New Components - cliento #14225
New Components - cliento #14225
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
WalkthroughThe changes introduce three new modules in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Suggested labels
Poem
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
components/cliento/actions/get-settings/get-settings.mjs (2)
3-8: LGTM: Action metadata is well-defined.The action metadata is comprehensive and follows best practices. The key, name, description, version, and type are all appropriately set.
Consider adding a
propsdescription to thedescriptionfield to provide more context about the requiredclientoprop. For example:description: "Fetch settings and features for the booking widget. Requires a configured Cliento app instance. [See the documentation](https://developers.cliento.com/docs/rest-api#fetch-settings)",
12-18: LGTM with suggestion: Implement error handling in the run method.The
runmethod implementation is correct and follows good practices:
- It uses async/await for the API call.
- It passes the
$context tofetchSettings.- It exports a summary message for user feedback.
- It returns the API response.
Consider adding error handling to improve robustness:
async run({ $ }) { try { const response = await this.cliento.fetchSettings({ $, }); $.export("$summary", "Successfully fetched settings"); return response; } catch (error) { $.export("$summary", `Failed to fetch settings: ${error.message}`); throw error; } }This will provide more informative feedback to the user in case of API errors.
components/cliento/actions/get-ref-data/get-ref-data.mjs (3)
3-11: LGTM: Action metadata is well-structured and informative.The metadata for this action is correctly defined and includes all necessary fields. The description is clear and includes a link to the relevant API documentation, which is excellent. The version number (0.0.1) is appropriate for a new component.
Consider if any input props are needed for this action. If the
fetchRefDatamethod requires any parameters, you might want to add them as props to allow users to customize the action.
12-18: LGTM: Run method is implemented correctly, with room for improvements.The run method correctly uses async/await and interacts with the
clientoobject as expected. The summary export provides good user feedback.Consider the following improvements:
- Add error handling to catch and report any API errors:
async run({ $ }) { try { const response = await this.cliento.fetchRefData({ $ }); $.export("$summary", "Successfully fetched reference data"); return response; } catch (error) { $.export("$summary", `Failed to fetch reference data: ${error.message}`); throw error; } }
- If the API supports pagination, consider implementing it to handle large datasets:
async run({ $ }) { let allData = []; let page = 1; const pageSize = 100; // Adjust based on API's page size try { while (true) { const response = await this.cliento.fetchRefData({ $, page, pageSize }); allData = allData.concat(response.data); if (!response.hasNextPage) break; page++; } $.export("$summary", `Successfully fetched ${allData.length} reference data items`); return allData; } catch (error) { $.export("$summary", `Failed to fetch reference data: ${error.message}`); throw error; } }Note: Adjust the pagination logic based on the actual API response structure and pagination mechanism.
1-19: Overall implementation aligns well with PR objectives.This new action for fetching reference data from the Cliento API is well-implemented and aligns perfectly with the PR objectives. It addresses the "get-ref-data" functionality as specified in the linked issue #14214.
The code follows Pipedream's best practices and is structured correctly. The action metadata is comprehensive, and the run method is implemented concisely.
To further enhance this component:
- Consider implementing error handling as suggested earlier.
- If the API supports it, add pagination to handle large datasets.
- Think about adding unit tests to ensure the component's reliability.
- As the Cliento integration grows, consider creating shared utility functions for common operations across different actions.
Great job on implementing this new component!
components/cliento/actions/get-slots/get-slots.mjs (4)
3-8: LGTM: Action metadata is well-defined.The action metadata is comprehensive and follows best practices. The key, name, description, and type are all appropriate for this action.
Consider using semantic versioning starting with "1.0.0" instead of "0.0.1" for the initial release, unless there's a specific reason to start with a pre-release version.
9-35: LGTM: Props are well-defined and align with API requirements.The props definition is comprehensive and uses
propDefinitionfor reusability, which is a good practice. All necessary props for the "Get Slots" action are included.Consider adding custom validation or transformation logic for
resourceIdsandserviceIdsprops to ensure they are always passed as comma-separated strings to the API. This could be done by modifying thepropDefinitionor adding a custom getter. For example:get resourceIds() { return Array.isArray(this._resourceIds) ? this._resourceIds.join(',') : this._resourceIds; }This would make the
join()operation in therunmethod unnecessary and ensure consistent formatting.
36-52: LGTM: Run method implements the required functionality.The
runmethod correctly fetches slots using the Cliento API and provides a helpful summary message.Consider the following improvements:
- Add error handling to catch and report any API errors:
try { const response = await this.cliento.fetchSlots({ // ... existing code ... }); // ... existing code ... } catch (error) { $.export('error', error); throw error; }
- Add type checking for the response:
if (Array.isArray(response) && response.length) { // ... existing code ... }These changes will make the action more robust and easier to debug.
1-53: Overall assessment: Well-implemented action with minor improvement opportunities.The "Get Slots" action is correctly implemented and aligns well with the PR objectives. It provides the necessary functionality to fetch available slots from the Cliento API. The code is well-structured, uses appropriate patterns, and includes helpful documentation.
To further enhance the implementation, consider the following:
- Implement error handling in the
runmethod.- Add type checking for the API response.
- Consider custom getters for
resourceIdsandserviceIdsto ensure consistent formatting.- Review the initial version number choice.
These suggestions aim to improve robustness, consistency, and maintainability of the code.
As this is part of a larger set of Cliento-related actions, ensure that common utilities, error handling patterns, and prop definitions are shared across all Cliento actions for consistency and maintainability.
components/cliento/cliento.app.mjs (1)
8-16: Consider validating date formats forfromDateandtoDateSince
fromDateandtoDateare expected to be in the formatYYYY-MM-DD, consider adding input validation to ensure the dates conform to this format. This will help prevent errors due to invalid date inputs and improve the robustness of your application.
📜 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 (5)
- components/cliento/actions/get-ref-data/get-ref-data.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/cliento/actions/get-settings/get-settings.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/cliento/actions/get-slots/get-slots.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/cliento/cliento.app.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/cliento/package.json (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (10)
components/cliento/package.json (3)
3-3: Version update looks good.The version bump from 0.0.1 to 0.1.0 is appropriate, reflecting the addition of new features (components) without breaking changes.
14-14: PublishConfig modification is correct.Setting the access to "public" in publishConfig is appropriate for this package, ensuring it can be published and accessed publicly on npm.
15-17: Dependencies addition looks good, but verify the version.The addition of @pipedream/platform as a dependency is appropriate for the new components. However, please verify that ^3.0.3 is the most up-to-date version suitable for this project.
Run the following script to check for the latest version of @pipedream/platform:
components/cliento/actions/get-settings/get-settings.mjs (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import statement correctly imports the
clientoobject from the relative path. This follows best practices for modular code organization.
9-11: LGTM: Props definition is correct.The
clientoprop is correctly defined, which will provide the action with access to the Cliento app instance. No additional props are needed for this action.components/cliento/actions/get-ref-data/get-ref-data.mjs (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import statement correctly imports the
clientoobject from the parent directory, following the expected pattern for Pipedream components.components/cliento/actions/get-slots/get-slots.mjs (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import statement is properly structured and imports the necessary
clientomodule using a relative path.components/cliento/cliento.app.mjs (3)
21-29:⚠️ Potential issueVerify property names in resource mapping
Please ensure that the properties
idandnameused in mapping the resources are correct according to the API response. Depending on the API, resource objects might useresourceIdinstead ofid. Adjust the mapping if necessary to match the API's response structure.
35-43:⚠️ Potential issueVerify property names in service mapping
Please confirm that the properties
serviceIdandnameused in mapping the services align with the API response. It's possible that the service objects returned byfetchRefData()use a different property, such asid, for the service ID. Update the mapping accordingly if needed.
51-63:⚠️ Potential issueCorrect the usage of the
$parameter in_makeRequestIn the
_makeRequestmethod, the$parameter defaults tothis, which may not be appropriate. The$parameter should be the context object provided by Pipedream, not the app instance. Usingthiscould lead to errors since it doesn't have the expected properties and methods of the context.Consider modifying the method to accept
$explicitly and ensure that it's correctly passed when invoking_makeRequest.Apply this diff to correct the usage:
-_makeRequest(opts = {}) { - const { - $ = this, - path, - ...otherOpts - } = opts; +_makeRequest($, opts = {}) { + const { + path, + ...otherOpts + } = opts; return axios($, { ...otherOpts, url: `${this._baseUrl()}${path}`, headers: { Accept: "application/json", }, }); }, // Update the methods that call _makeRequest -fetchSettings(opts = {}) { - return this._makeRequest({ +fetchSettings($, opts = {}) { + return this._makeRequest($, { path: "/settings/", ...opts, }); }, -fetchRefData(opts = {}) { - return this._makeRequest({ +fetchRefData($, opts = {}) { + return this._makeRequest($, { path: "/ref-data/", ...opts, }); }, -fetchSlots(opts = {}) { - return this._makeRequest({ +fetchSlots($, opts = {}) { + return this._makeRequest($, { path: "/resources/slots", ...opts, }); },
Resolves #14214
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores