[Components] mitra #14368
[Components] mitra #14368
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
|
@jcortes is attempting to deploy a commit to the Pipedreamers Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several new modules to the Mitra application, each implementing CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations for managing records in a database. The modules include functionalities for deleting, fetching, inserting, and updating data. Additionally, a utility module is added for JSON and array parsing. The main application file is updated to support these actions and to handle HTTP requests using Axios. Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
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 (
|
![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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
components/mitra/actions/update-data/update-data.mjs (3)
10-24: LGTM: Props are well-defined. Consider adding input validation.The props cover the necessary inputs for updating data and use propDefinitions from the app object, promoting consistency and reusability.
Consider adding input validation for the
recordsprop to ensure it contains the required fields for updating data (e.g., primary key). This could be done in therunmethod or by extending the propDefinition.
25-34: LGTM: updateData method is concise and flexible. Consider adding error handling.The
updateDatamethod effectively delegates the update operation to the app object using modern JavaScript features.Consider adding error handling within the
updateDatamethod to catch and handle any errors that might occur during the update operation. This could provide more detailed error messages and improve debugging.
35-50: LGTM: Run function is well-structured. Consider enhancing error handling and summary message.The run function correctly implements the update operation using async/await and parses the records appropriately.
Consider the following enhancements:
- Add error handling to catch and handle any errors that might occur during the update operation.
- Provide more specific information in the summary message, such as the number of records updated and the table name.
Example:
async run({ $ }) { const { updateData, tableName, records } = this; const parsedRecords = utils.parseArray(records); try { const response = await updateData({ $, tableName, data: parsedRecords, }); $.export("$summary", `Successfully updated ${parsedRecords.length} record(s) in the '${tableName}' table.`); return response; } catch (error) { $.export("$summary", `Failed to update records in the '${tableName}' table.`); throw error; } }components/mitra/actions/insert-data/insert-data.mjs (4)
4-9: LGTM: Action metadata is well-defined.The action metadata provides clear information about the purpose and identity of the action.
Consider adding a
changelogproperty to track version changes, which can be helpful for future maintenance and debugging.
10-24: LGTM: Props are well-defined and utilize app propDefinitions.The props cover the necessary inputs for the insert operation and promote consistency by using propDefinitions from the app object.
Consider adding input validation for the
recordsprop to ensure it's in the correct format before processing. This could prevent potential runtime errors. For example:records: { propDefinition: [ app, "records", ], validate: (value) => { if (!Array.isArray(value)) { throw new Error("Records must be an array"); } }, },
25-34: LGTM: The insertData method is well-implemented.The method correctly uses object destructuring and delegates the insertion to the app.post method, maintaining a good separation of concerns.
Consider adding error handling to the insertData method. This could help in providing more specific error messages and potentially retry logic. For example:
methods: { async insertData({ tableName, ...args } = {}) { try { return await this.app.post({ tableName, ...args, }); } catch (error) { console.error(`Error inserting data into ${tableName}:`, error); throw error; } }, },
35-51: LGTM: The run function is well-structured and implements the insert operation correctly.The function follows a logical flow, uses utils.parseArray for proper record formatting, and provides user feedback through the summary export.
Consider the following improvements:
- Add error handling to provide more informative error messages.
- Validate the response before exporting the success message.
Here's an example implementation:
async run({ $ }) { const { insertData, tableName, records, } = this; try { const parsedRecords = utils.parseArray(records); const response = await insertData({ $, tableName, data: parsedRecords, }); if (response.success) { $.export("$summary", `Successfully inserted ${parsedRecords.length} records into the ${tableName} table.`); return response; } else { throw new Error("Insert operation failed"); } } catch (error) { console.error("Error in insert-data action:", error); $.export("$summary", `Failed to insert records: ${error.message}`); throw error; } },components/mitra/actions/delete-data/delete-data.mjs (1)
1-8: Add the missing documentation link in the description.The description mentions "See the documentation", but the link is empty. Please add the correct documentation link to provide users with more information about this action.
components/mitra/common/utils.mjs (1)
48-50: Consider renaming exported functions for clarityThe naming of the exported
parseArrayfunction might be confusing since it wraps theparseArrayfunction and mapsvalueToObject. To improve clarity, consider renaming it to reflect its functionality more accurately, such asparseArrayOfObjects.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- components/mitra/actions/delete-data/delete-data.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/mitra/actions/get-data/get-data.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/mitra/actions/insert-data/insert-data.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/mitra/actions/update-data/update-data.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/mitra/common/utils.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/mitra/mitra.app.mjs (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (8)
components/mitra/actions/update-data/update-data.mjs (3)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-structured.The imports for
appandutilsare correctly defined and use relative paths, indicating a well-organized project structure.
4-9: LGTM: Metadata is well-defined and informative.The metadata provides clear information about the action, including a descriptive name, purpose, and appropriate versioning.
1-51: Overall assessment: Well-implemented update action with room for minor enhancements.The
update-data.mjsmodule successfully implements the update action for the Mitra database, aligning with the PR objectives. The code is well-structured, uses modern JavaScript features, and follows good practices for action implementation.Key strengths:
- Clear and informative metadata
- Well-defined props using app's propDefinitions
- Concise and flexible
updateDatamethod- Proper use of async/await in the run function
Suggested enhancements:
- Add input validation for the
recordsprop- Implement error handling in both
updateDatamethod and run function- Provide more specific information in the summary message
These enhancements would further improve the robustness and user-friendliness of the module.
components/mitra/actions/insert-data/insert-data.mjs (1)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-structured.The imports for utils and the Mitra app are correctly implemented, following good practices for module organization.
components/mitra/actions/delete-data/delete-data.mjs (2)
9-22: Props definition looks good.The props are well-defined and include all necessary inputs for the delete operation. The use of
propDefinitionfortableNameensures consistency with other parts of the application.
23-33: Methods implementation looks correct.The
deleteDatamethod is well-implemented. It correctly uses destructuring to extract parameters and properly calls the app'sdeletemethod with the required arguments. The use of rest parameters (...args) provides flexibility for additional arguments.components/mitra/actions/get-data/get-data.mjs (1)
17-21: Ensure secure handling of query parameters.The
paramsprop allows users to input dynamic filters. Make sure that the backend properly sanitizes and validates these parameters to prevent injection attacks or unauthorized access.Run the following script to verify if the
_makeRequestmethod securely handles query parameters:This script locates the
_makeRequestfunction definition to examine how it processes input parameters.components/mitra/mitra.app.mjs (1)
1-63: Overall implementation enhances functionality effectivelyThe added properties and methods extend the app's capabilities, allowing it to perform CRUD operations with the Mitra API efficiently. The use of helper methods like
_makeRequest,getUrl, andgetHeaderspromotes code reuse and maintainability. The structure aligns well with best practices for modular design.
| async run({ $ }) { | ||
| const { | ||
| deleteData, | ||
| tableName, | ||
| dimensionContentId, | ||
| } = this; | ||
|
|
||
| const response = await deleteData({ | ||
| tableName, | ||
| dimensionContentId, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| $.export("$summary", "Succesfully deleted record from the Mitra database."); | ||
| return response; | ||
| }, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo and consider adding error handling.
-
There's a typo in the success message. Change "Succesfully" to "Successfully" on line 46.
-
Consider adding error handling to the
runmethod. This will make the action more robust and provide better feedback in case of failures.
Here's a suggested implementation with error handling:
async run({ $ }) {
const {
deleteData,
tableName,
dimensionContentId,
} = this;
try {
const response = await deleteData({
tableName,
dimensionContentId,
});
$.export("$summary", `Successfully deleted record from the Mitra database.`);
return response;
} catch (error) {
$.export("$summary", `Failed to delete record: ${error.message}`);
throw error;
}
}| function parseArray(value) { | ||
| try { | ||
| if (!value) { | ||
| return []; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (Array.isArray(value)) { | ||
| return value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const parsedValue = JSON.parse(value); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!Array.isArray(parsedValue)) { | ||
| throw new Error("Not an array"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return parsedValue; | ||
|
|
||
| } catch (e) { | ||
| throw new ConfigurationError("Make sure the custom expression contains a valid array object"); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Include original error message in ConfigurationError for better debugging
When catching exceptions in the parseArray function, the original error message is not included in the ConfigurationError, which might make debugging harder. Consider appending the original error message to provide more context.
Apply this diff to improve error messages:
} catch (e) {
- throw new ConfigurationError("Make sure the custom expression contains a valid array object");
+ throw new ConfigurationError(`Make sure the custom expression contains a valid array object. Error: ${e.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.
| function parseArray(value) { | |
| try { | |
| if (!value) { | |
| return []; | |
| } | |
| if (Array.isArray(value)) { | |
| return value; | |
| } | |
| const parsedValue = JSON.parse(value); | |
| if (!Array.isArray(parsedValue)) { | |
| throw new Error("Not an array"); | |
| } | |
| return parsedValue; | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| throw new ConfigurationError("Make sure the custom expression contains a valid array object"); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| function parseArray(value) { | |
| try { | |
| if (!value) { | |
| return []; | |
| } | |
| if (Array.isArray(value)) { | |
| return value; | |
| } | |
| const parsedValue = JSON.parse(value); | |
| if (!Array.isArray(parsedValue)) { | |
| throw new Error("Not an array"); | |
| } | |
| return parsedValue; | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| throw new ConfigurationError(`Make sure the custom expression contains a valid array object. Error: ${e.message}`); | |
| } | |
| } |
| function valueToObject(value) { | ||
| if (typeof(value) === "object") { | ||
| return value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!isJson(value)) { | ||
| throw new ConfigurationError(`Make sure the custom expression contains a valid JSON object: \`${value}\``); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return JSON.parse(value); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle null values explicitly in valueToObject function
In the valueToObject function, typeof null returns "object", which means null values are returned as-is. This might lead to unexpected behavior if null is not an acceptable object in your context. Consider adding a check to handle null values explicitly.
Apply this diff to address the issue:
function valueToObject(value) {
- if (typeof(value) === "object") {
+ if (typeof value === "object" && value !== null) {
return value;
}
if (!isJson(value)) {
throw new ConfigurationError(`Make sure the custom expression contains a valid JSON object: \`${value}\``);
}
return JSON.parse(value);
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| function valueToObject(value) { | |
| if (typeof(value) === "object") { | |
| return value; | |
| } | |
| if (!isJson(value)) { | |
| throw new ConfigurationError(`Make sure the custom expression contains a valid JSON object: \`${value}\``); | |
| } | |
| return JSON.parse(value); | |
| } | |
| function valueToObject(value) { | |
| if (typeof value === "object" && value !== null) { | |
| return value; | |
| } | |
| if (!isJson(value)) { | |
| throw new ConfigurationError(`Make sure the custom expression contains a valid JSON object: \`${value}\``); | |
| } | |
| return JSON.parse(value); | |
| } |
| function isJson(value) { | ||
| try { | ||
| JSON.parse(value); | ||
| } catch (e) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return true; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure correct handling of non-string inputs in isJson function
The isJson function may not correctly handle non-string inputs like objects or numbers since JSON.parse expects a string input. Passing a non-string value will result in a TypeError. To improve robustness, consider adding a type check to ensure that the value is a string before attempting to parse it.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
function isJson(value) {
+ if (typeof value !== "string") {
+ return false;
+ }
try {
JSON.parse(value);
} catch (e) {
return false;
}
return true;
}📝 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.
| function isJson(value) { | |
| try { | |
| JSON.parse(value); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| return false; | |
| } | |
| return true; | |
| } | |
| function isJson(value) { | |
| if (typeof value !== "string") { | |
| return false; | |
| } | |
| try { | |
| JSON.parse(value); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| return false; | |
| } | |
| return true; | |
| } |
| const parsedValue = JSON.parse(value); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!Array.isArray(parsedValue)) { | ||
| throw new Error("Not an array"); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return parsedValue; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Optimize parsing logic in parseArray function
Currently, the code attempts to parse the value with JSON.parse without checking if it's a string. If value is a non-string (e.g., number, object), JSON.parse might throw an error. To enhance the function's robustness, check if value is a string before parsing.
Apply this diff to optimize the parsing logic:
if (Array.isArray(value)) {
return value;
}
+ if (typeof value !== "string") {
+ throw new Error("Provided value is not a string or an array");
+ }
+
const parsedValue = JSON.parse(value);
if (!Array.isArray(parsedValue)) {
throw new Error("Not an array");
}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| const response = await fetchData({ | ||
| tableName, | ||
| params, | ||
| }); | ||
| $.export("$summary", "Succesfully fetched data from the database."); | ||
| return response; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for the data fetching process.
Currently, the code does not handle potential errors from the fetchData call. To improve robustness, consider adding error handling to manage exceptions that may occur during data retrieval.
Example:
async run({ $ }) {
const {
fetchData,
tableName,
params,
} = this;
try {
const response = await fetchData({
tableName,
params,
});
$.export("$summary", "Successfully fetched data from the database.");
return response;
} catch (error) {
$.export("$summary", `Failed to fetch data: ${error.message}`);
throw error;
}
}| tableName, | ||
| params, | ||
| }); | ||
| $.export("$summary", "Succesfully fetched data from the database."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the typo in the summary message.
There is a typo in the summary message on line 44. The word "Succesfully" should be spelled "Successfully".
Apply this diff to fix the typo:
- $.export("$summary", "Succesfully fetched data from the database.");
+ $.export("$summary", "Successfully fetched data from the database.");📝 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.
| $.export("$summary", "Succesfully fetched data from the database."); | |
| $.export("$summary", "Successfully fetched data from the database."); |
| }, | ||
| delete(args = {}) { | ||
| return this._makeRequest({ | ||
| methot: "DELETE", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in 'methot' key to 'method'
There is a typo in the _makeRequest call within the delete method. The key 'methot' should be corrected to 'method' to ensure that the HTTP DELETE request is sent correctly.
Apply this diff to fix the typo:
return this._makeRequest({
- methot: "DELETE",
+ 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.
| methot: "DELETE", | |
| method: "DELETE", |
| type: "string[]", | ||
| label: "Records", | ||
| description: "An array of records to insert or update, in JSON format.", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider changing records type to object[] for JSON records
The records property is currently defined with the type string[], but the description indicates it should be "An array of records to insert or update, in JSON format." To accurately represent JSON objects and to ensure proper handling of the data, consider changing the type to object[]. This change will allow for better validation and manipulation of the records as JSON objects.
Apply this diff to update the type:
records: {
- type: "string[]",
+ type: "object[]",
label: "Records",
description: "An array of records to insert or update, in JSON format.",
},📝 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.
| type: "string[]", | |
| label: "Records", | |
| description: "An array of records to insert or update, in JSON format.", | |
| }, | |
| type: "object[]", | |
| label: "Records", | |
| description: "An array of records to insert or update, in JSON format.", | |
| }, |
| delete(args = {}) { | ||
| return this._makeRequest({ | ||
| methot: "DELETE", | ||
| ...args, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider renaming the delete method to avoid using a reserved keyword
While naming a method delete is allowed in JavaScript object literals, it can lead to confusion or potential issues because delete is a reserved keyword. To improve code readability and maintainability, consider renaming the method to something like deleteRecord or remove.
Apply this diff to rename the method:
- delete(args = {}) {
+ deleteRecord(args = {}) {
return this._makeRequest({
method: "DELETE",
...args,
});
},Remember to update all references to this method accordingly.
📝 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.
| delete(args = {}) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| methot: "DELETE", | |
| ...args, | |
| }); | |
| deleteRecord(args = {}) { | |
| return this._makeRequest({ | |
| methot: "DELETE", | |
| ...args, | |
| }); |
WHY
Resolves #14274
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Enhancements
Bug Fixes
These updates enhance the functionality and usability of the Mitra application, streamlining data management processes for users.