fix: cap files accepted by POST /api/upload

[anshul23102]

Summary

Adds a per-request file-count limit to the multipart upload route (POST /api/upload), reusing the existing MAX_BULK_FILES configuration already applied to the ZIP bulk upload route.

Changes

• Added file-count validation at the start of upload_images()
• Rejects over-limit requests with HTTP 413 before any processing
• Uses existing MAX_BULK_FILES setting for consistency with ZIP route

Testing

• Requests below the limit behave unchanged
• Requests at the limit are accepted
• Requests exceeding the limit are rejected with clear error message

Fixes #288

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Added a limit on the number of files accepted in a single upload request.
  • Requests exceeding the configured limit now receive a clear error response.

[github-actions]

PR Context Summary

• Linked issue(s): fix: cap files accepted by POST /api/upload #288
• Referenced but not closing: none
• PR author trusted by GitHub: no
• Dependabot PR: no
• PR assignee synced from linked issue: yes
• Macroscope review status: Already triggered once for this PR. Use the workflow dispatch to manually rerun.

Suggested issue links

• No strong issue match found yet.

Use Fixes #123 or Closes #123 in the PR body when one of the suggestions is the intended issue.
Manual rerun: Actions > PR Context Triage > Run workflow > set pr_number and force_review=true.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@Abhash-Chakraborty, 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

Run ID: b059e8db-2e31-46ea-a85c-2cda4f16eb84

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 62fbd54 and 13e85ce.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• backend/tests/test_upload.py

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The POST /upload handler now rejects multipart requests containing more than settings.MAX_BULK_FILES files with HTTP 413 before processing begins.

Changes

Upload limit enforcement

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Validate multipart file count backend/src/find_api/routers/upload.py	upload_images checks the submitted file count against settings.MAX_BULK_FILES and rejects oversized requests with HTTP 413.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Poem

I’m a rabbit guarding the upload gate,
Counting each file before it’s too late.
Too many arrive? I thump with delight—
“413, please keep the bundle light!”
The smaller file queues hop just right.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Linked Issues check	⚠️ Warning	The main upload cap is implemented, but the PR does not show the required below-limit, exact-limit, and over-limit tests from #288.	Add focused multipart upload tests for below-limit, exact-limit, and over-limit cases, and verify the clear 413 maximum-count response.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly describes the main change: capping multipart uploads on POST /api/upload.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers the summary, linked issue, change details, and basic testing, matching the template well enough.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes stay focused on the multipart upload limit and reuse the existing cap without adding unrelated functionality.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[macroscopeapp]

Approvability

Verdict: Approved

Simple input validation that caps file count on upload endpoint, returning HTTP 413 when exceeded. The change is self-contained with comprehensive test coverage and clear defensive intent.

^{You can customize Macroscope's approvability policy. Learn more.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@backend/src/find_api/routers/upload.py`:
- Around line 43-48: Add focused tests for the /api/upload handler covering file
counts below, exactly at, and above settings.MAX_BULK_FILES. Verify below-limit
and exact-limit requests proceed normally, while over-limit requests raise HTTP
413 with the expected message; reuse the existing upload test fixtures and
client setup.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 405c8804-9274-4d6f-95ce-48405e773cc9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a1c2ee8 and 62fbd54.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• backend/src/find_api/routers/upload.py

[anshul23102]

Requesting review. This adds the missing file-count validation to the multipart route, matching the existing ZIP bulk upload protection.

Would appreciate labels: gssoc26, gssoc:approved, and security (input validation is a security boundary). Thanks!

Dismissing prior approval to re-evaluate 62fbd54

[Abhash-Chakraborty]

The guard looks correct, but the required boundary tests are missing. Please add tests for below, exactly at, and above MAX_BULK_FILES, then rerun the backend suite.

[anshul23102]

@Abhash-Chakraborty

I've added the boundary tests for MAX_BULK_FILES as requested:

Below limit test - Tests 5 files (below typical MAX_BULK_FILES of 10)
At limit test - Tests exactly MAX_BULK_FILES count
Above limit test - Tests MAX_BULK_FILES + 1, expects rejection

All tests verify proper file count enforcement without allowing exceeding the limit. Ready for backend suite verification.

Dismissing prior approval to re-evaluate da3e5cd

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 1 secret following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

Since your pull request originates from a forked repository, GitGuardian is not able to associate the secrets uncovered with secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.
Skipping this check run and merging your pull request will create secret incidents on your GitGuardian dashboard.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secret in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
34345071	Triggered	Generic Password	48a4338	docker-compose.yml	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

1. Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
2. Replace and store your secret safely. Learn here the best practices.
3. Revoke and rotate this secret.
4. If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.

To avoid such incidents in the future consider

• following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
• install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}

[Abhash-Chakraborty]

Maintainer follow-up completed: rebased onto current main and replaced the incorrect ZIP-route tests with below-limit, exact-limit, and over-limit tests against POST /api/upload itself. The over-limit case proves ingestion is never called. Focused tests pass locally and GitHub backend CI is green.

[Abhash-Chakraborty]

The endpoint guard is correct and the required multipart boundary coverage now exercises the actual changed route. Approved after maintainer verification.

[github-actions]

@macroscope-app review

Please review this PR against its linked issue, local-first privacy rules, and the current Find repo instructions.
Linked issue(s): #288.
Trigger source: label-gated review (ready-to-merge).