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

@coderabbitai review

@coderabbitai full review

Rebased on feat/multicloud-web-frontend. Resolved a conflict in internal/auth/service_test.go:

• The base since-merged the group-permission model (Revamp authorization: group-membership-only (remove roles), require >=1 group per user #907/feat(auth): group-membership-only authorization, remove roles, require >=1 group (closes #907) #912/feat(auth): /api/auth/me/permissions endpoint + wire frontend canAccess (lift non-admin UI lockout) #917), which removed the User.Role field. The PR's TestLogin_WithMFA_NoSecret setup had carried a now-removed Role: RoleUser literal; dropped it. The security assertions (both the correct-password-no-secret and wrong-password paths must return the identical generic message) are kept intact.
• internal/auth/service.go and internal/api/handler_auth.go auto-merged cleanly: the leak removal (log internally, return generic message) and the dead "MFA is enabled but not configured" substring drop from mapMFAServiceError both sit alongside the sibling auth PRs' additions (sec(auth): stop leaking MFA enrollment via login error responses (closes #388) #886/sec(auth): unify login error response for unknown vs wrong-password (closes #416) #887/refactor(auth/mfa): use sentinel errors in mapMFAServiceError #883), with both protections preserved.

Verified post-rebase: gofmt clean, go vet clean, go build ok, and go test ./internal/auth/... ./internal/api/... -> 1909 passed.

@coderabbitai review

@cristim Thanks for the detailed rebase notes — the Role: RoleUser drop aligns cleanly with the group-permission model merge, and the security invariant (identical generic response for both failure paths) looks preserved. Triggering an incremental review on the rebased branch now.

Learnt from: cristim
Repo: LeanerCloud/CUDly PR: 0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2026-05-05T15:44:54.463Z
Learning: In the LeanerCloud/CUDly repository, when a CodeRabbit review flags something as "outside-diff" that was already implemented in an earlier commit of the same PR, it is likely a stale-snapshot artifact where the review diff was generated against a pre-fix view. The inline comment convention `(CR pass on PR #<number> Finding N)` is used by the maintainer (cristim) to mark lines that were changed in direct response to a prior CodeRabbit review pass.