Skip to content

Conversation

@adolfo-pd
Copy link
Collaborator

@adolfo-pd adolfo-pd commented Dec 14, 2024

WHY

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced error handling for unexpected API values, now returning an empty array instead of throwing errors.
    • Improved validation consistency for string properties.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Resolved issues with dynamic props in the Connect demo app.
    • Disabled the submit button when the form is incomplete.
  • Chores

    • Updated changelog for version 1.0.0-preview.12.

@linear
Copy link

linear bot commented Dec 14, 2024

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Dec 14, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

3 Skipped Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
docs-v2 ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Dec 14, 2024 0:11am
pipedream-docs ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Dec 14, 2024 0:11am
pipedream-docs-redirect-do-not-edit ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) Dec 14, 2024 0:11am

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 14, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve updates to the @pipedream/connect-react package, specifically the CHANGELOG.md and package.json files, reflecting the new version 1.0.0-preview.12. Key modifications include improved error handling in the valuesFromOptions and arrayPropErrors functions, which now return empty arrays or undefined instead of throwing errors for unexpected values. This enhances the robustness of prop validation by avoiding exceptions and providing more predictable return types.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
packages/connect-react/CHANGELOG.md Updated to include version 1.0.0-preview.12, detailing changes in error handling for API value validation.
packages/connect-react/package.json Version updated from 1.0.0-preview.11 to 1.0.0-preview.12.
packages/connect-react/src/utils/component.ts Modified error handling in valuesFromOptions and arrayPropErrors functions; adjusted return types for various validation functions.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

bug, dependencies, tracked internally

Suggested reviewers

  • tjk
  • lcaresia

🐇 In the garden where we play,
Errors now just fade away.
With props so neat and tidy too,
Validation's strong, it's tried and true.
Hooray for changes, let’s rejoice,
In code we trust, let’s lift our voice! 🎉


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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Experiment)
  • @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.

@adolfo-pd adolfo-pd merged commit 55b22bc into master Dec 14, 2024
7 of 8 checks passed
@adolfo-pd adolfo-pd deleted the adolfo/money-1953-submit-button-not-enabled-despite-all-props-configured branch December 14, 2024 00:13
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 (3)
packages/connect-react/src/utils/component.ts (3)

38-38: Consider adding warning logs for invalid data.

While returning empty arrays instead of throwing errors makes the validation more forgiving (which may help with the submit button enablement), it might also hide real issues from developers. Consider adding debug/warning logs when encountering invalid data structures to help with troubleshooting.

-        return []
+        console.warn('Invalid option structure detected:', so)
+        return []

Also applies to: 44-44


Line range hint 53-61: Add explicit return for all code paths.

The function implicitly returns undefined when none of the conditions match. This could lead to confusion and potential bugs. Consider adding an explicit return statement for better code clarity and type safety.

 export function arrayPropErrors(opts: ValidationOpts<ConfigurablePropStringArray>): string[] | undefined {
   const _values = valuesFromOptions(opts.value)
   if (!opts.prop.default && typeof _values === "undefined") {
     return [
       "required",
     ]
   }
   if (!opts.prop.default && Array.isArray(_values) && !_values.length) return [
     "empty array",
   ]
+  return undefined
 }

Line range hint 53-61: Consider a more robust validation pattern.

All validation functions follow a similar pattern with implicit returns. To improve maintainability and debugging, consider:

  1. Implementing explicit returns for all code paths
  2. Adding a common validation result type that includes warning/error severity
  3. Adding debug information to help track validation failures

Example of a more robust approach:

type ValidationResult = {
  errors?: string[];
  warnings?: string[];
  debug?: {
    value: unknown;
    reason?: string;
  };
}

function createValidationResult(opts: {
  errors?: string[];
  warnings?: string[];
  value: unknown;
  reason?: string;
}): ValidationResult {
  return {
    errors: opts.errors,
    warnings: opts.warnings,
    debug: {
      value: opts.value,
      reason: opts.reason,
    },
  };
}

Would you like me to propose a complete refactor of the validation system?

Also applies to: 63-68, 70-89, 91-105

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 50adb89 and ea6e075.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • packages/connect-react/CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
  • packages/connect-react/package.json (1 hunks)
  • packages/connect-react/src/utils/component.ts (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
  • packages/connect-react/package.json
  • packages/connect-react/CHANGELOG.md
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/connect-react/src/utils/component.ts (1)

Line range hint 1-105: Verify validation behavior across all component types.

While these changes may fix the submit button issue, we should verify that similar validation issues don't exist in other components or prop types.

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the validation behavior by checking how these validation functions are used.


Let me analyze the validation behavior across the codebase. I'll search for how these validation functions are used in form submission.


Let me check how these validation functions are used in form submission and error handling.


Based on the code analysis, I can now provide a final assessment of the validation changes:

Validation changes are correctly implemented and safe

The validation functions in component.ts work in conjunction with the form context's error handling system. The changes to return empty arrays/undefined instead of throwing errors is the correct approach because:

  1. The form context maintains error state via setErrors and expects arrays of error messages
  2. Empty arrays or undefined returns are properly handled in the error state management
  3. The validation results are properly propagated to the UI through the React state system

The changes make the validation more predictable and consistent with React's state management patterns, rather than masking problems.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar validation patterns that might cause issues
ast-grep --pattern 'function $NAME($ARGS): string[] | undefined {
  $$$
  if ($COND) return [$$$]
  $$$
}'

# Look for validation-related issues or PRs
gh issue list --label "validation,components" --state all
gh pr list --label "validation,components" --state all

Length of output: 2488


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of validation functions
rg -A 3 "(arrayPropErrors|booleanPropErrors|integerPropErrors|stringPropErrors)"

# Search for any error handling or validation state management
ast-grep --pattern 'const $ERRORS = $FUNC($ARGS)'

Length of output: 66204


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for form submission and validation handling
rg -A 5 "handleSubmit|validateForm|formErrors" packages/connect-react/src/

# Search for error state management
ast-grep --pattern 'const $ERRORS = $FUNC($ARGS)' packages/connect-react/src/

Length of output: 13122


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for form submission and validation in form context
rg -A 10 "function.*validate|function.*submit" packages/connect-react/src/hooks/form-context.tsx

# Search for error handling in form context
rg -B 5 -A 10 "setError|handleError" packages/connect-react/src/hooks/form-context.tsx

Length of output: 1399

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant