Automating GraphQL Authorization Diff Testing: CI-Driven Access Verification
CRUD5th-273-

CRUD5th-273- @crud5th-273-

Joined:
Mar 4, 2025

Automating GraphQL Authorization Diff Testing: CI-Driven Access Verification

Publish Date: Mar 30
0 0

Manual validation of GraphQL access control is tedious, error-prone, and unscalable.

When RBAC rules evolve, it’s easy to introduce permission drift — granting unintended access or revoking legitimate ones.

This article shows how to automate authorization difference testing to ensure only the right roles access the right resources.


1. Problem: RBAC Drift in GraphQL APIs

When field-level or object-level rules change, it’s difficult to answer:

  • “Can a USER still read email?”
  • “Did we accidentally give GUEST access to adminStats?”
  • “Are ADMIN and SUPERADMIN aligned across environments?”

2. Solution Overview

We define:

  • A set of test queries that represent core permissions
  • A matrix of roles & tokens
  • Expected allow / deny outcomes
  • A CI test that verifies these expectations per role

3. Setup: Roles and Test Matrix

Example roles:

const roles = ['GUEST', 'USER', 'ADMIN'];
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Test cases:

const tests = [
  {
    name: 'user can read their own profile',
    query: `{ me { id email } }`,
    role: 'USER',
    expectAccess: true,
  },
  {
    name: 'guest cannot access stats',
    query: `{ adminStats { userCount } }`,
    role: 'GUEST',
    expectAccess: false,
  },
];
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

4. Token Generator

Use pre-signed JWTs or mock tokens per role:

function getTokenForRole(role: string): string {
  return jwt.sign({ role, userId: '123' }, SECRET);
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

5. Execution Logic

Use graphql-request or apollo-client to send queries:

import { request, gql } from 'graphql-request';

async function runTest({ query, role, expectAccess }) {
  const token = getTokenForRole(role);
  try {
    const res = await request({
      url: 'http://localhost:4000/graphql',
      document: gql`${query}`,
      requestHeaders: { authorization: `Bearer ${token}` }
    });
    if (!expectAccess) throw new Error('Expected denial but got data');
  } catch (err) {
    if (expectAccess) throw new Error('Expected data but got denied');
  }
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

6. CI Integration

Run tests via jest, vitest, or plain node script:

node test-permissions.js
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Add to GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, or any CI/CD runner to verify RBAC on every push.


7. Bonus: Diff Snapshot Testing

Store expected output snapshots per role using jest-snapshot:

expect(response).toMatchSnapshot(`${role}-${queryName}`);
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Detect subtle API shape drifts, even across environments.


Final Thoughts

Authorization is dynamic. Regression is silent.

With RBAC diff testing in place, you get early warning before a misconfigured permission becomes an incident.

Next:

  • Visual matrix reports (role × query coverage)
  • Field-level permission map generators
  • Integration with Hasura metadata or Apollo schema diff tools

Declare the rules. Prove the intent. Automate the boundary.

Comments 0 total

    Add comment