Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

just adding more logging for field activity emailing functions #3560

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 4, 2024

Conversation

Baalmart
Copy link
Contributor

@Baalmart Baalmart commented Oct 4, 2024

Description

just adding more logging for field activity emailing functions

Changes Made

  • just adding more logging for field activity emailing functions

Testing

  • Tested locally
  • Tested against staging environment
  • Relevant tests passed: [List test names]

Affected Services

  • Which services were modified:
    • auth service

API Documentation Updated?

  • Yes, API documentation was updated
  • No, API documentation does not need updating

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Enhanced error logging for email handling functions to improve clarity during invalid input scenarios.
  • Chores

    • Maintained existing structure of the Kafka consumer without changes to core logic or functionality.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 4, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes to kafka-consumer.js focus on enhancing error logging and input validation within email handling functions. Modifications were made to the emailsForDeployedDevices and emailsForRecalledDevices functions to include parsed data in error logs for missing required fields. The core functionality of the Kafka consumer remains unchanged, with existing error handling mechanisms preserved. No alterations were made to exported or public entities.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js Enhanced error logging in emailsForDeployedDevices and emailsForRecalledDevices functions to include parsed data for missing fields. Core logic and error handling mechanisms remain unchanged.

Possibly related PRs

🌟 In the realm of code where errors reside,
Logging improvements now take a stride.
With parsed data shining bright,
Debugging woes are met with light.
Kafka's flow remains intact,
Robust and clear, that's a fact! 🌟


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 29.68%. Comparing base (5eb3634) to head (e6bfc04).
Report is 3 commits behind head on staging.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           staging    #3560   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    29.68%   29.68%           
========================================
  Files          185      185           
  Lines        24997    24997           
  Branches      3312     3312           
========================================
  Hits          7421     7421           
  Misses       17454    17454           
  Partials       122      122           
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js 18.75% <0.00%> (ø)

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 4, 2024

Auth-service changes in this PR available for preview here

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js (2)

230-239: Excellent enhancement of input validation and error logging!

I appreciate the improvements made to the emailsForDeployedDevices function. The addition of input parsing, validation of required fields, and enhanced error logging significantly improves the robustness of this function.

A minor suggestion to further improve the code:

Consider extracting the common input validation logic into a separate function, as it's likely to be reused in other similar functions (e.g., emailsForRecalledDevices). This would promote code reusability and maintainability.

Here's a potential implementation:

function validateInputData(parsedData) {
  const { createdActivity, updatedDevice, user_id } = parsedData;
  if (!createdActivity || !updatedDevice || !user_id) {
    throw new Error(`Invalid input data: Missing required fields -- parsedData: ${stringify(parsedData)}`);
  }
  if (!ObjectId.isValid(user_id)) {
    throw new Error(`Invalid user_id format: ${user_id}`);
  }
}

// Usage in emailsForDeployedDevices and other similar functions
try {
  parsedData = JSON.parse(messageData);
  validateInputData(parsedData);
  // Rest of the function logic
} catch (error) {
  logger.error(`Error in emailsForDeployedDevices: ${error.message}`);
  return;
}

This refactoring would make the code more DRY and easier to maintain. What do you think about this approach?

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 235-235: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js#L235
Added line #L235 was not covered by tests


Line range hint 285-290: Consistent improvements, but let's reduce duplication

I'm pleased to see that the improvements made to emailsForRecalledDevices are consistent with those in emailsForDeployedDevices. This consistency is crucial for maintaining code quality across the codebase.

However, I've noticed that these changes have introduced some code duplication between these two functions. To adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle, we should consider further refactoring.

Here's a suggestion to reduce duplication:

  1. Extract the common logic for parsing, validating, and sending emails into a separate function.
  2. Use this function in both emailsForDeployedDevices and emailsForRecalledDevices.

Here's a potential implementation:

async function processFieldActivityEmail(messageData, activityType) {
  let parsedData;
  try {
    parsedData = JSON.parse(messageData);
    validateInputData(parsedData); // Using the function suggested in the previous comment

    const { createdActivity, updatedDevice, user_id } = parsedData;
    const user = await UserModel("airqo")
      .findOne({ _id: ObjectId(user_id) }, "email _id firstName lastName")
      .lean();

    if (!user) {
      logger.error(`User not found for user_id: ${user_id}`);
      return;
    }

    const emailResponse = await mailer.fieldActivity({
      email: user.email,
      firstName: user.firstName,
      lastName: user.lastName,
      deviceDetails: extractDeviceDetails(updatedDevice),
      activityDetails: extractActivityDetails(createdActivity),
      activityType: activityType,
    });

    if (emailResponse && emailResponse.success === false) {
      logger.error(`🐛 Internal Server Error -- ${stringify(emailResponse)}`);
    }
  } catch (error) {
    logger.error(`🐛 Error in processFieldActivityEmail: ${error.message}`);
  }
}

// Usage
const emailsForDeployedDevices = async (messageData) => {
  await processFieldActivityEmail(messageData, "deploy");
};

const emailsForRecalledDevices = async (messageData) => {
  await processFieldActivityEmail(messageData, "recall");
};

This refactoring would significantly reduce code duplication and make future maintenance easier. What are your thoughts on this approach?

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 235-235: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js#L235
Added line #L235 was not covered by tests

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between b4d12ae and e6bfc04.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: Baalmart
PR: airqo-platform/AirQo-api#3554
File: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js:270-275
Timestamp: 2024-10-04T14:41:57.423Z
Learning: In `src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js`, the `emailsForRecalledDevices` function relies on the producing functionality to validate `user_id`, so additional validation in the consumer is not necessary.
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js (1)
Learnt from: Baalmart
PR: airqo-platform/AirQo-api#3554
File: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js:270-275
Timestamp: 2024-10-04T14:41:57.423Z
Learning: In `src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js`, the `emailsForRecalledDevices` function relies on the producing functionality to validate `user_id`, so additional validation in the consumer is not necessary.
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js

[warning] 235-235: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js#L235
Added line #L235 was not covered by tests

🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js (2)

Line range hint 351-351: Inquiry about commented-out Kafka topic

I noticed that the "new-mobile-app-user-topic" is still commented out in the topicOperations object. Is this intentional, or is it planned for future implementation?

If it's intended for future use, I suggest adding a TODO comment to make it clear for other developers. Here's an example:

const topicOperations = {
  // TODO: Implement new mobile app user handling
  // ["new-mobile-app-user-topic"]: operationForNewMobileAppUser,
  ["ip-address"]: operationForBlacklistedIPs,
  ["deploy-topic"]: emailsForDeployedDevices,
  ["recall-topic"]: emailsForRecalledDevices,
};

This would help maintain clarity about the status of this feature. What are your thoughts on this?

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 235-235: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js#L235
Added line #L235 was not covered by tests


235-235: Enhance test coverage for new error logging

The static analysis tool has flagged that line 235 is not covered by tests. This line is part of the new error logging logic we've added.

To ensure the robustness of our error handling, I recommend adding a test case that covers this scenario. Here's a suggestion for a test case:

it('should log an error when required fields are missing', async () => {
  const invalidMessageData = JSON.stringify({ 
    // Missing createdActivity and updatedDevice
    user_id: new ObjectId().toString() 
  });
  
  const loggerSpy = jest.spyOn(logger, 'error');
  
  await emailsForDeployedDevices(invalidMessageData);
  
  expect(loggerSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.stringContaining('Invalid input data: Missing required fields'));
});

This test would verify that our new error logging behaves correctly when given invalid input. What do you think about adding this test case?

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 235-235: src/auth-service/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js#L235
Added line #L235 was not covered by tests

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant