feat: add vault_name_validation_bypass variable to relax validation

[lgallard]

This PR addresses issue #292 by adding a bypass mechanism for vault name validation.

Changes

• Added vault_name_validation_bypass variable to allow disabling word-based validation
• Modified vault_name validation logic to respect the bypass flag
• Maintains all format validation requirements
• Defaults to false for backward compatibility

Benefits

• Allows users with existing vaults containing restricted words to upgrade
• Preserves security best practices by requiring explicit opt-out
• No breaking changes for existing users

Fixes #292

Generated with Claude Code

[lgallard]

@claude hunt

[claude]

Claude finished @lgallard's task —— View job

---

Code Review: Vault Name Validation Bypass

I've completed my analysis of the vault name validation bypass implementation. Here's my comprehensive review:

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the changed variables.tf file
• Review the validation logic implementation
• Check for security implications and backward compatibility
• Provide comprehensive code review feedback

✅ Positive Aspects

1. Clean Implementation: The bypass mechanism is well-implemented using a conditional check in the validation logic at variables.tf:12
2. Backward Compatibility: Defaults to false maintaining existing behavior for all current users
3. Selective Bypass: Only disables word validation while preserving format validation (character set and length requirements)
4. Clear Documentation: Variable description clearly explains the purpose and scope of the bypass
5. Security-Conscious: Requires explicit opt-in rather than opt-out approach

🔍 Technical Analysis

Validation Logic (variables.tf:10-15):

condition = var.vault_name == null ? true : (
  can(regex("^[0-9A-Za-z-_]{2,50}$", var.vault_name)) &&
  (var.vault_name_validation_bypass || !can(regex("(?i)(test|temp|delete|remove|default)", var.vault_name)))
)

The logic correctly:

• Maintains format validation (2-50 chars, alphanumeric + hyphens/underscores)
• Only bypasses the word pattern check when vault_name_validation_bypass = true
• Uses case-insensitive matching for restricted words

Error Message (variables.tf:14):
Provides clear guidance on both requirements and how to bypass the restriction.

🛡️ Security Considerations

Good Security Practices:

• ✅ Explicit opt-in required (defaults to false)
• ✅ Format validation remains enforced
• ✅ Clear documentation about security implications
• ✅ Error message guides users appropriately

Potential Security Notes:

• The bypassed words (test, temp, delete, remove, default) were likely restricted to prevent accidental data loss in production environments
• Users enabling bypass should understand they're taking responsibility for vault naming conventions

📋 Code Quality

Strengths:

• Variable naming follows module conventions
• Type definitions are correct (bool with appropriate default)
• Validation placement is logical and consistent with other variables
• Comments are clear and informative

🎯 Addresses Issue Requirements

Based on the PR description addressing issue #292:

• ✅ Allows users with existing vaults containing restricted words to upgrade
• ✅ Preserves security best practices by requiring explicit opt-out
• ✅ No breaking changes for existing users
• ✅ Maintains all format validation requirements

📝 Minor Suggestions

1. Consider Documentation: While not required for this PR, consider adding this to the module's README.md in a future update to help users understand the security implications

2. Variable Grouping: The new variable is well-placed near the vault_name variable it modifies

✅ Final Assessment

This is a well-implemented solution that:

• Solves the upgrade path problem for existing users
• Maintains security best practices
• Follows Terraform and module conventions
• Has no negative impact on existing functionality

Recommendation: ✅ Approve - This implementation effectively addresses the stated issue while maintaining security posture and backward compatibility.

---

[lgallard]

@codebot hunt

[claude]

Claude finished @lgallard's task —— View job

---

🕵️ BUG HUNT COMPLETE

Bug Hunt Checklist:

• Read and analyze the changed variables.tf file
• Review validation logic for critical bugs and security issues
• Check for edge cases and potential logic flaws
• Provide focused feedback on high-impact issues

---

🔍 Critical Analysis Results

SECURITY ISSUE FOUND ⚠️

Location: variables.tf:12 - Validation logic has a critical operator precedence bug

🐛 BUG: Incorrect Boolean Logic

The current validation condition:

(var.vault_name_validation_bypass || !can(regex("(?i)(test|temp|delete|remove|default)", var.vault_name)))

Problem: Due to operator precedence, this evaluates as:

(bypass_flag OR NOT(word_match))

Impact: When bypass = false AND vault name contains restricted words, the validation incorrectly passes instead of failing.

Example Bug Scenario:

• vault_name = "test-vault"
• vault_name_validation_bypass = false
• Expected: ❌ FAIL (should reject restricted word)
• Actual: ✅ PASS (incorrectly allows it)

🔧 Fix Required

Current (Buggy):

(var.vault_name_validation_bypass || !can(regex("(?i)(test|temp|delete|remove|default)", var.vault_name)))

Should be:

(var.vault_name_validation_bypass || !can(regex("(?i)(test|temp|delete|remove|default)", var.vault_name)))

Wait - let me re-analyze this logic more carefully...

Actually, the logic is CORRECT:

• If bypass = true → condition passes (intended behavior)
• If bypass = false → depends on !can(regex(...))
  • If word match found → can(regex(...)) = true → !can(regex(...)) = false → condition fails ✅
  • If no word match → can(regex(...)) = false → !can(regex(...)) = true → condition passes ✅

✅ CORRECTED ANALYSIS - NO CRITICAL BUGS FOUND

After careful re-analysis, the validation logic is correct. The boolean expression properly implements:

• Allow if bypass is enabled OR no restricted words found
• Reject if bypass is disabled AND restricted words found

🔍 Security Assessment

Positive Security Aspects:

• ✅ Explicit opt-in bypass (defaults to false)
• ✅ Format validation always enforced
• ✅ Clear error messaging guides users
• ✅ Only disables word validation, not format validation

No Critical Issues Found ✅

📋 Minor Observations

1. Consistency: Similar validation pattern used elsewhere (e.g., variables.tf:774)
2. Documentation: Clear variable description explains scope
3. Backward Compatibility: Maintains existing behavior

🎯 Final Assessment

No critical bugs, security vulnerabilities, or performance issues detected.

The implementation correctly addresses the stated issue while maintaining security posture.

---

[lgallard]

@claude check the above comments

[claude]

Claude finished @lgallard's task —— View job

---

Comment Analysis Review

Todo List:

• Read and analyze the actual code changes in variables.tf
• Review the validation logic implementation
• Assess accuracy of previous Claude comments
• Provide comprehensive analysis of the comments' correctness

---

🔍 Analysis of Previous Claude Comments

I've thoroughly analyzed both the code and the previous Claude comments. Here's my assessment:

Code Review Comment ✅ ACCURATE

The first Claude comment provided a comprehensive and accurate code review:

• Correctly identified the implementation as clean and well-thought-out
• Properly noted backward compatibility and security considerations
• Accurately described the validation logic behavior
• Provided appropriate security assessment

Bug Hunt Comment ⚠️ INITIALLY INCORRECT, THEN SELF-CORRECTED

The second comment had a significant analysis error:

The Problem: Initially claimed there was a "critical operator precedence bug" but this was incorrect. The validation logic is actually working correctly.

The Correction: The comment did self-correct, recognizing the logic was actually correct, but the initial "critical bug" claim was misleading.

🧮 Validation Logic Analysis

Let me trace through the actual logic at variables.tf:12:

(var.vault_name_validation_bypass || !can(regex("(?i)(test|temp|delete|remove|default)", var.vault_name)))

Test Cases:

1. vault_name = "test-vault", bypass = false:

   • Word match found → can(regex(...)) = true
   • !can(regex(...)) = false
   • false || false = false → FAILS ✅ (correct behavior)

2. vault_name = "test-vault", bypass = true:

   • true || (anything) = true → PASSES ✅ (correct behavior)

3. vault_name = "valid-name", bypass = false:

   • No word match → can(regex(...)) = false
   • !can(regex(...)) = true
   • false || true = true → PASSES ✅ (correct behavior)

✅ Verification Result

The validation logic is completely correct. The boolean expression properly implements:

• Allow if bypass is enabled OR no restricted words found
• Reject if bypass is disabled AND restricted words are present

📋 Summary

1. First Comment (Code Review): ✅ Accurate and comprehensive
2. Second Comment (Bug Hunt): ❌ Initially incorrect (false alarm), ✅ but self-corrected
3. Actual Code: ✅ Works correctly, no bugs present

Recommendation: Trust the first code review comment - it was accurate. The "bug hunt" created unnecessary confusion with its initial false alarm, despite eventually correcting itself.

---