feat: add message when JWT secret is less than 32 characters long

[laurenceisla]

Closes #3607 and addresses part of #1840.

[laurenceisla]

IO tests are failing in "no-default config" tests:

postgrest/test/io/configs/no-defaults.config

Lines 24 to 25 in 40ed349

	jwt-secret = "c2VjdXJpdHl0aHJvdWdob2JzY3VyaXR5"
	jwt-secret-is-base64 = true

This is because, while the base64 encoded jwt-secret is at least 32 chars, once it's decoded it has less than 32 characters. If I'm not mistaken, this is how it worked before, but now we're failing before starting PostgREST.

Also, could this be considered a breaking change or just a feature/fix? PostgREST will fail and won't run or reload the config (if it's already running) when the secret has less than 32 characters. I think this is better because it's mostly an admin issue with the config, not for the end user.

[laurenceisla]

This is related to #3629. When setting, for example, set_config('pgrst.jwt_secret', 'small-secret', true);, then it will happen what's mentioned in that issue.

[wolfgangwalther]

This is because, while the base64 encoded jwt-secret is at least 32 chars, once it's decoded it has less than 32 characters. If I'm not mistaken, this is how it worked before, but now we're failing before starting PostgREST.

I don't think so, the limit was enforced after decoding.

Also, could this be considered a breaking change or just a feature/fix? PostgREST will fail and won't run or reload the config (if it's already running) when the secret has less than 32 characters. I think this is better because it's mostly an admin issue with the config, not for the end user.

I'd say it's a feature/change, not a fix. PostgREST was able to serve anonymous requests with a short secret, so that technically takes some use-cases away, I'd say. It might even be a breaking change, but that's not really important at this stage, because we have merged a few things already which will require a major version bump anyway.

[laurenceisla]

the limit was enforced after decoding.

Ah I worded it wrongly, that's what I meant to say.

It might even be a breaking change, but that's not really important at this stage, because we have merged a few things already which will require a major version bump anyway.

👍

[laurenceisla]

This handles what's mentioned here #3628 (comment). According to this conversation: #3634 (comment)