[Components] aitable_ai #13865 #14426
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 3 Skipped Deployments
|
|
Important Review skippedReview was skipped due to path filters ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several new modules and functionalities to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
| app, | ||
| "name", | ||
| ], | ||
| description: "Name of the Field", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| description: "Name of the Field", | |
| description: "Name of the field", | |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
components/aitable_ai/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs (1)
9-30: Consider enhancing props documentation and validation.While the props are correctly defined, consider adding:
- Descriptions for
spaceIdandtypeprops to improve developer experience- Required field validation to ensure all necessary data is provided
Apply this diff to enhance the props:
spaceId: { propDefinition: [ app, "spaceId", ], + description: "ID of the space containing the datasheet", + required: true, }, type: { propDefinition: [ app, "type", ], + description: "Type of the field to create", + required: true, }, name: { propDefinition: [ app, "name", ], description: "Name of the Field", + required: true, },components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjs (2)
65-80: Verify error handling in_makeRequestmethodThe
_makeRequestmethod constructs and sends API requests but lacks explicit error handling. Consider adding try-catch blocks to handle potential errors gracefully and provide meaningful feedback.Apply this diff to incorporate error handling:
async _makeRequest(opts = {}) { + try { const { $ = this, path, headers, ...otherOpts } = opts; return await axios($, { ...otherOpts, url: this._baseUrl() + path, headers: { ...headers, Authorization: `Bearer ${this.$auth.api_token}`, }, }); + } catch (error) { + console.error("API request failed:", error); + throw error; + } },
48-53: Clarify the instructions infolderIddescriptionThe
folderIddescription is helpful but could be simplified for clarity.Consider rephrasing the description:
description: "The Folder ID is found in the URL when viewing the folder on the Workbench page. For example, if the URL is `https://aitable.ai/workbench/123456`, then the `Folder ID` is `123456`.",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- components/aitable_ai/actions/create-datasheet/create-datasheet.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/aitable_ai/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/aitable_ai/actions/delete-field/delete-field.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/aitable_ai/common/constants.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/aitable_ai/package.json (2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- components/aitable_ai/common/constants.mjs
🔇 Additional comments (12)
components/aitable_ai/package.json (2)
15-17: LGTM! Dependency configuration is appropriate.The addition of
@pipedream/platformas a dependency with the caret version constraint (^3.0.3) is correct. This allows for compatible minor version updates while ensuring stability.
3-3: Verify version bump aligns with changesThe version bump from 0.0.1 to 0.1.0 indicates new features. Let's verify this aligns with the scope of changes.
✅ Verification successful
Version bump is appropriate
The version bump from 0.0.1 to 0.1.0 is justified based on the evidence:
- Added 3 new actions: create-datasheet, create-field, and delete-field
- No breaking changes found in the codebase
- Added dependency on @pipedream/platform which is a standard practice
- Changes follow semantic versioning principles where new features warrant a minor version bump
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the extent of changes to determine if version bump is appropriate # Look for new files/actions added in this component echo "New files added:" fd . components/aitable_ai -t f --changed-within 1week # Look for breaking changes in existing files echo -e "\nPotential breaking changes:" rg -i "breaking|deprecated|removed" components/aitable_aiLength of output: 537
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's examine the content of new files to understand the scope of changes # Check the contents of new action files echo "=== New Actions Content ===" cat components/aitable_ai/actions/create-datasheet/create-datasheet.mjs echo -e "\n=== Create Field Action ===" cat components/aitable_ai/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs echo -e "\n=== Delete Field Action ===" cat components/aitable_ai/actions/delete-field/delete-field.mjs # Check if there was a previous version echo -e "\n=== Git History of package.json ===" git log -p components/aitable_ai/package.jsonLength of output: 5355
components/aitable_ai/actions/delete-field/delete-field.mjs (2)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured action configuration.The action metadata is properly defined with a clear description that includes API documentation reference.
26-30: Verify the deleteField method implementation in the app module.Let's ensure the app module properly implements the deleteField method with correct parameters.
✅ Verification successful
Method implementation matches the usage correctly
The
deleteFieldmethod in the app module is properly implemented and matches the usage in the action file. The method:
- Accepts the required parameters:
spaceId,fieldId- Makes a DELETE request to the correct API endpoint
- Handles additional arguments through rest parameters
- Uses the authenticated datasheet ID from
$auth🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the implementation of deleteField method in the app module # Search for the deleteField method implementation ast-grep --pattern 'deleteField({ $, spaceId, fieldId }) { $$$ }' # Look for any usage examples or tests rg -l "deleteField" components/aitable_ai/Length of output: 213
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the implementation in the app file rg -A 10 "deleteField" components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjsLength of output: 379
components/aitable_ai/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs (2)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured action configuration.The basic configuration is well-defined with proper naming, versioning, and documentation link.
33-40: Verify field type validation and API usage.Let's verify the implementation of field type validation and consistent API usage across the codebase.
components/aitable_ai/actions/create-datasheet/create-datasheet.mjs (3)
1-2: LGTM! Clean import structure.The import follows best practices with a clear relative path to the app module.
9-35: Verify input validation in app propDefinitions.The props are well-structured, but we should ensure proper input validation exists in the app's propDefinitions for these fields:
- spaceId: Should validate space existence
- name: May need length/character restrictions
- folderId: Should validate folder existence
✅ Verification successful
Input validation is appropriately implemented in propDefinitions
The app's propDefinitions include proper validation and constraints for all fields:
spaceId: Validates through async options that fetch and verify valid space IDs from the APIname: Defined as required string with appropriate label and descriptiondescription: Defined as required string with appropriate label and descriptionfolderId: Properly marked as optional, includes clear description with format exampleThe implementation provides sufficient validation through type checking and API-backed options where needed. No additional validation rules are necessary.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check propDefinitions in app module for input validation # Expect: Validation rules for each prop echo "Checking propDefinitions in app module:" rg -A 10 'propDefinitions.*(?:spaceId|name|description|folderId)' components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjsLength of output: 197
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a different approach to find propDefinitions # First, let's check if the file exists and see its content echo "Checking app.mjs content:" cat components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjs # As backup, let's also search for prop-related patterns without regex echo -e "\nSearching for prop patterns:" rg "propDefinitions" components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjs rg "spaceId" components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjs rg "folderId" components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjsLength of output: 3743
3-8: Verify version number alignment.The version "0.0.1" suggests this is an initial implementation. Please ensure this version number aligns with your versioning strategy and other aitable_ai components.
✅ Verification successful
Version number is consistent across components
The version "0.0.1" is correctly aligned with other aitable_ai actions. All actions in the component (create-datasheet, create-field, and delete-field) consistently use version "0.0.1", indicating this is indeed part of the initial implementation of the aitable_ai integration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check versions of other aitable_ai components for consistency # Expect: Similar version numbers or a deliberate versioning pattern echo "Checking other component versions:" rg '"version":\s*"[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+"' components/aitable_ai/Length of output: 197
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a different approach to find version information # First, let's check all files in the aitable_ai component echo "Searching for version fields in aitable_ai components:" rg -g '*.{mjs,js}' 'version["\']:\s*["\'][0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+' components/aitable_ai/ # Also check for any package.json in the component directory echo -e "\nChecking package.json if exists:" find components/aitable_ai -name "package.json" -exec cat {} \;Length of output: 212
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try one more time with simpler commands echo "Searching for version fields in all files:" rg "version.*0\.0\." components/aitable_ai/ echo -e "\nListing all files in aitable_ai component to understand structure:" find components/aitable_ai -type f -name "*.mjs"Length of output: 863
components/aitable_ai/aitable_ai.app.mjs (3)
8-22:spaceIdpropDefinition is well-definedThe
spaceIdproperty and its asynchronousoptionsmethod are correctly implemented to fetch and display space IDs and names.
62-64: Base URL method_baseUrlis correctThe
_baseUrlmethod properly returns the base API URL.
38-47: Propertiesnameanddescriptionare properly definedThe
nameanddescriptionproperties are correctly specified with appropriate labels and descriptions.
| props: { | ||
| app, | ||
| spaceId: { | ||
| propDefinition: [ | ||
| app, | ||
| "spaceId", | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| fieldId: { | ||
| propDefinition: [ | ||
| app, | ||
| "fieldId", | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding input validation for spaceId and fieldId.
While the props are correctly defined, adding validation rules (e.g., format checks, required flags) could improve error handling and user experience.
Consider enhancing the props with validation:
spaceId: {
propDefinition: [
app,
"spaceId",
],
+ description: "The ID of the space containing the field to delete",
+ optional: false,
},
fieldId: {
propDefinition: [
app,
"fieldId",
],
+ description: "The ID of the field to delete",
+ optional: false,
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| props: { | |
| app, | |
| spaceId: { | |
| propDefinition: [ | |
| app, | |
| "spaceId", | |
| ], | |
| }, | |
| fieldId: { | |
| propDefinition: [ | |
| app, | |
| "fieldId", | |
| ], | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| props: { | |
| app, | |
| spaceId: { | |
| propDefinition: [ | |
| app, | |
| "spaceId", | |
| ], | |
| description: "The ID of the space containing the field to delete", | |
| optional: false, | |
| }, | |
| fieldId: { | |
| propDefinition: [ | |
| app, | |
| "fieldId", | |
| ], | |
| description: "The ID of the field to delete", | |
| optional: false, | |
| }, | |
| }, |
| async run({ $ }) { | ||
| const response = await this.app.deleteField({ | ||
| $, | ||
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | ||
| fieldId: this.fieldId, | ||
| }); | ||
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully deleted the field with ID '${this.fieldId}'`); | ||
| return response; | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling and user confirmation for field deletion.
The current implementation could benefit from:
- Try-catch block for API error handling
- Response validation
- Warning about the irreversible nature of deletion
Consider implementing these improvements:
async run({ $ }) {
+ const confirmMessage = "Are you sure you want to delete this field? This action cannot be undone.";
+ if (!await $.confirm(confirmMessage)) {
+ throw new Error("User cancelled the operation");
+ }
+
+ try {
const response = await this.app.deleteField({
$,
spaceId: this.spaceId,
fieldId: this.fieldId,
});
+
+ if (!response || response.error) {
+ throw new Error(response?.error?.message || "Failed to delete field");
+ }
+
$.export("$summary", `Successfully deleted the field with ID '${this.fieldId}'`);
return response;
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to delete field: ${error.message}`);
+ }
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| async run({ $ }) { | |
| const response = await this.app.deleteField({ | |
| $, | |
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | |
| fieldId: this.fieldId, | |
| }); | |
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully deleted the field with ID '${this.fieldId}'`); | |
| return response; | |
| }, | |
| async run({ $ }) { | |
| const confirmMessage = "Are you sure you want to delete this field? This action cannot be undone."; | |
| if (!await $.confirm(confirmMessage)) { | |
| throw new Error("User cancelled the operation"); | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| const response = await this.app.deleteField({ | |
| $, | |
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | |
| fieldId: this.fieldId, | |
| }); | |
| if (!response || response.error) { | |
| throw new Error(response?.error?.message || "Failed to delete field"); | |
| } | |
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully deleted the field with ID '${this.fieldId}'`); | |
| return response; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to delete field: ${error.message}`); | |
| } | |
| }, |
| async run({ $ }) { | ||
| const response = await this.app.createField({ | ||
| $, | ||
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | ||
| data: { | ||
| type: this.type, | ||
| name: this.name, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully sent request to create field. Result: '${response.message}'`); | ||
| return response; | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling and input validation.
The current implementation could be more robust with:
- Try-catch block for API error handling
- Input validation before the API call
- Safe access to response message
Apply this diff to improve error handling and validation:
async run({ $ }) {
+ // Validate inputs
+ if (!this.name.trim()) {
+ throw new Error("Field name cannot be empty");
+ }
+
+ try {
const response = await this.app.createField({
$,
spaceId: this.spaceId,
data: {
type: this.type,
name: this.name,
},
});
- $.export("$summary", `Successfully sent request to create field. Result: '${response.message}'`);
+ $.export("$summary", `Successfully created field "${this.name}" of type "${this.type}". ${response?.message || ''}`);
return response;
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to create field: ${error.message}`);
+ }
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| async run({ $ }) { | |
| const response = await this.app.createField({ | |
| $, | |
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | |
| data: { | |
| type: this.type, | |
| name: this.name, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully sent request to create field. Result: '${response.message}'`); | |
| return response; | |
| }, | |
| async run({ $ }) { | |
| // Validate inputs | |
| if (!this.name.trim()) { | |
| throw new Error("Field name cannot be empty"); | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| const response = await this.app.createField({ | |
| $, | |
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | |
| data: { | |
| type: this.type, | |
| name: this.name, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully created field "${this.name}" of type "${this.type}". ${response?.message || ''}`); | |
| return response; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to create field: ${error.message}`); | |
| } | |
| }, |
| async run({ $ }) { | ||
| const response = await this.app.createDatasheet({ | ||
| $, | ||
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | ||
| data: { | ||
| name: this.name, | ||
| description: this.description, | ||
| folderId: this.folderId, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully created Datasheet with ID '${response.data.id}'`); | ||
| return response; | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add response validation and explicit error handling.
While the implementation is clean, consider these improvements:
- Validate the response structure before accessing
response.data.id - Add explicit error handling for common failure scenarios
Consider this enhanced implementation:
async run({ $ }) {
+ try {
const response = await this.app.createDatasheet({
$,
spaceId: this.spaceId,
data: {
name: this.name,
description: this.description,
folderId: this.folderId,
},
});
+ if (!response?.data?.id) {
+ throw new Error('Invalid response: Missing datasheet ID');
+ }
$.export("$summary", `Successfully created Datasheet with ID '${response.data.id}'`);
return response;
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to create datasheet: ${error.message}`);
+ }
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| async run({ $ }) { | |
| const response = await this.app.createDatasheet({ | |
| $, | |
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | |
| data: { | |
| name: this.name, | |
| description: this.description, | |
| folderId: this.folderId, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully created Datasheet with ID '${response.data.id}'`); | |
| return response; | |
| }, | |
| async run({ $ }) { | |
| try { | |
| const response = await this.app.createDatasheet({ | |
| $, | |
| spaceId: this.spaceId, | |
| data: { | |
| name: this.name, | |
| description: this.description, | |
| folderId: this.folderId, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| if (!response?.data?.id) { | |
| throw new Error('Invalid response: Missing datasheet ID'); | |
| } | |
| $.export("$summary", `Successfully created Datasheet with ID '${response.data.id}'`); | |
| return response; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to create datasheet: ${error.message}`); | |
| } | |
| }, |
| async createField({ | ||
| spaceId, ...args | ||
| }) { | ||
| return this._makeRequest({ | ||
| path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${this.$auth.datasheet_id}/fields`, | ||
| method: "post", | ||
| ...args, | ||
| }); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure datasheetId is provided in createField method
In the createField method, this.$auth.datasheet_id is used, which may not exist in the authentication object. Accepting datasheetId as a parameter ensures the correct datasheet is targeted.
Apply this diff to adjust the method:
async createField({
spaceId,
+ datasheetId,
...args
}) {
return this._makeRequest({
path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${datasheetId}/fields`,
method: "post",
...args,
});
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| async createField({ | |
| spaceId, ...args | |
| }) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${this.$auth.datasheet_id}/fields`, | |
| method: "post", | |
| ...args, | |
| }); | |
| }, | |
| async createField({ | |
| spaceId, | |
| datasheetId, | |
| ...args | |
| }) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${datasheetId}/fields`, | |
| method: "post", | |
| ...args, | |
| }); | |
| }, |
| fieldId: { | ||
| type: "string", | ||
| label: "Field ID", | ||
| description: "ID of the Field", | ||
| async options() { | ||
| const response = await this.getFields({}); | ||
| const fieldIds = response.data.fields; | ||
| return fieldIds.map(({ | ||
| id, name, | ||
| }) => ({ | ||
| value: id, | ||
| label: name, | ||
| })); | ||
| }, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure datasheetId is provided for fetching fields in fieldId options
The fieldId propDefinition's options method relies on this.$auth.datasheet_id, which may not be present in the authentication object. To ensure the correct datasheet is used, consider adding datasheetId as a prop and updating the options method accordingly.
Apply this diff to include datasheetId and adjust the options method:
+datasheetId: {
+ type: "string",
+ label: "Datasheet ID",
+ description: "ID of the Datasheet",
+},
fieldId: {
type: "string",
label: "Field ID",
description: "ID of the Field",
async options() {
+ const datasheetId = this.datasheetId;
const response = await this.getFields(datasheetId);
const fieldIds = response.data.fields;
return fieldIds.map(({
id, name,
}) => ({
value: id,
label: name,
}));
},
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| fieldId: { | |
| type: "string", | |
| label: "Field ID", | |
| description: "ID of the Field", | |
| async options() { | |
| const response = await this.getFields({}); | |
| const fieldIds = response.data.fields; | |
| return fieldIds.map(({ | |
| id, name, | |
| }) => ({ | |
| value: id, | |
| label: name, | |
| })); | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| datasheetId: { | |
| type: "string", | |
| label: "Datasheet ID", | |
| description: "ID of the Datasheet", | |
| }, | |
| fieldId: { | |
| type: "string", | |
| label: "Field ID", | |
| description: "ID of the Field", | |
| async options() { | |
| const datasheetId = this.datasheetId; | |
| const response = await this.getFields(datasheetId); | |
| const fieldIds = response.data.fields; | |
| return fieldIds.map(({ | |
| id, name, | |
| }) => ({ | |
| value: id, | |
| label: name, | |
| })); | |
| }, | |
| }, |
| async deleteField({ | ||
| spaceId, fieldId, ...args | ||
| }) { | ||
| return this._makeRequest({ | ||
| path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${this.$auth.datasheet_id}/fields/${fieldId}`, | ||
| method: "delete", | ||
| ...args, | ||
| }); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure datasheetId is provided in deleteField method
Similarly, the deleteField method references this.$auth.datasheet_id. Accepting datasheetId as a parameter will make the method more robust.
Apply this diff:
async deleteField({
spaceId,
fieldId,
+ datasheetId,
...args
}) {
return this._makeRequest({
path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${datasheetId}/fields/${fieldId}`,
method: "delete",
...args,
});
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| async deleteField({ | |
| spaceId, fieldId, ...args | |
| }) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${this.$auth.datasheet_id}/fields/${fieldId}`, | |
| method: "delete", | |
| ...args, | |
| }); | |
| }, | |
| async deleteField({ | |
| spaceId, | |
| fieldId, | |
| datasheetId, | |
| ...args | |
| }) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| path: `/spaces/${spaceId}/datasheets/${datasheetId}/fields/${fieldId}`, | |
| method: "delete", | |
| ...args, | |
| }); | |
| }, |
| async getFields(args = {}) { | ||
| return this._makeRequest({ | ||
| path: `/datasheets/${this.$auth.datasheet_id}/fields`, | ||
| ...args, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure datasheetId is provided in getFields method
The getFields method currently uses this.$auth.datasheet_id. For flexibility and reliability, accept datasheetId as a parameter.
Apply this diff:
async getFields(datasheetId, args = {}) {
return this._makeRequest({
path: `/datasheets/${datasheetId}/fields`,
...args,
});
},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| async getFields(args = {}) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| path: `/datasheets/${this.$auth.datasheet_id}/fields`, | |
| ...args, | |
| }); | |
| async getFields(datasheetId, args = {}) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| path: `/datasheets/${datasheetId}/fields`, | |
| ...args, | |
| }); |
|
/approve |
WHY
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Improvements
These updates collectively enhance the user experience by streamlining data management tasks.