fix(miner): reject path-traversal repo segments in 4 remaining normalizeRepoFullName parsers

[lourincedaging0-commits]

Summary

normalizeRepoFullName in contribution-profile-cache.ts, prediction-ledger.ts, replay-snapshot.ts and run-state.ts only validated "exactly one slash, both halves non-empty" — so a ./../control-char owner or repo segment (owner/.., ../repo, a tab/newline inside a segment) passed through and was persisted as a SQLite key and echoed back through the sibling CLIs.

#5831 and #7525 already extended isValidRepoSegment (from repo-clone.ts) to the other ten normalizeRepoFullName siblings for exactly this "persisted into SQLite" reason; these four were never touched.

Changes

• Import and call isValidRepoSegment on both owner and repo in all four parsers, matching the exact call shape used by the already-fixed siblings (claim-ledger.ts, governor-state.ts, portfolio-queue.ts, worktree-allocator.ts). No new validation mechanism.
• Per-store regression test covering a ./../control-char segment, mirroring miner-claim-ledger.test.ts's existing ../etc assertion.

Verification

All four affected test suites pass locally (81 tests), including the new path-traversal assertions.

Closes #7795

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-22 17:24:03 UTC}

8 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · unknown

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This PR closes out issue #7795 by applying the same `isValidRepoSegment` guard (from `repo-clone.ts`) to the four remaining `normalizeRepoFullName` parsers that #5831/#7525 missed, matching the exact call shape used in the ten already-fixed siblings. Each parser gets one line added right after the existing slash/empty-segment check, and each has a corresponding regression test asserting `.`/`..`/control-char segments now throw `invalid_repo_full_name`. The change is narrow, mechanical, and consistent across all four files with no behavioral surprises — the fix is correctly placed at the same normalization layer as its siblings.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The `replay-snapshot.ts` file already has its own `normalizeCommitSha` traversal guard for commit SHAs (per its inline comments referencing replay-snapshot.ts's normalizeCommitSha has no format validation, letting a crafted value escape the intended snapshot directory via path.join #7796) — worth confirming in review that this owner/repo guard doesn't overlap/conflict with that existing SHA-specific validation, though from the diff they guard different fields so this is just a note, not an issue.
• Each of the four files repeats the identical `if (!isValidRepoSegment(owner) || !isValidRepoSegment(repo)) throw new Error("invalid_repo_full_name");` line — consistent with the ten existing siblings' pattern per the description, so no action needed, but a shared helper (e.g. `normalizeOwnerRepoSegments`) could reduce this duplication across all 14 call sites if a future PR wants to unify it.
• Consider, in a follow-up, extracting the common `[owner, repo, extra] = ...split("/")` + `isValidRepoSegment` checks used across all 14 `normalizeRepoFullName` implementations into one shared utility to eliminate the copy-pasted validation logic, per DRY, though this PR correctly scopes itself to matching the existing per-file pattern rather than a refactor.
• Pull request duplicates other open work — Check for an existing pull request or issue covering this change and coordinate or consolidate before continuing.
• Readiness score is below the configured threshold — Use the readiness panel as advisory maintainer context; the score does not block this PR.

Why this is blocked

• Linked issue overlaps another open PR: Other open pull requests reference the same linked issue set: fix(miner): guard repo segments in 4 more normalizeRepoFullName parsers #7999. — Review the related PRs before spending reviewer time on duplicate work.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. Linked issue overlaps another open PR: Other open pull requests reference the same linked issue set: #7999. — Review the related PRs before spending reviewer time on duplicate work.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7795
Related work	⚠️ Same linked issue: #7999	Another open PR references the same linked issue.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High 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: 81 registered-repo PR(s), 33 merged, 5 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	lourincedaging0-commits; Gittensor profile; 81 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: low · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
All four target files (contribution-profile-cache.ts, prediction-ledger.ts, replay-snapshot.ts, run-state.ts) now import and call isValidRepoSegment on both owner and repo, matching the exact pattern used by the ten already-fixed siblings, and each has a corresponding regression test asserting rejection of '..'/'.'/control-char segments.

Review context

• Author: lourincedaging0-commits
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: HTML
• Official Gittensor activity: 81 PR(s), 5 issue(s).
• Related work: Items reference the same linked issue 4 sibling normalizeRepoFullName parsers still skip the path-safety guard #5831/#7525 already added to every other sibling #7795. (PR #7999)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Compare fix(miner): guard repo segments in 4 more normalizeRepoFullName parsers #7999.
• Then work through the remaining 3 steps in the Signals table above.

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 (Linked issue overlaps another open PR; duplicate of open PR #7999). 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 25.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 38.18%. Comparing base (8329069) to head (ee2e29d).
⚠️ Report is 20 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...s/loopover-miner/lib/contribution-profile-cache.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
packages/loopover-miner/lib/prediction-ledger.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
packages/loopover-miner/lib/run-state.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (25.00%) 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    #8058       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   91.93%   38.18%   -53.76%     
===========================================
  Files         742        4      -738     
  Lines       76035      275    -75760     
  Branches    23079       59    -23020     
===========================================
- Hits        69904      105    -69799     
+ Misses       5037      170     -4867     
+ Partials     1094        0     -1094     

Flag	Coverage Δ
control-plane	?
rees	?
shard-1	38.18% <25.00%> (-20.91%)	⬇️
shard-2	0.00% <0.00%> (-48.44%)	⬇️
shard-3	0.00% <0.00%> (-54.59%)	⬇️

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	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...s/loopover-miner/lib/contribution-profile-cache.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
packages/loopover-miner/lib/prediction-ledger.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (-80.60%)	⬇️
packages/loopover-miner/lib/run-state.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️

... and 738 files with indirect coverage changes