docs: Clarify protectedFields supports system fields and add test

[mtrezza]

Pull Request

• Report security issues confidentially.
• Any contribution is under this license.

Issue

The protectedFields option documentation did not clarify that system fields like createdAt and updatedAt can also be protected. This could lead developers to assume only custom fields are supported.

Approach

• Clarified in the protectedFields option documentation that any field can be protected, including system fields like createdAt and updatedAt.
• Added a test that confirms createdAt and updatedAt are hidden from non-owners when listed in protectedFields.

Tasks

• Add tests
• Add changes to documentation (guides, repository pages, code comments)
• Add security check
• Add new Parse Error codes to Parse JS SDK

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

• Documentation

  • Updated documentation to clarify that any field can be protected through the protectedFields configuration option, including system fields such as createdAt and updatedAt.

• Tests

  • Added test coverage verifying that system fields can be properly protected and excluded from unauthorized access.

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement.

[parseplatformorg]

✅ Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

Status	Scan Engine	Critical	High	Medium	Low	Total (0)
✅	Open Source Security	0	0	0	0	0 issues

💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 4cc951eb-dd02-4f82-9fd9-5d1ba4957a3d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d14374b and 1230695.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• spec/ProtectedFields.spec.js
• src/Options/Definitions.js
• src/Options/docs.js
• src/Options/index.js

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR updates the documentation for the protectedFields option to explicitly clarify that any field, including system fields like createdAt and updatedAt, can be protected. A test case is added to validate this behavior for non-owner access.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test Updates spec/ProtectedFields.spec.js	Added test case reconfiguring protectedFields for _User class to include createdAt and updatedAt, verifying these fields are omitted from non-owner REST responses.
Documentation Updates src/Options/Definitions.js, src/Options/docs.js, src/Options/index.js	Updated help text and JSDoc comments for the protectedFields option to explicitly state that any field, including system fields like createdAt and updatedAt, may be protected.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main changes: documentation clarification of protectedFields supporting system fields, plus a new test case.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers both the issue and approach, with tasks appropriately marked. Tests and documentation changes are completed and checked off.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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 and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.13%. Comparing base (4a65d77) to head (1230695).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on alpha.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            alpha   #10286      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.53%   92.13%   -0.41%     
==========================================
  Files         192      192              
  Lines       16484    16484              
  Branches      227      227              
==========================================
- Hits        15254    15187      -67     
- Misses       1210     1273      +63     
- Partials       20       24       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[parseplatformorg]

🎉 This change has been released in version 9.7.0-alpha.1