fix(data-api): cap direct chain analytics limits

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent unauthenticated callers from bypassing the main Worker’s 1..100 page-size cap and binding huge limit values into Postgres LIMIT clauses, which can amplify DB work and cause availability/cost issues.
• Ensure the Postgres-serving Data Worker remains service-binding-only and not accidentally reachable via workers.dev preview URLs.

Description

• Clamp chain-wide analytics limit values in the data Worker by updating chainLimit to call clampRequestLimit(..., { defaultLimit, maxLimit: 100 }) so SQL LIMIT parameters are bounded at 100 in workers/data-api.mjs.
• Disable public preview and workers.dev exposure for the data Worker by adding `

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	metagraphed-data-api	047200b	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Jul 11 2026, 03:11 PM

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.85%. Comparing base (cc0db0e) to head (047200b).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4900      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.85%   97.85%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         162      162              
  Lines       19746    19745       -1     
  Branches     7419     7418       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        19323    19322       -1     
  Misses         59       59              
  Partials      364      364              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
workers/data-api.mjs	99.76% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[gittensory-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ Gittensory review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-11 17:10:33 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI green · dirty

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Review summary
This PR hardens the Postgres-serving data Worker so it fails safe if ever reached directly: chainLimit now routes through clampRequestLimit(..., {defaultLimit, maxLimit: 100}) instead of doing a bare Number(raw) cast, closing the path where an unbounded ?limit= value would bind straight into a SQL LIMIT clause, and wrangler.data.jsonc disables workers_dev/preview_urls so the Worker isn't reachable outside the service binding. Two new tests confirm limit=1000000000 is clamped to 100 in the emitted SQL parameters for both /chain/transfers and /chain/transfer-pairs. The change is narrowly scoped, the security rationale (defense-in-depth against a bypassed page-size cap) is sound, and CI is green.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• chainLimit's call site isn't shown in the diff, so it's worth double-checking every call to chainLimit() still passes only (url, defaultLimit) and that clampRequestLimit is already imported/defined elsewhere in workers/data-api.mjs — the diff itself doesn't show that import.
• The old comment explained why chainLimit could skip re-validation (D1-side parseLimitParam already validated); the new comment is good but doesn't mention what happens on invalid/non-numeric limit input (e.g. NaN) — worth confirming clampRequestLimit's own docstring/behavior covers that, since it's not visible in this diff.
• Consider adding a regression test for a negative or non-numeric ?limit= value (e.g. limit=-5 or limit=abc) hitting chainLimit directly, to confirm clampRequestLimit's fallback-to-defaultLimit behavior is exercised, not just the upper-bound clamp.
• The wrangler.data.jsonc comment could reference the specific issue/threat (service-binding-only) so future editors understand why workers_dev/preview_urls must stay false.
• tests/data-api.test.mjs:4424 and tests/data-api.test.mjs:4495 only cover oversized limits; add one direct-worker regression for `limit=0` or a malformed value if `clampRequestLimit` is meant to preserve the full public `1..100` behavior here.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	⚠️ 12/25	Preflight needs author follow-up before maintainer review.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 45 registered-repo PR(s), 37 merged, 414 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 45 PR(s), 414 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 45 PR(s), 414 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Address findings or add validation evidence.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review