Airtable usability improvements #14691
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 3 Skipped Deployments
|
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several enhancements across multiple files in the Airtable OAuth component. Key updates include the addition of new properties such as Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (20)
components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs (1)
13-17: Consider enhancing the warning message with examples.The warning message could be more specific and helpful by including:
- An example of the correct usage pattern
- Explicit listing of which "other props" are affected
Consider updating the content to:
- content: "**Note:** if using a custom expression to specify the `Base` (e.g. `{{steps.mydata.$return_value}}`) you should also use a custom expression for the `Table`, and any other props that depend on it.", + content: "**Note:** if using a custom expression to specify the `Base` (e.g. `{{steps.mydata.$return_value}}`), you must also use custom expressions for dependent properties:\n\n- Table: `{{steps.mydata.$return_value.table}}`\n- View: `{{steps.mydata.$return_value.view}}`\n\nThis ensures all properties reference the same context.",components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records-in-view/list-records-in-view.mjs (1)
12-16: Consider making the Enterprise requirement more prominentWhile the alert implementation is correct, this is a critical business requirement that users should know upfront.
Consider moving this alert to appear before other props and updating it to a warning type:
props: { accountTierAlert: { type: "alert", - alertType: "info", + alertType: "warning", content: "Note: views are only available for Airtable Enterprise accounts. [See the documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/list-views) for more information.", }, ...common.props,This change would make the Enterprise requirement more visible to users before they start configuring other properties.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs (2)
26-26: Consider enhancing the comment property description.While the description is clearer, it could be more helpful to users by including any formatting requirements or length limitations if they exist.
- description: "The text comment to create", + description: "The text comment to create. Supports plain text format.",
Line range hint
29-42: Consider enhancing error handling and response validation.The current implementation could benefit from more robust error handling and response validation to improve user experience when issues occur.
Consider applying these improvements:
async run({ $ }) { + if (!this.comment.trim()) { + throw new Error("Comment text cannot be empty"); + } + const response = await this.airtable.createComment({ baseId: this.baseId.value, tableId: this.tableId.value, recordId: this.recordId, data: { text: this.comment, }, $, }); - if (response) { + if (response?.id) { $.export("$summary", `Successfully created comment with ID ${response.id}.`); + } else { + throw new Error("Failed to create comment: Invalid response from Airtable"); } return response; },components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (1)
39-40: Consider using Airtable's field creation timestampThe code changes improve readability with destructuring and better event summary formatting. However, using
Date.now()for the timestamp might not reflect the actual field creation time.Consider checking if Airtable's API provides a field creation timestamp:
this.$emit(field, { id, summary: `New field: '${field.name}'`, - ts: Date.now(), + ts: field.createdTime ? new Date(field.createdTime).getTime() : Date.now(), });Also applies to: 43-43, 45-46
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (2)
19-19: Consider enhancing the tableId description further.While the new description is more user-friendly, it could be more helpful to include the expected format of a table ID for users who choose to provide it manually.
- description: "Select a table to watch for field updates, or provide a table ID.", + description: "Select a table to watch for field updates, or provide a table ID (e.g., tblXXXXXXXXXXXXXX).",
Line range hint
31-52: Consider adding error handling and rate limiting.The core logic would benefit from additional robustness:
- Add error handling for API calls
- Consider rate limiting for Airtable API compliance
- Handle pagination for tables with many fields
async run() { + try { const prevFields = this._getPrevFields(); + // Add exponential backoff retry logic + const retryConfig = { + maxRetries: 3, + initialDelay: 1000, + }; + const { tables } = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId, + retryConfig, }); const { fields } = tables.find(({ id }) => id === this.tableId); for (const field of fields) { if (prevFields[field.id] && prevFields[field.id] === JSON.stringify(field)) { continue; } const summary = prevFields[field.id] ? `${field.name} Updated` : `${field.name} Created`; prevFields[field.id] = JSON.stringify(field); this.$emit(field, { id: field.id, summary, ts: Date.now(), }); } this._setPrevFields(prevFields); + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error in new-or-modified-field source:', error); + throw error; + } },components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs (2)
Line range hint
17-26: Consider adding input validation for recordId.While the recordId is properly marked as optional, consider adding validation to ensure it's in the correct format when provided, before making the API call.
recordId: { propDefinition: [ airtable, "recordId", ({ baseId, tableId, }) => ({ baseId: baseId.value, tableId: tableId.value, }), ], optional: true, + validate: { + type: "string", + pattern: "^rec[a-zA-Z0-9]{14}$", + error: "Invalid Airtable record ID format. Expected format: rec followed by 14 alphanumeric characters." + }, },
Line range hint
45-57: Consider enhancing error messaging for better user experience.While the error handling logic is sound, consider providing more specific error messages when a record is not found before attempting to create a new one.
if (recordId) { try { return await commonActions.getRecord(this, $, true); } catch (err) { if (err.statusCode === 404) { + $.logger.info(`Record ${recordId} not found. Creating a new record...`); return await commonActions.createRecord(this, $); } else { this.airtable.throwFormattedError(err); } } } else { + $.logger.info("No record ID provided. Creating a new record..."); return commonActions.createRecord(this, $); }components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs (2)
30-30: Enhance property descriptions for better clarityWhile the current descriptions clarify these are "new" values, we could make them even more helpful for API consumers.
Consider this enhancement:
- description: "The new name of the field", + description: "The new name of the field. Optional - provide this when you want to rename the field.", - description: "The new description of the field", + description: "The new description of the field. Optional - provide this when you want to update the field's description.",Also applies to: 36-36
42-42: Enhance error message with more contextWhile the casing update improves consistency with UI labels, we could make the error message more helpful for users.
Consider this enhancement:
- throw new ConfigurationError("At least one of `Name` or `Description` must be provided."); + throw new ConfigurationError("At least one of `Name` or `Description` must be provided to update the field. These properties define what aspects of the field you want to modify.");components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs (1)
12-33: Props restructuring improves type safety and developer experienceThe granular approach with explicit props for each field attribute enhances clarity and maintainability.
Consider enhancing options validation guidance
While the options prop documentation links to the API reference, it would be helpful to provide validation hints or common patterns.
Consider adding validation examples in the description:
- description: "The options for the field as a JSON object, e.g. `{ \"color\": \"greenBright\" }`. Each type has a specific set of options - [see the documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/field-model) for more information.", + description: "The options for the field as a JSON object. Examples:\n- Single Select: `{ \"choices\": [{ \"name\": \"Option 1\" }] }`\n- Number: `{ \"precision\": 2 }`\n- Currency: `{ \"symbol\": \"$\" }`\nSee the [documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/field-model) for all options.",components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-multiple-records/create-multiple-records.mjs (1)
52-63: Enhance error handling robustness.While the JSON parsing error handling is good, consider these improvements:
- Validate the parsed fields structure
- Add size limits for JSON parsing
- Include the problematic value in the error message
Consider this enhanced implementation:
data = data.map((fields, index) => { if (typeof fields === "string") { + const MAX_SIZE = 1024 * 1024; // 1MB limit + if (fields.length > MAX_SIZE) { + throw new ConfigurationError(`Record at index ${index} exceeds size limit of 1MB`); + } try { fields = JSON.parse(fields); + if (!fields || typeof fields !== "object") { + throw new ConfigurationError(`Record at index ${index} must be an object`); + } } catch (err) { - throw new ConfigurationError(`Error parsing record (index ${index}) as JSON: ${err.message}`); + throw new ConfigurationError( + `Error parsing record at index ${index} as JSON: ${err.message}.\nValue: ${fields.slice(0, 100)}${fields.length > 100 ? '...' : ''}` + ); } } return { fields, }; });components/airtable_oauth/actions/search-records/search-records.mjs (3)
7-8: Description improvement looks good, but consider version bump.The description update and documentation link addition improve clarity. However, since this is a user-facing change, consider incrementing the version number beyond 0.0.8.
- version: "0.0.8", + version: "0.1.0",
Line range hint
96-106: Enhance error handling and user feedback.The current implementation could provide more specific error messages and better handle edge cases.
Consider these improvements:
- const results = await this.airtable.listRecords({ - baseId, - tableId, - params, - }); + let results; + try { + results = await this.airtable.listRecords({ + baseId, + tableId, + params, + }); + } catch (err) { + throw new Error( + `Failed to search records: ${err.message}. ` + + `Please verify your search criteria and try again.` + ); + } + + if (!results?.length) { + $.export("$summary", "No records found matching the search criteria."); + return []; + } $.export("$summary", `Found ${results.length} record${results.length === 1 ? "" : "s"}.`);
Input validation improvements needed, but boolean handling is correct
The review comment's concerns about boolean handling (1/0) are incorrect as this is standard Airtable formula syntax. However, the input sanitization concerns are valid. Here's what needs attention:
- String values need escaping to prevent formula injection via quotes
- The formula construction should be validated before use
- Error handling should be added for malformed formulas
if (!this.searchFormula) { const type = fieldTypeToPropType(field.type); + // Sanitize string values to prevent formula injection + const sanitizedValue = type === "string" + ? this.value.replace(/"/g, '\\"') + : this.value; filterByFormula = type === "string" - ? `FIND("${this.value}", {${this.fieldName}})` + ? `FIND("${sanitizedValue}", {${this.fieldName}})` : type === "boolean" ? `${this.fieldName} = ${this.value ? 1 : 0}` : type === "integer" - ? `${this.fieldName} = ${this.value}` + ? `${this.fieldName} = ${sanitizedValue}` - : `{${this.fieldName}} = "${this.value}"`; + : `{${this.fieldName}} = "${sanitizedValue}"`; + // Basic formula validation + if (!filterByFormula || !filterByFormula.includes(this.fieldName)) { + throw new Error("Invalid formula construction"); + } }🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
77-89: Add input validation and error handling for formula construction.The current formula construction has several potential issues:
- String values containing quotes could break the formula
- No validation of the constructed formula
- No error handling for malformed formulas
- The boolean to 1/0 conversion might need documentation
Consider applying these improvements:
if (!this.searchFormula) { const type = fieldTypeToPropType(field.type); + const sanitizedValue = type === "string" + ? this.value.replace(/"/g, '\\"') + : this.value; + filterByFormula = type === "string" - ? `FIND("${this.value}", {${this.fieldName}})` + ? `FIND("${sanitizedValue}", {${this.fieldName}})` : type === "boolean" ? `${this.fieldName} = ${this.value ? 1 : 0}` : type === "integer" - ? `${this.fieldName} = ${this.value}` + ? `${this.fieldName} = ${sanitizedValue}` - : `{${this.fieldName}} = "${this.value}"`; + : `{${this.fieldName}} = "${sanitizedValue}"`; + + // Validate the constructed formula + try { + if (!filterByFormula.includes(this.fieldName)) { + throw new Error("Invalid formula construction"); + } + } catch (err) { + throw new Error(`Failed to construct search formula: ${err.message}`); + } }Let's verify the field types and formula usage in the codebase:
Let me gather more information about the field type handling and validation:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for other formula constructions and field type handling rg -A 5 "filterByFormula" ast-grep --pattern 'fieldTypeToPropType'Length of output: 4539
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the fieldTypeToPropType implementation and field type handling cat components/airtable_oauth/common/utils.mjsLength of output: 3513
components/airtable_oauth/common/utils.mjs (1)
73-73: LGTM! Consider enhancing the template literal formatting.The addition of a fallback description using field type and ID is a good improvement for usability, especially when field descriptions are missing.
Consider using a more structured format for better readability:
- description: field.description ?? `Field type: \`${field.type}\`. Field ID: \`${field.id}\``, + description: field.description ?? [ + `Field type: \`${field.type}\``, + `Field ID: \`${field.id}\``, + ].join('. '),components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (1)
36-42: Consider adding validation for changeTypes selectionWhile the implementation is solid, consider adding validation to ensure that at least one change type is selected when the property is provided. This would prevent accidental configurations where no events would be emitted.
changeTypes: { type: "string[]", label: "Update Types", description: "Select the types of record updates that should emit events. If not specified, all updates will emit events.", options: constants.CHANGE_TYPES, optional: true, + validate: (values) => { + if (values?.length === 0) { + return "Please select at least one update type or leave empty to receive all updates."; + } + return true; + }, },components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs (2)
190-190: Consider adding pagination limits to maxRecords descriptionWhile the descriptions are clearer, the
maxRecordsdescription should mention any API limitations or recommended maximum values to prevent performance issues.- description: "The maximum number of records to return. Leave blank to retrieve all records.", + description: "The maximum number of records to return. Leave blank to retrieve all records. Note: Large record sets may impact performance and API rate limits.",Also applies to: 198-198
223-228: Consider simplifying the multiline string formatWhile the content is excellent, the string format could be simplified using template literals.
- content: `A custom expression can be a JSON object with key/value pairs representing columns and values, e.g. \`{{ { "foo": "bar", "id": 123 } }}\`. -\\ -You can also reference an object exported by a previous step, e.g. \`{{steps.foo.$return_value}}\`.`, + content: `A custom expression can be a JSON object with key/value pairs representing columns and values, e.g. \`{{ { "foo": "bar", "id": 123 } }}\`. You can also reference an object exported by a previous step, e.g. \`{{steps.foo.$return_value}}\`.`
📜 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 (31)
components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-multiple-records/create-multiple-records.mjs(3 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-or-update-record/create-or-update-record.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-single-record/create-single-record.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-table/create-table.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/delete-record/delete-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record/get-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records-in-view/list-records-in-view.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records/list-records.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/search-records/search-records.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-comment/update-comment.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-record/update-record.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-table/update-table.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs(5 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/common/actions.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/common/utils.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/package.json(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs(3 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs(3 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs(7 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/test-event.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (8)
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-single-record/create-single-record.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-record/update-record.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/test-event.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-table/create-table.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/delete-record/delete-record.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record/get-record.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records/list-records.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-comment/update-comment.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-table/update-table.mjs
🔇 Additional comments (36)
components/airtable_oauth/package.json (2)
3-3: LGTM! Version bump follows semantic versioning.
The increment from 0.3.0 to 0.4.0 appropriately reflects the addition of new features and improvements while maintaining backward compatibility.
20-20: Verify the removal of moment.js and lodash dependencies.
Good optimization on replacing the full lodash library with specific modules. However, let's verify that the removed dependencies aren't needed elsewhere in the codebase.
Consider documenting any date/time handling alternatives that replace moment.js functionality, if applicable.
✅ Verification successful
Dependencies have been properly optimized and removed
The verification shows that:
- No moment.js dependency or usage exists in the codebase
- Only specific lodash modules (
lodash.chunkandlodash.isempty) are used, with proper imports in the corresponding files - Native JavaScript Date methods are used for date/time handling instead of moment.js
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining usage of moment.js or full lodash library
echo "Checking for moment.js usage..."
rg -l "(?:require\(['\"]moment['\"]\)|import .* from ['\"]moment['\"])" components/airtable_oauth/
echo "Checking for full lodash library usage..."
rg -l "(?:require\(['\"]lodash['\"]\)|import .* from ['\"]lodash['\"])" components/airtable_oauth/
echo "Checking for specific moment.js methods that might need replacement..."
rg "moment\." components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 577
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify more thoroughly with different patterns and include package.json check
# Check package.json for any moment or lodash dependencies
echo "Checking package.json for dependencies..."
cat components/airtable_oauth/package.json
# Check for any moment imports with different patterns
echo -e "\nChecking for moment imports with broader patterns..."
rg -i "moment" components/airtable_oauth/
# Check for lodash imports with broader patterns
echo -e "\nChecking for lodash imports with broader patterns..."
rg -i "lodash" components/airtable_oauth/
# Check for date/time manipulation patterns that might use moment
echo -e "\nChecking for date manipulation patterns..."
rg "new Date|Date\." components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 2194
components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs (2)
13-17: LGTM! Good addition of user guidance.
The warning alert is well-positioned between the related properties and addresses an important usage consideration for custom expressions.
13-17: Verify consistent warning implementation across components.
Let's ensure this warning pattern is consistently implemented across related Airtable OAuth components.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search pattern to find warning alerts.
Warning alert implementation is appropriate and consistent
The warning alert in common.mjs is the only warning-type alert in the Airtable OAuth components, which is appropriate as it addresses a specific scenario about custom expressions for Base and Table dependencies. Other components use info-type alerts for general guidance, which shows a clear distinction in alert usage based on the message importance and potential issues.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar warning alert implementations in other Airtable OAuth components
# Expected: Similar warning patterns in related components
# Search for warning alert definitions in Airtable OAuth components
rg -U "warningAlert.*?{[\s\S]*?}" components/airtable_oauth/
# Search for custom expression related messages
rg "custom expression" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 1392
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for warning alerts with proper pattern
rg -U "type.*alert.*warning" components/airtable_oauth/ -A 3
# Also search for other alert types to understand the pattern
rg -U "type.*alert" components/airtable_oauth/ -A 3
Length of output: 3491
components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records-in-view/list-records-in-view.mjs (2)
7-7: LGTM! Documentation improvements enhance clarity
The updated description and version bump are appropriate. The added documentation link provides valuable reference for users.
Also applies to: 9-9
Line range hint 1-2: Verify alert compatibility with common props
Let's ensure there are no conflicting alerts between this component and the common props.
Also applies to: 11-11, 17-17, 29-29
✅ Verification successful
Let me try searching for these files with the correct paths.
Let me check specifically for the Airtable OAuth component's alert props.
No conflicting alerts found between components
Based on the verification results:
- The common.mjs has a warning alert about custom expressions for Base/Table
- The common-list.mjs has no alerts
- The list-records-in-view.mjs introduces a new info alert about Airtable Enterprise account requirement for views
The alerts serve different purposes and have different types (warning vs info), so there are no conflicts between them.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any existing alerts in common props that might conflict
echo "Checking common.mjs for existing alerts..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
props: {
$$$
alert: {
$$$
}
$$$
}
}' ../common/common.mjs
echo "Checking common-list.mjs for existing alerts..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
props: {
$$$
alert: {
$$$
}
$$$
}
}' ../common/common-list.mjs
Length of output: 603
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the actual paths of these files
echo "Finding common.mjs and common-list.mjs files..."
fd "common\.mjs$|common-list\.mjs$"
# Once we find them, let's check their content for alert props
echo -e "\nChecking for alert props in these files..."
rg -A 5 "alert.*:" $(fd "common\.mjs$|common-list\.mjs$")
Length of output: 27726
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the alert-related code in both common files for the Airtable OAuth component
echo "Checking common.mjs for alert props..."
rg -B 5 -A 10 "alert.*:" components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs
echo -e "\nChecking common-list.mjs for alert props..."
rg -B 5 -A 10 "alert.*:" components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common-list.mjs
# Let's also check the list-records-in-view file for any alert-related code
echo -e "\nChecking list-records-in-view.mjs for alert usage..."
rg -B 5 -A 10 "alert" components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records-in-view/list-records-in-view.mjs
Length of output: 1548
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs (1)
6-7: LGTM! Documentation and versioning updates are clear.
The description is now more precise, and the added documentation link provides valuable reference material for users.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (2)
4-5: LGTM! Improved component metadata
The changes enhance clarity with a more precise name and better documentation through the API link.
Also applies to: 7-7
19-19: LGTM! Clearer property description
The updated description better explains the available options for table selection.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (2)
5-5: LGTM! Documentation and version updates look good.
The addition of the API documentation link improves usability, and the version bump appropriately reflects these minor enhancements.
Also applies to: 7-7
Line range hint 1-52: Verify integration with dependent components.
Let's check for components that might be affected by these changes.
✅ Verification successful
No integration concerns found for the modified source component
The changes in new-or-modified-field source are self-contained and don't impact other components:
- No direct imports or references to this component found in other files
- The related
new-fieldsource is independent and uses its own implementation - Both sources share common utilities through
common.mjsbut don't depend on each other - Version numbers are consistently maintained at
0.0.7
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for references to this source component
rg -l "new-or-modified-field" --type js --type mjs
# Check for consistent versioning in related files
find components/airtable_oauth -type f -name "*.mjs" -exec grep -l "version" {} \;
Length of output: 1453
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of new-field.mjs as it might be related
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs
# Also check if there are any direct imports or references to new-or-modified-field
rg "new-or-modified-field" -A 2 -B 2 --type-add 'mjs:*.mjs' --type mjs
Length of output: 2144
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-or-update-record/create-or-update-record.mjs (3)
7-7: LGTM! Improved action name
The new name "Create or Update Record" is more concise and clearer than the previous version.
29-29: LGTM! Enhanced property description
The updated recordId description is more helpful with:
- Clear explanation of update vs create behavior
- Added link to Airtable's Record ID documentation
- Better guidance on optional nature
8-9: Verify if version bump is justified
The version has been bumped from 0.0.7 to 0.1.0, which typically indicates notable changes. While the documentation improvements are valuable, let's verify if there are other significant changes across the component that justify this minor version bump.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs (2)
8-9: LGTM! Clear description with helpful documentation link.
The updated description better explains the action's purpose and the documentation link provides valuable context for users.
Line range hint 1-3: Verify compatibility with updated common actions.
Since there are broader changes across multiple files, let's verify that the imported common actions are compatible with these changes.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the actual usage of these common actions in the file under review.
Common actions integration is correctly implemented and compatible
The verification shows that the common actions (getRecord and createRecord) are properly used in the component:
- The component correctly imports and uses the common actions module
- The implementation properly handles both record retrieval and creation scenarios
- The function signatures and parameter passing match the common actions' implementation
- Error handling is appropriately implemented for 404 cases to fallback to record creation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any recent changes in the common actions files
rg -A 5 "createRecord|getRecord" "./components/airtable_oauth/common/actions.mjs"
Length of output: 765
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how these common actions are used in the file under review
ast-grep --pattern 'import $_ from "../../common/actions.mjs"' -f components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs
# Get the implementation to see usage
cat components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs
Length of output: 1978
components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs (1)
7-8: LGTM! Documentation improvements
Good improvements to the action metadata:
- Added API documentation link for better developer reference
- Maintained consistent command-style naming in description
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs (2)
8-8: LGTM: Version bump is appropriate
The version increment from 0.0.6 to 0.0.7 correctly reflects the backward-incompatible changes in the props interface.
Line range hint 1-60: Verify integration with existing workflows
Since this is a breaking change that removes the field prop, we should verify there are no existing workflows depending on the old interface.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search might have been too specific. Let's broaden our search to find any references to this action component and potential test files to better understand its usage patterns.
No external dependencies found for this breaking change
The verification shows that this component is self-contained with no external dependencies or test files referencing it. The removal of the field prop appears to be safe as there are no other components or workflows in the codebase that depend on the old interface.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any workflows or tests using the old field prop
rg -l "airtable_oauth-create-field.*field['\"]?\s*:" .
Length of output: 58
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to find any usage of this action component
rg -l "airtable_oauth-create-field" .
# Also search for potential test files
fd "create-field.test" .
Length of output: 128
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs (4)
17-28: LGTM! Well-structured transformation of CHANGE_TYPES
The transformation from simple strings to label/value pairs improves UI readability while maintaining backward compatibility through unchanged values.
46-47: LGTM! Improved readability of long label strings
The multi-line formatting enhances code readability while maintaining the same content.
Also applies to: 55-56
113-113: LGTM! Proper export of new constant
The FIELD_TYPES constant is correctly added to the default export.
72-107: Consider enhancing FIELD_TYPES structure and documentation
While the comprehensive list of field types is valuable, consider these improvements:
- Structure the types as objects with label/value pairs (like CHANGE_TYPES) to improve UI integration
- Add JSDoc comments to document the purpose and usage of these field types
Example enhancement:
+/**
+ * Supported Airtable field types.
+ * @see https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/field-model
+ */
-const FIELD_TYPES = [
- "singleLineText",
- "email",
+const FIELD_TYPES = [
+ {
+ value: "singleLineText",
+ label: "Single Line Text",
+ },
+ {
+ value: "email",
+ label: "Email",
+ },Let's verify these are all valid Airtable field types:
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-multiple-records/create-multiple-records.mjs (2)
11-12: LGTM! Clear description and appropriate version bump.
The description now clearly indicates array usage and includes API documentation link. Version bump follows semantic versioning for feature additions.
22-30: LGTM! Helpful user guidance for custom expressions.
The new customExpressionInfo property provides clear, well-formatted guidance with practical examples for using custom expressions and referencing previous step outputs.
components/airtable_oauth/common/actions.mjs (1)
26-26: LGTM! Verify propDefinition reference
The addition of customExpressionInfo in the manual input fallback path improves user guidance when schema fetching fails. This aligns well with the PR's usability improvement objectives.
Let's verify the referenced propDefinition exists:
✅ Verification successful
Property reference is correctly defined and used
The customExpressionInfo property is properly defined in airtable_oauth.app.mjs as a prop definition with appropriate type, alertType, and helpful content for users. The reference in actions.mjs correctly accesses this property through the app's propDefinitions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that customExpressionInfo propDefinition is defined in the app file
# Search for customExpressionInfo definition in the app file
ast-grep --pattern 'customExpressionInfo: {
$$$
}'
# Backup search in case the property is defined differently
rg "customExpressionInfo.*:" -A 5
Length of output: 2099
components/airtable_oauth/actions/search-records/search-records.mjs (1)
35-37: LGTM! Description enhancement improves usability.
The updated search formula description provides clearer guidance with a practical example and well-integrated documentation link.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (4)
6-9: LGTM! Version increment is appropriate.
The name and description improvements provide better clarity. The version bump to 0.1.0 correctly reflects the addition of new features.
31-35: Great addition of contextual help!
The info boxes provide clear guidance to users about configuration options. The placement and content effectively improve the component's usability.
Also applies to: 43-47
Line range hint 133-150: LGTM! Clean integration of new properties.
The webhook specification properly incorporates all new configuration options while maintaining the existing structure.
36-42: Verify CHANGE_TYPES constant structure
The new changeTypes property looks well-implemented. Let's verify the structure of the referenced constant.
✅ Verification successful
CHANGE_TYPES constant is properly structured and aligned with the property usage
The CHANGE_TYPES constant in constants.mjs is well-defined with three options:
- Created (value: "add")
- Deleted (value: "remove")
- Updated/Modified (value: "update")
This structure perfectly aligns with the changeTypes property implementation, providing valid options for record update types that should emit events.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the structure of CHANGE_TYPES constant
# Search for CHANGE_TYPES definition
rg -A 10 "CHANGE_TYPES.*=.*\[" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 246
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's get the complete definition of CHANGE_TYPES constant
rg -U "const CHANGE_TYPES = \[[\s\S]*?\];" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 287
components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs (5)
88-89: LGTM! Clear improvement to sort field documentation
The updated description effectively communicates the single-field limitation and provides a helpful alternative for multi-field sorting.
183-184: LGTM! Clear explanation of return format
The description effectively explains how the boolean affects the response structure.
204-204: LGTM! Excellent documentation with examples
The updated description provides comprehensive guidance with practical examples and helpful documentation links.
215-215: LGTM! Improved clarity for typecast and record properties
The descriptions now better explain the features and their use cases.
Also applies to: 221-222
208-210:
Breaking Change: records type changed from string to string[]
This type change from string to string[] may break existing integrations. Ensure this change is:
- Documented in the changelog
- Communicated to users
- Accompanied by migration guidance
Let's check for existing usage patterns:
| description: "Updates an existing field in a table. [See the documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/update-field)", | ||
| version: "0.0.6", | ||
| description: "Update an existing field in a table. [See the documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/update-field)", | ||
| version: "0.0.7", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Version inconsistency detected across Airtable OAuth actions
The version numbers are not consistent across the Airtable OAuth action files:
- Version "0.0.6": create-table.mjs, update-comment.mjs, update-table.mjs
- Version "0.0.7": create-comment.mjs, create-field.mjs, create-multiple-records.mjs, list-records-in-view.mjs, update-field.mjs
- Version "0.0.8": delete-record.mjs, get-record.mjs, get-record-or-create.mjs, list-records.mjs, search-records.mjs
- Version "0.1.0": create-or-update-record.mjs
This inconsistency should be addressed to maintain version alignment across related components.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify version consistency across related files
The version bump to "0.0.7" should be consistent across related Airtable OAuth action files.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check version numbers in related Airtable OAuth action files
# Expected: All related files should have version: "0.0.7"
echo "Checking version numbers in Airtable OAuth action files:"
rg -U 'version: "([^"]+)"' --type js components/airtable_oauth/actions/
Length of output: 196
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find all action files and their versions
echo "Searching for action files in airtable_oauth directory:"
fd . components/airtable_oauth/actions/ -t f -e mjs
echo -e "\nChecking version strings in each file:"
for file in $(fd . components/airtable_oauth/actions/ -t f -e mjs); do
echo "=== $file ==="
cat "$file" | grep -A 1 "export default {" | grep "version"
done
Length of output: 7022
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a simpler approach with just grep to find version strings
echo "Checking version strings in all .mjs files:"
for file in components/airtable_oauth/actions/*/*.mjs; do
echo "=== $file ==="
grep -A 2 "export default" "$file"
done
Length of output: 6410
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try one more time with a more specific grep pattern to find version strings
echo "Checking version strings in all .mjs files:"
for file in components/airtable_oauth/actions/*/*.mjs; do
if grep -A 5 "export default {" "$file" | grep -q "version:"; then
echo "=== $file ==="
grep -A 5 "export default {" "$file" | grep "version:"
fi
done
Length of output: 7117
| const { | ||
| description, name, options, type, | ||
| } = this; | ||
| const response = await this.airtable.createField({ | ||
| baseId: this.baseId.value, | ||
| tableId: this.tableId.value, | ||
| data, | ||
| data: { | ||
| name, | ||
| type, | ||
| description, | ||
| options: typeof options === "string" | ||
| ? JSON.parse(options) | ||
| : options, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for options parsing
The current implementation might throw unclear errors if invalid JSON is provided.
Consider adding explicit error handling:
data: {
name,
type,
description,
- options: typeof options === "string"
- ? JSON.parse(options)
- : options,
+ options: typeof options === "string"
+ ? (() => {
+ try {
+ return JSON.parse(options);
+ } catch (e) {
+ throw new Error(`Invalid JSON in options: ${e.message}`);
+ }
+ })()
+ : options,
},📝 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.
| const { | |
| description, name, options, type, | |
| } = this; | |
| const response = await this.airtable.createField({ | |
| baseId: this.baseId.value, | |
| tableId: this.tableId.value, | |
| data, | |
| data: { | |
| name, | |
| type, | |
| description, | |
| options: typeof options === "string" | |
| ? JSON.parse(options) | |
| : options, | |
| }, | |
| const { | |
| description, name, options, type, | |
| } = this; | |
| const response = await this.airtable.createField({ | |
| baseId: this.baseId.value, | |
| tableId: this.tableId.value, | |
| data: { | |
| name, | |
| type, | |
| description, | |
| options: typeof options === "string" | |
| ? (() => { | |
| try { | |
| return JSON.parse(options); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| throw new Error(`Invalid JSON in options: ${e.message}`); | |
| } | |
| })() | |
| : options, | |
| }, |
| @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ export default { | |||
| baseId: { | |||
| type: "string", | |||
| label: "Base", | |||
| description: "The base ID", | |||
| description: "The Base ID.", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance property descriptions for better clarity
The descriptions for baseId, tableId, and viewId have been simplified too much. Consider adding more context to help users understand:
- What a Base/Table/View represents in Airtable
- How to locate these IDs
- Any relevant limitations or considerations
Example improvements:
- description: "The Base ID.",
+ description: "The unique identifier of your Airtable base. This can be found in your base's API documentation or in the URL when viewing your base.",Also applies to: 47-47, 66-66
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
warningAlertto guide users on using custom expressions forBaseandTableproperties.customExpressionInfoacross various actions to provide instructions on custom expressions.accountTierAlertto inform users that views are available only for Airtable Enterprise accounts.nameanddescriptionfor theNew Modified or Deleted Records (Instant)component to clarify its functionality.Improvements
create-comment,create-field, anddelete-record.0.4.0for the package.get-record-or-createaction.Removals
create-single-record,update-record, and various sources related to record changes.