🛡️ Sentinel: [MEDIUM] Add control character validation to Pydantic models

[seonghobae]

🚨 Severity: MEDIUM
💡 Vulnerability: Several Pydantic string fields were missing explicit validation against control characters.
🎯 Impact: Without validation, malicious payloads could include C0 control characters (like \x00 or \n), which could lead to log injection, unexpected application behavior when parsing JSON, or potential null byte injection issues downstream.
🔧 Fix: Added pattern=r"^[^\x00-\x1F\x7F]+$" to the missing models in schemas.py (DiagramViewCreateIn.name, TableAnnotationUpsertIn.schema_name, TableAnnotationUpsertIn.relation_name, ApiKeyCreateIn.key_name). Added test coverage for these fields in test_schema_validation.py.
✅ Verification: Verified by running cd backend && uv run pytest tests/test_schema_validation.py.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 16767742889978452462 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 40 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: abdce20e-38f1-4709-a3dd-1b3944db0d37

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 72afe6d and 745b9ff.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• backend/uv.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .jules/sentinel.md
• backend/app/schemas.py
• backend/tests/test_schema_validation.py

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[seonghobae]

Closing as a lower-assurance duplicate of #699.

Both PRs harden the same four fields against C0/DEL control characters, but #699 is the maintained bounded implementation and includes materially stronger regression evidence: every control character at beginning/middle/end, accepted internationalized values, and preservation of the intentionally multiline annotation body. This PR tests only NUL/newline examples, adds a bot journal instead of authoritative doctoring, and carries an unrelated 2,600+ line backend/uv.lock drift despite no declared dependency change.

Merging both would create duplicate/conflicting history and could silently replace the reviewed hash-locked environment. Continue review and exact-head validation on #699 only; no check or approval from this branch transfers.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as a lower-assurance duplicate of #699.

Both PRs harden the same four fields against C0/DEL control characters, but #699 is the maintained bounded implementation and includes materially stronger regression evidence: every control character at beginning/middle/end, accepted internationalized values, and preservation of the intentionally multiline annotation body. This PR tests only NUL/newline examples, adds a bot journal instead of authoritative doctoring, and carries an unrelated 2,600+ line backend/uv.lock drift despite no declared dependency change.

Merging both would create duplicate/conflicting history and could silently replace the reviewed hash-locked environment. Continue review and exact-head validation on #699 only; no check or approval from this branch transfers.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task.