1.8.1-beta.8 created a new component version with new reeleased components #322
Conversation
WalkthroughWalkthroughThis update includes version bumps for Changes
Possibly related issues
Recent Review DetailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Files selected for processing (48)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
Additional Context UsedPath-based Instructions (34)
Learnings (1)
Additional comments not posted (81)
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
Actionable comments outside the diff hunks (1)
micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/libraries/README.md (1)
Line range hint
3-3: The sentence should start with an uppercase letter.- # digit-ui-svg-components + # Digit-ui-svg-components
| return ( | ||
| <MCollectIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} /> | ||
| ); | ||
| case "PGR": | ||
| return <ComplaintIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} />; | ||
| return ( | ||
| <ComplaintIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} /> | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Refactor repeated JSX elements into a single reusable component.
The JSX for rendering icons is repeated with slight variations. Consider creating a reusable component that accepts the icon type and styles as props to reduce redundancy and improve maintainability.
- return (<MCollectIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} />);
+ return <Icon type="MCollectIcon" styles={styles} />;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.
| return ( | |
| <MCollectIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} /> | |
| ); | |
| case "PGR": | |
| return <ComplaintIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} />; | |
| return ( | |
| <ComplaintIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} /> | |
| ); | |
| return ( | |
| <Icon type="MCollectIcon" styles={styles} /> | |
| ); | |
| case "PGR": | |
| return ( | |
| <ComplaintIcon className="fill-path-primary-main" styles={styles} /> | |
| ); |
| case "OBPS": | ||
| return { | ||
| staticCommonContent: t("BUILDING_PLAN_PERMIT_VALIDITY"), | ||
| validity: mdmsConfigResult?.validity + " " + (mdmsConfigResult?.validity === "1" ? t("COMMON_DAY") : t("COMMON_DAYS")), | ||
| validity: | ||
| mdmsConfigResult?.validity + | ||
| " " + | ||
| (mdmsConfigResult?.validity === "1" | ||
| ? t("COMMON_DAY") | ||
| : t("COMMON_DAYS")), | ||
| }; | ||
| default: | ||
| return { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [99-117]
Handle potential null or undefined values in mdmsConfigResult.
The code directly accesses properties of mdmsConfigResult without null checks. This could lead to runtime errors if mdmsConfigResult is null or undefined.
- mdmsConfigResult?.validity + (mdmsConfigResult?.validity === "1" ? t("COMMON_DAY") : t("COMMON_DAYS")),
+ mdmsConfigResult ? mdmsConfigResult.validity + (mdmsConfigResult.validity === "1" ? t("COMMON_DAY") : t("COMMON_DAYS")) : 'N/A',| if (typeof obj !== "object" || obj === null) { | ||
| // If obj is not an object or is null, return null | ||
| return null; | ||
| } | ||
| // Use Object.keys to get an array of keys in the object | ||
| const key = Object.keys(obj).map((key) => { | ||
| // Check if the object has an 'item' property with a 'path' property | ||
| if (typeof obj[key]?.item?.path === 'string') { | ||
| return obj[key]?.item?.path?.split(parent ? `${parent}.${key}` : `.${key}`) || getKey(obj[key], key); | ||
| if (typeof obj[key]?.item?.path === "string") { | ||
| return ( | ||
| obj[key]?.item?.path?.split(parent ? `${parent}.${key}` : `.${key}`) || | ||
| getKey(obj[key], key) | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Refactor complex logic in getKey function for clarity.
The getKey function is complex and hard to follow. Consider refactoring it to improve readability and maintainability, possibly by breaking it down into smaller, more focused functions.
| const updatedURL = DIGIT_UI_CONTEXTS?.every( | ||
| (e) => url?.indexOf(`/${e}`) === -1 | ||
| ) | ||
| ? hostUrl + "/employee/" + url | ||
| : hostUrl + url; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure robustness in URL construction and redirection.
The logic for constructing and redirecting to URLs could be prone to errors or security issues, such as open redirects. Consider adding validation and sanitization steps to ensure the URLs are safe and correct.
| const [city, setCity] = useState( | ||
| userInfo?.permanentCity ? userInfo.permanentCity : cityDetails.name | ||
| ); | ||
| const [mobileNumber, setMobileNo] = useState( | ||
| userInfo?.mobileNumber ? userInfo.mobileNumber : "" | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using a more concise approach for initializing state with default values.
You can simplify the state initialization by using optional chaining and nullish coalescing operators. For example:
const [city, setCity] = useState(userInfo?.permanentCity ?? cityDetails.name);
const [mobileNumber, setMobileNo] = useState(userInfo?.mobileNumber ?? "");This approach reduces redundancy and improves readability.
| if ( | ||
| !new RegExp(/^[a-zA-Z ]+$/i).test(value) || | ||
| value.length === 0 || | ||
| value.length > 50 | ||
| ) { | ||
| setErrors({ | ||
| ...errors, | ||
| userName: { | ||
| type: "pattern", | ||
| message: "CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_NAME_INVALID", | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| } else { | ||
| setErrors({ ...errors, userName: null }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Validate user input more robustly to prevent potential security risks.
The current validation for the user's name allows a broad range of characters. Consider tightening the regex to exclude potentially harmful characters, especially if this input is rendered in the UI or passed to the server. For example:
!new RegExp(/^[a-zA-Z\s]+$/).test(value)This regex restricts the input to letters and spaces, which might be more appropriate depending on your application's requirements.
| if ( | ||
| userType === "employee" && | ||
| !new RegExp(/^[6-9]{1}[0-9]{9}$/).test(value) | ||
| ) { | ||
| setErrors({ | ||
| ...errors, | ||
| mobileNumber: { | ||
| type: "pattern", | ||
| message: "CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_MOBILE_NUMBER_INVALID", | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| } else { | ||
| setErrors({ ...errors, mobileNumber: null }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Improve mobile number validation logic for better maintainability.
The validation logic for the mobile number is duplicated in multiple places within the component. Consider abstracting this into a utility function or custom hook to reduce redundancy and improve maintainability. For example:
const isValidMobileNumber = (number) => /^[6-9]{1}[0-9]{9}$/.test(number);Then use this function wherever mobile number validation is needed.
| if ( | ||
| !new RegExp(/^([a-zA-Z ])*$/).test(name) || | ||
| name === "" || | ||
| name.length > 50 || | ||
| name.length < 1 | ||
| ) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ | ||
| type: "error", | ||
| message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_NAME_INVALID"), | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (userType === "employee" && !new RegExp(/^[6-9]{1}[0-9]{9}$/).test(mobileNumber)) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ type: "error", message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_MOBILE_NUMBER_INVALID") }); | ||
| if ( | ||
| userType === "employee" && | ||
| !new RegExp(/^[6-9]{1}[0-9]{9}$/).test(mobileNumber) | ||
| ) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ | ||
| type: "error", | ||
| message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_MOBILE_NUMBER_INVALID"), | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (email.length && !(email.includes("@") && email.includes("."))) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ type: "error", message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_EMAIL_INVALID") }); | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ | ||
| type: "error", | ||
| message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_EMAIL_INVALID"), | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (changepassword && (currentPassword.length || newPassword.length || confirmPassword.length)) { | ||
| if ( | ||
| changepassword && | ||
| (currentPassword.length || newPassword.length || confirmPassword.length) | ||
| ) { | ||
| if (newPassword !== confirmPassword) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ type: "error", message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_PASSWORD_MISMATCH") }); | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ | ||
| type: "error", | ||
| message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_PASSWORD_MISMATCH"), | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!(currentPassword.length && newPassword.length && confirmPassword.length)) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ type: "error", message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_PASSWORD_INVALID") }); | ||
| if ( | ||
| !( | ||
| currentPassword.length && | ||
| newPassword.length && | ||
| confirmPassword.length | ||
| ) | ||
| ) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ | ||
| type: "error", | ||
| message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_PASSWORD_INVALID"), | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!new RegExp(/^([a-zA-Z0-9@#$%]{8,15})$/i).test(newPassword) && !new RegExp(/^([a-zA-Z0-9@#$%]{8,15})$/i).test(confirmPassword)) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ type: "error", message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_PASSWORD_INVALID") }); | ||
| if ( | ||
| !new RegExp(/^([a-zA-Z0-9@#$%]{8,15})$/i).test(newPassword) && | ||
| !new RegExp(/^([a-zA-Z0-9@#$%]{8,15})$/i).test(confirmPassword) | ||
| ) { | ||
| throw JSON.stringify({ | ||
| type: "error", | ||
| message: t("CORE_COMMON_PROFILE_PASSWORD_INVALID"), | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Refactor the updateProfile function to improve readability and error handling.
The updateProfile function is lengthy and handles multiple validation and update operations. Consider breaking this function into smaller, more focused functions. Additionally, the error handling could be improved by using more descriptive error messages and ensuring that all potential errors are caught and handled appropriately.
| const { data: Menu } = Digit.Hooks.useGenderMDMS( | ||
| stateId, | ||
| "common-masters", | ||
| "GenderType" | ||
| ); | ||
| Menu && | ||
| Menu.map((genderDetails) => { | ||
| menu.push({ i18nKey: `PT_COMMON_GENDER_${genderDetails.code}`, code: `${genderDetails.code}`, value: `${genderDetails.code}` }); | ||
| menu.push({ | ||
| i18nKey: `PT_COMMON_GENDER_${genderDetails.code}`, | ||
| code: `${genderDetails.code}`, | ||
| value: `${genderDetails.code}`, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use array mapping more effectively.
When mapping over Menu to create menu items, you can directly return the new array instead of pushing to an external array. This is more functional and reduces side effects:
const menu = Menu.map(genderDetails => ({
i18nKey: `PT_COMMON_GENDER_${genderDetails.code}`,
code: `${genderDetails.code}`,
value: `${genderDetails.code}`,
}));| return ( | ||
| <MobileSearchApplication | ||
| {...{ | ||
| Controller, | ||
| register, | ||
| control, | ||
| t, | ||
| reset, | ||
| previousPage, | ||
| handleSubmit, | ||
| tenantId, | ||
| data, | ||
| onSubmit, | ||
| }} | ||
| /> | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
The script intended to find test files related to the MobileSearchApplication component did not yield any results. This suggests that there are no test files (either .test.js or .spec.js) that reference MobileSearchApplication. This indicates that the new rendering logic for mobile devices, encapsulated within the MobileSearchApplication component, might not be covered by unit tests.
Given this finding, it is recommended to create unit tests for MobileSearchApplication to ensure that the component behaves as expected and aligns with the intended mobile user flows and view types. This is crucial for maintaining the reliability and quality of the application, especially after refactoring or introducing new components.
Analysis chain
Refactored rendering logic for mobile devices using MobileSearchApplication. Ensure that the new rendering logic aligns with the intended mobile user flows and view types.
The provided script output shows the usage of MobileSearchApplication within the index.js file, confirming that the component is indeed being used in the rendering logic for mobile devices. However, the script was intended to verify if the new rendering logic is covered by unit tests, and the output does not provide any information about the presence of unit tests for MobileSearchApplication.
To address this, we need to search for test files that might contain tests for the MobileSearchApplication component. This can be done by looking for files with a naming pattern that suggests they are test files (e.g., files ending in .test.js or .spec.js) and checking if they contain references to MobileSearchApplication.
Let's proceed with this verification step.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify that the new rendering logic for mobile devices is covered by unit tests.
rg --type js "MobileSearchApplication" -C 5
Length of output: 4642
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files related to MobileSearchApplication
rg --type js "MobileSearchApplication" --files-with-matches | grep -E "\.test\.js|\.spec\.js"
Length of output: 93
Summary by CodeRabbit