: g.displayName, pin: wrong }),
        })
      )
    );
    const statuses = attempts.map((r) => r.status);
    expect(statuses.filter((s) => s === 200), 'a wrong PIN must never authenticate').toHaveLength(0);

    // The in-flight requests all read `pin_locked_until` before any of them wrote it, so
    // *which* of the 10 come back 429 is genuinely racy and can't be asserted. What is NOT
    // racy — and is the property this test exists to guard — is the state left behind:
    // `failed_pin_attempts` is incremented with an atomic `SET x = x + 1 ... RETURNING`, so
    // 10 wrong PINs must push it past the 3-strike threshold and leave the account locked.
    //
    // We prove that with a follow-up request using the CORRECT pin: it must be refused with
    // 429 (locked), not 200. Delete the lockout counter and this line goes 200 → red.
    const correct = await fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/recover`, {
      method: 'POST',
      headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
      body: JSON.stringify({ display_name: g.displayName, pin: g.pin }),
    });
    expect(correct.status, 'after 10 wrong PINs the account must be locked, even for the right PIN').toBe(429);
  });
});

test.describe('Adversarial — admin password brute-force', () => {
  // These tests deliberately exhaust the admin-login limiter for the shared test IP. That creates a
  // chicken-and-egg for the NEXT test: its truncate auto-fixture must itself call admin_login before
  // it can reset the counter — so a still-full window would lock the fixture out with 429 before it
  // could clear anything. Disable the toggle here via patchConfig (which authenticates with a JWT,
  // NOT the rate-limited admin_login path), so the next login is clear; truncate then wipes the map.
  // Runs even if the test body failed, so a failure can't poison the rest of the run.
  test.afterEach(async ({ api, adminToken }) => {
    await api.patchConfig(adminToken, { admin_login_rate_enabled: 'false' });
  });

  const tryLogin = (password: string) =>
    fetch(`${BASE}/api/v1/admin/login`, {
      method: 'POST',
      headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
      body: JSON.stringify({ password }),
    });

  test('admin login is IP rate-limited: a burst of wrong passwords starts returning 429', async ({
    api,
    adminToken,
  }) => {
    // `admin_login` HAS a 5/min/IP throttle (auth/handlers.rs), gated by the master
    // `rate_limits_enabled` + `admin_login_rate_enabled`. Both default TRUE in production — but the
    // e2e reseed turns the master switch OFF for every test, so this defence ran in ZERO tests.
    // (The previous version of this test observed all-401 under that disabled switch and wrongly
    // "documented" that no rate limit exists.) Turn it on and prove it.
    //
    // patchConfig uses the already-minted adminToken (a JWT), so enabling the limiter does not lock
    // us out of configuring it.
    await api.patchConfig(adminToken, {
      rate_limits_enabled: 'true',
      admin_login_rate_enabled: 'true',
    });

    // Sequential, not parallel: the counter increments deterministically so the 429 is not itself
    // subject to the counter race the PIN test covers.
    const statuses: number[] = [];
    for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
      statuses.push((await tryLogin('wrong-' + i)).status);
      if (statuses[i] === 429) break;
    }

    // The password path actually ran (budget existed) before the limiter engaged...
    expect(statuses[0], 'first attempt should be a normal wrong-password 401, not a spurious 429').toBe(401);
    // ...and the limiter DID engage within the window. Delete the throttle and this is never true.
    expect(
      statuses.some((s) => s === 429),
      'a burst of wrong admin passwords from one IP must start being rate-limited (429)'
    ).toBe(true);
    // No wrong password ever authenticated.
    expect(statuses.some((s) => s === 200)).toBe(false);
  });

  test('once throttled, even the CORRECT admin password is refused (it is an IP limit, not a password check)', async ({
    api,
    adminToken,
  }) => {
    // This is the assertion that makes the test non-vacuous: it isolates the RATE LIMIT from the
    // password logic. If the throttle were removed, the correct password would return 200 here.
    await api.patchConfig(adminToken, {
      rate_limits_enabled: 'true',
      admin_login_rate_enabled: 'true',
    });

    // Exhaust the window with wrong passwords until throttled.
    let throttled = false;
    for (let i = 0; i < 10 && !throttled; i++) {
      throttled = (await tryLogin('wrong-' + i)).status === 429;
    }
    expect(throttled, 'the IP should be throttled after a burst').toBe(true);

    // The right password, while throttled, must STILL be refused — the limiter is checked before
    // the bcrypt verify, so a valid credential does not buy a way around a brute-force lockout.
    expect((await tryLogin(ADMIN_PASSWORD)).status, 'a throttled IP is refused even with the correct password').toBe(429);
  });

  test('the throttle is gated: with the limiter disabled, a burst is NOT rate-limited', async ({
    api,
    adminToken,
  }) => {
    // The mirror of the above — proves the toggle actually gates the behaviour (and documents that
    // the e2e default really is "off", which is why every OTHER admin test can hammer login freely).
    await api.patchConfig(adminToken, {
      rate_limits_enabled: 'true',
      admin_login_rate_enabled: 'false',
    });

    const statuses: number[] = [];
    for (let i = 0; i < 8; i++) statuses.push((await tryLogin('wrong-' + i)).status);

    expect(statuses.every((s) => s === 401), 'with admin_login_rate_enabled=false no attempt should be 429').toBe(true);
  });
});