Remove a lot of group functionality to simplify the product and how the AI creates rules for users#316
Remove a lot of group functionality to simplify the product and how the AI creates rules for users#316
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@elie222 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 5 minutes and 24 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the group and rule management functionalities across multiple files. The primary modifications involve removing group-related components, simplifying rule creation processes, and updating database relationships. Key changes include eliminating group creation modals, modifying rule form interfaces, updating database cascading delete behaviors, and refactoring how rules and groups interact. The changes suggest a strategic simplification of the group management system while maintaining core automation capabilities. Changes
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: 5
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-prompt-from-rule.ts (1)
Group condition code is commented out but tests still expect it to work
The removal of the group condition appears to be unintentional as the test file
create-prompt-from-rule.test.tsstill includes test cases that expect group conditions to work. This mismatch between implementation and tests needs to be addressed.
apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-prompt-from-rule.ts: Commented out group condition code (lines 33-42)apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-prompt-from-rule.test.ts: Contains active test cases for group conditions🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
23-92: Verify prompt generation without group condition.The removal of the group condition from the prompt generation might affect the AI's understanding of the rule context. Please verify if this is intentional and if the AI model has been retrained or updated to handle prompts without group information.
Let's check for any AI model or prompt-related configurations that might need updating:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for AI model configurations and prompt templates # Search for AI model configurations echo "Searching for AI model configurations..." fd -e json -e yaml -e env . | xargs rg -l "model|prompt|openai" # Search for other prompt generation functions echo "Searching for other prompt generators..." rg -A 5 "createPrompt|generatePrompt" "apps/web"Length of output: 15357
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
apps/web/utils/condition.ts (2)
208-214: Consider extracting static field names into constants.The implementation is clean and well-organized. For better maintainability and consistency, consider extracting the field labels ("From", "Subject", "To", "Body") into constants.
+const STATIC_FIELD_LABELS = { + from: "From", + subject: "Subject", + to: "To", + body: "Body", +} as const; const staticConditions: string[] = []; -if (rule.from) staticConditions.push(`From: "${rule.from}"`); -if (rule.subject) staticConditions.push(`Subject: "${rule.subject}"`); -if (rule.to) staticConditions.push(`To: "${rule.to}"`); -if (rule.body) staticConditions.push(`Body: "${rule.body}"`); +if (rule.from) staticConditions.push(`${STATIC_FIELD_LABELS.from}: "${rule.from}"`); +if (rule.subject) staticConditions.push(`${STATIC_FIELD_LABELS.subject}: "${rule.subject}"`); +if (rule.to) staticConditions.push(`${STATIC_FIELD_LABELS.to}: "${rule.to}"`); +if (rule.body) staticConditions.push(`${STATIC_FIELD_LABELS.body}: "${rule.body}"`);
219-233: Consider improvements to category handling.While the implementation works well, there are a few potential improvements:
- Extract the magic number
3into a named constant- Use template literals consistently
- Extract the pluralization logic into a helper function
+const MAX_DISPLAYED_CATEGORIES = 3; +const pluralize = (word: string, count: number) => count === 1 ? word : `${word}s`; const categoryFilters = rule.categoryFilters; if (rule.categoryFilterType && categoryFilters?.length) { - const max = 3; const categories = categoryFilters - .slice(0, max) + .slice(0, MAX_DISPLAYED_CATEGORIES) .map((category) => category.name) - .join(", ") + (categoryFilters.length > max ? ", ..." : ""); + .join(", ") + (categoryFilters.length > MAX_DISPLAYED_CATEGORIES ? ", ..." : ""); conditions.push( - `${rule.categoryFilterType === CategoryFilterType.EXCLUDE ? "Exclude " : ""}${ - categoryFilters.length === 1 ? "Category" : "Categories" - }: ${categories}`, + `${rule.categoryFilterType === CategoryFilterType.EXCLUDE ? "Exclude " : ""}${ + pluralize("Category", categoryFilters.length) + }: ${categories}` ); }apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (2)
279-284: Consider further Group model simplification.The comments indicate that the Group model has evolved significantly:
- Groups are now rule-dependent
- The
promptandnamefields are no longer actively used- There's potential for further simplification by removing the Group model entirely
Consider creating a follow-up ticket to evaluate the suggested model simplification.
Would you like me to help create an issue to track the potential Group model simplification?
284-284: Document the Group model transition strategy.Since the Group model is in transition:
- Consider adding a deprecation timeline in the comments
- Document the migration path for existing groups
- Plan for handling the 1:1 relationship between Rule and Group
This will help track the evolution of the model and ensure smooth transitions in future updates.
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx (1)
109-119: Ensure server/client time consistency
The "New!" badge logic uses client-side time to determine recency. If there's a clock mismatch between server and client, items added slightly over two minutes ago might still appear as "New!" or vice versa. Depending on requirements, consider server-synchronized timestamps.apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/[groupId]/page.tsx (1)
4-4: Remove or refactor the comment
Line 4 states: “Not in use anymore. Could delete this.” If confirmed unused, removing this code or comment will keep the file tidy and reduce confusion.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx(9 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/CreateGroupModal.tsx(0 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/Groups.tsx(0 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx(7 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/[groupId]/page.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/page.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/prisma/migrations/20250128141602_cascade_delete_group/migration.sql(1 hunks)apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/ai-rule.ts(13 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/group.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/rule.ts(3 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/ai/group/create-group.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-prompt-from-rule.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/condition.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/group/group.ts(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/rule/rule.ts(4 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/CreateGroupModal.tsx
- apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/Groups.tsx
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- apps/web/utils/ai/group/create-group.ts
🔇 Additional comments (41)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/page.tsx (1)
64-67: Verify complete removal of group-related code.Let's ensure all related group functionality has been properly removed across the codebase.
apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-prompt-from-rule.ts (1)
Line range hint
9-19: Verify if group-related types should be removed.The
RuleWithRelationstype still includes thegroupproperty and its related types. If group functionality is being removed, should these type definitions be updated as well?Let's verify the usage of group-related types:
apps/web/utils/condition.ts (3)
204-207: LGTM! Good refactoring to array-based approach.The change from string concatenation to array-based string building improves maintainability and performance.
216-217: LGTM! Clean and straightforward implementation.
240-240: LGTM! Clean implementation.The final join operation correctly uses the conditional operator to combine all conditions.
apps/web/utils/actions/group.ts (1)
4-4: No issues with this import.
It correctly references the Prisma client for database operations.apps/web/utils/actions/ai-rule.ts (15)
3-3: New typed import looks good.
Usinggmail_v1from@googleapis/gmailimproves type-safety for Gmail operations.
42-44: New rule and group-related imports.
These imports fordeleteRule,safeCreateRule,safeUpdateRule,createNewsletterGroup, andcreateReceiptGroupalign with the redesigned group management flow. They're organized and clear.
193-195: Access token check before Gmail usage.
This block ensures that the user session has a valid access token before making Gmail API calls, enhancing reliability and error handling.
219-225: Modular retrieval of group ID.
This call togetGroupIdfor retrieving or creating a relevant group keeps the code clean and maintainable.
227-227: Rule creation with group link.
PassinggroupIdResult.groupIdintosafeCreateRuleproperly associates the new rule with a specific group.
233-240: Expanded function signature for getGroupId.
AddinguserEmail,gmail, andaccessTokenparameters centralizes the logic needed for group creation. The return structure providinggroupId,existingRuleId, or an error is flexible and comprehensive.
263-270: Creating or returning an existing newsletter group.
UsingcreateNewsletterGrouphere is a streamlined approach. The check for"error" in resultensures early returns for failures.
292-299: Creating or returning an existing receipt group.
Mirrors the newsletter group logic, preserving consistency and clarity.
309-309: Returning the identified groupId.
Clean exit from thegetGroupIdfunction, ensuring the final outcome is concise and unambiguous.
405-405: Access token check for saveRulesPromptAction.
Again, verifyingsession.accessTokenbefore Gmail-related logic prevents invalid calls.
552-555: Deleting a rule with optional group reference.
PassinggroupIdintodeleteRulehelps ensure that any related database references can be cleaned up or handled appropriately.
599-607: Retrieving or creating group for rule edits.
This block fetches agroupIdResultfor an existing rule and properly checks for errors before proceeding, avoiding partial updates.
627-627: Safe rule update with new group reference.
LeveragingsafeUpdateRulecentralizes validation and ensures the rule is updated only if constraints are met.
656-663: Ensuring group presence for new rules.
InvokinggetGroupIdagain for newly added rules maintains consistency and reusability.
676-676: Associating the created rule with its group.
ProvidinggroupIdResult?.groupIdfinalizes the link between the rule and the newly formed or existing group.apps/web/utils/group/group.ts (5)
1-6: Comprehensive imports for group support.
Pulling ingmail_v1,findNewsletters, andfindReceiptsprovides a well-rounded approach for creating specialized groups (e.g., newsletter and receipt groups).
10-15: Enhanced createGroup signature.
Accepting an optionalruleIdis a clean way to link a newly created group to an existing rule if needed.
25-25: Conditional rule connection.
UsingruleId ? { connect: { id: ruleId } } : undefinedensures that a group is only associated with a rule when appropriate without forcing a relationship.
38-68: Creation of newsletter group with discovered items.
- Finds matching "newsletter" senders via
findNewsletters.- Creates a group with those senders as items.
- Returns the newly created group's ID.
This approach is straightforward, keeps the business logic separated, and gracefully handles the case of an existing group.
70-97: Parallel receipt group logic.
Similar to the newsletter creation, it finds matching receipts and constructs a group. Reusing the same pattern ensures maintainability and reduces complexity.apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts (1)
118-118: LGTM! Good validation enhancement.Adding a minimum length validation with a custom error message for the rule name is a good practice to prevent empty names.
apps/web/utils/rule/rule.ts (2)
34-39: LGTM! Improved function parameter organization.The refactoring to use object destructuring for parameters improves code readability and maintainability.
Also applies to: 44-49, 78-83
99-109: LGTM! Enhanced type safety with object parameters.The function signature change to use a typed object parameter improves type safety and makes the function more maintainable.
apps/web/utils/actions/rule.ts (2)
90-101: LGTM! Good handling of group creation.The code correctly checks for GROUP type conditions and creates a group when needed. The implementation is clean and follows a good separation of concerns.
289-292: LGTM! Proper use of the new deleteRule function.The code correctly passes all required parameters to the new deleteRule function.
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx (3)
181-194: LGTM! Enhanced error feedback.Good improvement to error handling UI that shows all validation errors in a clear, user-friendly list format.
320-320: LGTM! Improved field placeholders.The email field placeholders now provide clearer examples using a standard email format.
Also applies to: 331-331
726-741: LGTM! Improved group management UI.The GroupsTab component has been simplified and improved with:
- Clear description of group functionality
- Proper scrollable area for group items
- Better user guidance when no group exists
apps/web/prisma/migrations/20250128141602_cascade_delete_group/migration.sql (2)
1-5: LGTM! Cascading constraints properly configured.The foreign key modification correctly implements cascading delete and update behavior between Rules and Groups, which aligns with the auto-updating groups objective.
7-13: Verify the impact of group deletion.The cleanup query removes orphaned groups, which is good practice. However, ensure there's no critical data in these groups that might need to be preserved.
Run this script to assess the impact:
✅ Verification successful
Orphaned group deletion is safe to proceed
The cleanup is safe because:
- Groups are only meaningful when attached to rules (per schema design)
- Orphaned groups by definition have no rules using them
- Cascade delete is properly configured for related data
- This aligns with the documented evolution of the Group model
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for groups that would be deleted and their associated data # Find groups that would be deleted echo "Groups that would be deleted:" rg -l "Group" | xargs ast-grep --pattern 'group.*=.*Group.*{.*}' - # Check for any references to Group in other parts of the codebase echo "References to Group in the codebase:" rg "Group\." --type ts --type tsxLength of output: 282
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check Prisma schema and Group usage echo "=== Prisma Schema ===" cat apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma echo -e "\n=== Group Usage in Code ===" # Search in all files without extension filtering rg "Group" -A 3 -B 3 echo -e "\n=== Group Model Relations ===" # Look specifically for relations in schema rg "Group.*{" -A 10 apps/web/prisma/schema.prismaLength of output: 77615
apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (1)
194-194: LGTM! Cascade delete properly configured in schema.The
onDelete: Cascadedirective on the Rule-Group relation matches the SQL migration and ensures referential integrity.apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx (3)
4-5: Imports verified and consistent
These newly introduced imports appear aligned with their usage in the code below and do not conflict with existing dependencies or functionalities.Also applies to: 19-20, 25-25, 35-36
38-38: Handle null groupId scenario
IfgroupIdcan indeed benull, the call to/api/user/group/${groupId}/itemsmight fail or cause unexpected behavior. Consider returning early or rendering a fallback UI whengroupIdis null to avoid unexpected errors.
47-49: Consider hooking up the toggle control
The "Auto-add patterns" toggle is always enabled with an emptyonChangehandler. If auto-adding patterns is intended, consider wiring up the toggle to the relevant state or removing the toggle if it’s not yet needed.Also, the new "Add Item" and "Matches" buttons look correct, but double-check that
groupIdwon’t benullto avoid invalid URLs or form submissions.Also applies to: 51-52, 54-65, 66-74, 76-86
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/[groupId]/page.tsx (1)
9-9: Confirm groupId usage
Calling<ViewGroup groupId={params.groupId} />matches the revised signature. Consider handling invalid or missing IDs to avoid rendering issues.
| {/* no longer in use */} | ||
| <TabsContent value="groups" className="content-container mb-10"> | ||
| <Groups /> | ||
| </TabsContent> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove unused Groups tab content.
The Groups tab trigger is commented out in the UI, but the corresponding TabsContent and component are still present. This creates dead code that's loaded but inaccessible.
Apply this diff to clean up the unused code:
- {/* no longer in use */}
- <TabsContent value="groups" className="content-container mb-10">
- <Groups />
- </TabsContent>Also remove the unused import:
-import { Groups } from "@/app/(app)/automation/group/Groups";| // Group condition | ||
| if (rule.groupId) { | ||
| conditions.push("Group"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Include group name in the output string.
The current implementation only shows "Group" without any identifying information. Since the group name is available in the type definition (group?: { name: string } | null), consider including it in the output string for better clarity.
if (rule.groupId) {
- conditions.push("Group");
+ conditions.push(`Group: ${rule.group?.name ?? "Unknown"}`);
}📝 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.
| // Group condition | |
| if (rule.groupId) { | |
| conditions.push("Group"); | |
| // Group condition | |
| if (rule.groupId) { | |
| conditions.push(`Group: ${rule.group?.name ?? "Unknown"}`); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
apps/web/utils/actions/group.ts (1)
41-41: Consider adding error handling for the update operation.
If the group item does not exist, or if an unrelated database error occurs, the user receives no immediate feedback. A try/catch block aroundrejectGroupItemcan help gracefully handle transient failures.export const rejectGroupItemAction = withActionInstrumentation( "rejectGroupItem", async (id: string) => { const session = await auth(); if (!session?.user.id) return { error: "Not logged in" }; + try { await rejectGroupItem({ id, userId: session.user.id }); + } catch (error) { + return { error: "Failed to reject group item. Please try again." }; + } revalidatePath("/automation"); }, );apps/web/utils/group/group-item.ts (1)
21-31: Switching from deletion to setting aREJECTEDstatus is a solid approach.
By preserving a record of rejected items, you enable future auditing, analytics, or potential recovery. If needed, consider adding a timestamp or reason field to further enhance traceability.apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx (4)
84-92: Add security attributes to external linkThe external link opens in a new tab but is missing recommended security attributes.
Add
rel="noopener noreferrer"to prevent potential security vulnerabilities:<Link href={`/automation/group/${groupId}/examples`} target="_blank" + rel="noopener noreferrer" >
191-193: Prevent potential race condition in form submissionThe form submission could be triggered multiple times if the user clicks rapidly.
Add a loading state check:
onClick={() => { + if (isSubmitting) return; handleSubmit(onSubmit)(); }}
211-214: Optimize status groupingThe default status fallback could be moved to the groupBy selector for better clarity.
Consider this optimization:
- const groupedByStatus = groupBy( - items, - (item) => item.status || GroupItemStatus.APPROVED, - ); + const groupedByStatus = groupBy(items, 'status'); + const approvedItems = groupedByStatus[GroupItemStatus.APPROVED] ?? + groupedByStatus[null] ?? [];
263-264: Extract time comparison logicThe time comparison logic could be extracted into a utility function for reusability and testing.
Consider creating a utility function:
const isWithinLastMinutes = (date: Date, minutes: number) => { const threshold = new Date(Date.now() - 1000 * 60 * minutes); return new Date(date) > threshold; };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/ReportMistake.tsx(2 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx(6 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/rule/[ruleId]/examples/example-list.tsx(2 hunks)apps/web/prisma/migrations/20250128220758_group_item_status/migration.sql(1 hunks)apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma(4 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/group.ts(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/group/group-item.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (17)
apps/web/utils/actions/group.ts (3)
4-4: No issues with the updated import statement.
11-11: Importing bothaddGroupItemandrejectGroupItemis consistent with the new item-rejection flow.
35-36: Clear and concise naming for the newrejectGroupItemAction.apps/web/utils/group/group-item.ts (1)
2-2: ImportingGroupItemStatusto set the item’s status toREJECTEDaligns nicely with an auditable workflow.apps/web/app/(app)/automation/rule/[ruleId]/examples/example-list.tsx (1)
8-8: Import alignment is correct for the new rejection-based flow.apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts (2)
20-20: Import statement updated to reflect new group item management approach.The change from
deleteGroupItemtorejectGroupItemaligns with the new status-based approach for managing group items.
391-393: Function call updated to use status-based rejection.The implementation now uses
rejectGroupIteminstead ofdeleteGroupItem, which is a better approach as it:
- Preserves historical data
- Enables potential recovery of rejected items
- Provides better audit trails
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/ReportMistake.tsx (2)
52-52: Import statement updated to use new group item management action.The change from
deleteGroupItemActiontorejectGroupItemActionmaintains consistency with the new status-based approach.
546-546: Function call updated to use status-based rejection.The implementation now uses
rejectGroupItemActioninstead of deletion, which is more maintainable and provides better data preservation.apps/web/prisma/migrations/20250128220758_group_item_status/migration.sql (2)
1-2: Well-designed enum type for group item status management.The
GroupItemStatusenum provides clear states for managing group items:
APPROVED: Auto-approve matching emailsREJECTED: Auto-reject matching emailsNEEDS_AI: Require AI verification
4-5: Good default value choice for the status column.Setting the default status to 'APPROVED' maintains backward compatibility with existing group items.
apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (4)
194-194: Good addition of cascade deletion for group-rule relationship.The
onDelete: Cascadedirective ensures referential integrity when a group is deleted.
279-284: Helpful documentation about group management evolution.The comments provide valuable context about:
- Historical group management approach
- Current dependency on rules
- Potential future cleanup of detached groups
- Deprecation of certain fields
300-307: Well-structured GroupItem model with status management.The model includes:
- Proper cascade deletion for group relationship
- Status field with appropriate default value
- Unique constraint on (groupId, type, value)
466-470: Clear documentation of GroupItemStatus enum values.Each status value is well-documented with its specific use case:
- APPROVED: Auto-approve matching emails
- REJECTED: Auto-reject matching emails
- NEEDS_AI: Require AI verification before approval
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx (2)
132-132: Remove non-null assertion operatorUsing
groupId!in defaultValues is unsafe asgroupIdis nullable.Add a validation check or provide a default value:
- defaultValues: { groupId: groupId! }, + defaultValues: { groupId: groupId ?? '' },
Line range hint
316-332: LGTM! Well-structured presentational componentThe GroupItemDisplay component is well-implemented with clear separation of concerns and proper type safety.
| className="mt-4 text-wrap" | ||
| onClick={() => { | ||
| const result = deleteGroupItemAction(matchingGroupItem.id); | ||
| const result = rejectGroupItemAction(matchingGroupItem.id); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use await to handle the asynchronous server action properly.
Without await, isActionError(result) might not receive the resolved result, which could lead to silent failures or inconsistent UI updates.
- const result = rejectGroupItemAction(matchingGroupItem.id);
+ const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(matchingGroupItem.id);📝 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 result = rejectGroupItemAction(matchingGroupItem.id); | |
| const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(matchingGroupItem.id); |
| <Button | ||
| variant="outline" | ||
| size="icon" | ||
| onClick={async () => { | ||
| const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id); | ||
| if (isActionError(result)) { | ||
| toastError({ | ||
| description: `Failed to remove ${item.value} from group. ${result.error}`, | ||
| }); | ||
| } else { | ||
| mutate(); | ||
| } | ||
| }} | ||
| > | ||
| <TrashIcon className="size-4" /> | ||
| </Button> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add confirmation dialog for delete operation
The delete operation lacks a confirmation dialog, which could lead to accidental deletions.
Add a confirmation dialog before deletion:
<Button
variant="outline"
size="icon"
onClick={async () => {
+ if (!confirm('Are you sure you want to delete this item?')) return;
const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id);📝 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.
| <Button | |
| variant="outline" | |
| size="icon" | |
| onClick={async () => { | |
| const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id); | |
| if (isActionError(result)) { | |
| toastError({ | |
| description: `Failed to remove ${item.value} from group. ${result.error}`, | |
| }); | |
| } else { | |
| mutate(); | |
| } | |
| }} | |
| > | |
| <TrashIcon className="size-4" /> | |
| </Button> | |
| <Button | |
| variant="outline" | |
| size="icon" | |
| onClick={async () => { | |
| if (!confirm('Are you sure you want to delete this item?')) return; | |
| const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id); | |
| if (isActionError(result)) { | |
| toastError({ | |
| description: `Failed to remove ${item.value} from group. ${result.error}`, | |
| }); | |
| } else { | |
| mutate(); | |
| } | |
| }} | |
| > | |
| <TrashIcon className="size-4" /> | |
| </Button> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx (1)
729-744: Consider improving the GroupsTab implementation.While the conditional rendering and scrollable area for groups work well, there are a few suggestions for improvement:
- The hardcoded ScrollArea height (310px) might not be responsive. Consider using dynamic sizing based on viewport height or container size.
- The description text could be more concise while maintaining clarity.
Consider this alternative implementation:
- Advanced: Groups are usually managed by our AI. A group is a static - collection of senders and subjects. Our AI collects these for you to - more efficiently match future emails. + Groups are AI-managed collections of senders and subjects, automatically + gathered to improve email matching efficiency. - <ScrollArea className="h-[310px]"> + <ScrollArea className="max-h-[50vh]">
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx(9 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx (3)
183-196: Well-implemented form error handling!The error handling implementation follows best practices by showing validation errors only after form submission and presenting them in an accessible, structured list format.
261-261: LGTM - Group condition type added consistently.The Group condition type is properly integrated into the existing condition types array.
323-323: Good placeholder text improvements!The placeholders now provide clear, consistent examples of the expected email format.
Also applies to: 334-334
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx (2)
272-274: Extract time-based badge logic.Consider extracting the time-based badge logic into a separate utility function for better reusability and testability.
+const isRecentlyModified = (date: Date) => { + const twoMinutesAgo = new Date(Date.now() - 1000 * 60 * 2); + return new Date(date) > twoMinutesAgo; +}; + function GroupItemList({ ... }) { return ( <Table> <TableBody> {items.map((item) => { - const twoMinutesAgo = new Date(Date.now() - 1000 * 60 * 2); - const isCreatedRecently = new Date(item.createdAt) > twoMinutesAgo; - const isUpdatedRecently = new Date(item.updatedAt) > twoMinutesAgo; + const isCreatedRecently = isRecentlyModified(item.createdAt); + const isUpdatedRecently = isRecentlyModified(item.updatedAt);
64-72: Consider implementing auto-add patterns functionality.The commented-out Toggle component suggests an incomplete feature for automatically detecting and adding new matching patterns from incoming emails.
Would you like me to help implement the auto-add patterns functionality or create an issue to track this task?
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx (4)
191-204: Consider grouping errors by section.While the error display is functional, consider organizing errors by their respective sections (Conditions, Actions) for better user experience.
{isSubmitted && Object.keys(errors).length > 0 && ( <div className="mt-4"> <AlertError title="Error" description={ - <ul className="list-disc"> - {Object.values(errors).map((error) => ( - <li key={error.message}>{error.message}</li> - ))} - </ul> + <div className="space-y-2"> + {errors.conditions && ( + <div> + <strong>Conditions:</strong> + <ul className="list-disc pl-4"> + {Object.values(errors.conditions).map((error) => ( + <li key={error.message}>{error.message}</li> + ))} + </ul> + </div> + )} + {errors.actions && ( + <div> + <strong>Actions:</strong> + <ul className="list-disc pl-4"> + {Object.values(errors.actions).map((error) => ( + <li key={error.message}>{error.message}</li> + ))} + </ul> + </div> + )} + </div> } /> </div> )}
501-505: Consider handling loading state for LearnedPatterns.The LearnedPatterns component might benefit from a loading state to improve user experience during data fetching.
{rule.groupId && ( <div className="mt-4"> + <LoadingContent + loading={isLoading} + error={error} + loadingComponent={<Skeleton className="h-24" />} + > <LearnedPatterns groupId={rule.groupId} /> + </LoadingContent> </div> )}
191-204: Enhance error message formatting for better user experience.While the consolidated error display is good, the error messages could be more user-friendly by adding context and formatting.
Consider enhancing the error display:
<ul className="list-disc"> - {Object.values(errors).map((error) => ( - <li key={error.message}>{error.message}</li> + {Object.entries(errors).map(([field, error]) => ( + <li key={error.message}> + {capitalCase(field)}: {error.message} + </li> ))} </ul>
501-505: Consider adding error boundary for LearnedPatterns.The LearnedPatterns component is rendered without error boundary protection, which could cause the entire form to fail if there's an error in the component.
Consider wrapping the component with an error boundary:
{rule.groupId && ( <div className="mt-4"> + <ErrorBoundary fallback={<div>Error loading learned patterns</div>}> <LearnedPatterns groupId={rule.groupId} /> + </ErrorBoundary> </div> )}apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (1)
279-284: Consider cleaning up deprecated group functionality.The comments indicate significant architectural changes:
- Groups are now dependent on rules
- Some fields like "Prompt" and "Name" are no longer used
- There are detached groups that might need cleanup
Consider:
- Making the
rulefield required in theGroupmodel- Removing unused fields
- Creating a migration to clean up detached groups
Would you like me to help create a cleanup migration?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx(9 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/LearnedPatterns.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx(5 hunks)apps/web/components/ui/collapsible.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/package.json(1 hunks)apps/web/prisma/migrations/20250128221751_group_item_status/migration.sql(1 hunks)apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma(4 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/condition.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- apps/web/utils/condition.ts
👮 Files not reviewed due to content moderation or server errors (2)
- apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx
- apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (26)
apps/web/package.json (1)
44-44: LGTM! Good choice of UI library.The addition of
@radix-ui/react-collapsiblefrom Radix UI is a solid choice for implementing accessible collapsible components.apps/web/components/ui/collapsible.tsx (1)
1-11: LGTM! Clean and maintainable implementation.The component follows best practices:
- Uses "use client" directive appropriately
- Implements a clean re-export pattern for Radix UI components
- Maintains simplicity while allowing for future customization
apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts (1)
117-119: LGTM! Improved validation with better error handling.The changes enhance the schema by:
- Adding minimum length validation for the name field with a user-friendly error message
- Making groupId optional while maintaining type safety
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/LearnedPatterns.tsx (3)
14-17: LGTM! Clean state management.The component uses appropriate state hooks for managing the collapsible state and auto-learn toggle.
24-48: LGTM! Well-structured trigger section.The collapsible trigger implementation:
- Uses semantic HTML structure
- Provides clear visual feedback with the chevron icon
- Includes helpful tooltip explanation
50-52: Verify ViewGroup component implementation.The ViewGroup component is rendered with groupId, but its implementation needs verification to ensure it handles the group display logic previously managed in this component.
✅ Verification successful
ViewGroup component implementation is properly handling all group display logic ✅
The component is well-implemented with comprehensive functionality including:
- Group items fetching and management
- Pattern addition and removal
- Organized display of patterns by status
- Proper loading and error states
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ViewGroup component implementation ast-grep --pattern 'export function ViewGroup({ groupId }: { groupId: string }) { $$$ }'Length of output: 92
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ViewGroup component with flexible pattern ast-grep --pattern 'ViewGroup = $$$' # Search for ViewGroup component declaration ast-grep --pattern 'function ViewGroup$$$' # Search for ViewGroup imports and usage rg "ViewGroup" -A 2 # Find files containing ViewGroup in name fd ViewGroupLength of output: 5675
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the content of ViewGroup component cat apps/web/app/\(app\)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsxLength of output: 9467
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/ViewGroup.tsx (11)
155-164: LGTM! Well-implemented keyboard handling.The handleKeyDown implementation correctly prevents default behavior and event propagation while handling the Enter key for form submission.
204-248: Well-structured status-based organization.Good use of
groupByto organize items by status, with clear separation between approved, rejected, and evaluation states. The implementation is clean and maintainable.
296-305: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionAdd confirmation dialog for delete operation.
The delete operation lacks a confirmation dialog, which could lead to accidental deletions.
onClick={async () => { + if (!confirm('Are you sure you want to remove this pattern?')) return; const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id); if (isActionError(result)) {Likely invalid or redundant comment.
64-72: Consider implementing or removing the commented code.The commented-out toggle for auto-adding patterns suggests an incomplete feature. If this functionality is planned for future implementation, consider creating a tracking issue. Otherwise, remove the commented code to maintain cleaner codebase.
Let me check if this feature is tracked:
✅ Verification successful
Remove redundant commented code from ViewGroup
The auto-pattern toggle functionality is already implemented in the
LearnedPatternscomponent. The commented-out code inViewGroupis redundant and should be removed to avoid confusion about feature ownership.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for related issues or TODOs rg -i "auto.*pattern|pattern.*auto" -g "!*.{lock,min.js}"Length of output: 909
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check LearnedPatterns implementation cat apps/web/app/\(app\)/automation/group/LearnedPatterns.tsxLength of output: 6787
132-132:⚠️ Potential issueReplace unsafe non-null assertion with proper null check.
Using
groupId!is unsafe asgroupIdis defined as nullable (string | null). This could lead to runtime errors ifgroupIdis null.Apply this diff to handle the null case:
- defaultValues: { groupId: groupId! }, + defaultValues: groupId ? { groupId } : undefined,Likely invalid or redundant comment.
293-309: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionAdd confirmation dialog for delete operation.
The delete operation lacks a confirmation dialog, which could lead to accidental deletions.
Add a confirmation dialog before deletion:
<Button variant="outline" size="icon" onClick={async () => { + if (!confirm('Are you sure you want to delete this item?')) return; const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id); if (isActionError(result)) { toastError({ description: `Failed to remove ${item.value} from group. ${result.error}`, }); } else { mutate(); } }} >Likely invalid or redundant comment.
211-214: Review default status handling in groupBy operation.Defaulting to
APPROVEDstatus when an item's status is null might not be the safest choice. Consider explicitly handling null status items separately.Let's verify the status handling in the database:
155-164: Great addition of keyboard support!The implementation of
handleKeyDownfor form submission on Enter key press improves user experience.
211-214: Well-structured status grouping implementation.Good use of
groupBywith a fallback toAPPROVEDstatus when status is null, ensuring all items are properly categorized.
272-274: Great use of visual feedback!The implementation of "New!" and "Updated" badges for recent changes provides excellent visual feedback to users.
Also applies to: 282-284
296-305: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionAdd confirmation dialog for delete operation.
The delete operation lacks a confirmation dialog, which could lead to accidental deletions.
Apply this diff to add a confirmation dialog:
- onClick={async () => { + onClick={async () => { + if (!confirm('Are you sure you want to remove this pattern?')) return; const result = await rejectGroupItemAction(item.id);Likely invalid or redundant comment.
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx (5)
330-330: LGTM! Clear and helpful placeholder text.The updated placeholder text provides clear examples for email addresses, improving user understanding.
Also applies to: 341-341
501-505: Well-structured integration of LearnedPatterns component.Good job on separating the learned patterns functionality into a dedicated component and conditionally rendering it based on groupId.
Line range hint
330-341: Clear and helpful placeholder text for email fields.The updated placeholder text provides good examples and clear guidance for users.
191-204: Excellent error handling implementation!The comprehensive error display shows all validation errors at once, improving user experience by making it clear what needs to be fixed.
330-330: Improved field guidance with clear placeholders.The updated placeholder text
e.g. hello@company.comprovides clear examples for email address fields.Also applies to: 341-341
apps/web/prisma/migrations/20250128221751_group_item_status/migration.sql (2)
1-2: LGTM! The enum type creation looks good.The
GroupItemStatusenum provides a clear set of states for group items: 'APPROVED', 'REJECTED', and 'EVALUATE'.
4-5: Verify the impact of adding a NOT NULL column.The migration adds a new required column with a default value of 'APPROVED'. While this maintains backward compatibility, verify that existing group items should indeed default to 'APPROVED' status.
Consider running this script to analyze the existing group items:
✅ Verification successful
Default APPROVED status maintains existing behavior
The migration is safe because:
- GroupItems have always been treated as approved patterns by default in the matching logic
- Setting APPROVED as the default status maintains this existing behavior
- The new status column adds functionality (REJECTED, EVALUATE) without changing the default matching behavior
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check existing group items that will be affected by the migration # This helps verify if defaulting to 'APPROVED' is appropriate ast-grep --pattern 'GroupItem.$$$status$$$' | rg -A 5 'status' # Check for any existing group items handling in the codebase rg -g '!*.{json,lock}' -A 5 'GroupItem'Length of output: 74333
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check previous migrations and GroupItem behavior echo "=== Previous GroupItem migrations ===" rg -g "*.sql" "GroupItem" apps/web/prisma/migrations/ echo -e "\n=== GroupItem creation patterns ===" rg -g "!*.{json,lock,test.ts}" "GroupItem.create" apps/web echo -e "\n=== Test assertions for GroupItem behavior ===" rg -g "*.test.ts" "GroupItem" apps/webLength of output: 6578
apps/web/prisma/schema.prisma (2)
194-194: LGTM! The cascade deletion ensures data consistency.Adding
onDelete: Cascadeto the group relation is a good practice to maintain referential integrity.
466-470: LGTM! The GroupItemStatus enum is well documented.The enum values are clearly documented with their intended use:
APPROVED: Auto match emailsREJECTED: Never match emailsEVALUATE: Use other conditions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
apps/web/utils/actions/ai-rule.ts (1)
511-511: Ensure consistent rule update parameters.
If group references are removed, confirm thatsafeUpdateRuleno longer requires agroupId. Align the parameters with your create/delete flows.apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-200: Consider documenting the architectural changes.The removal of group-related schemas (
createGroupBody,UpdateGroupPromptBody) and modifications to rule schemas indicate a significant architectural shift in how groups and rules interact. Consider:
- Adding migration notes to help users adapt to these changes
- Updating related documentation
- Adding comments explaining the new rule-group relationship model
Would you like me to help draft the documentation for these architectural changes?
apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts (1)
284-345: Remove commented out code.The commented out code for pattern addition should be removed. If needed in the future, it can be retrieved from version control.
- // We may bring this back as "learned patterns" - // add_pattern: tool({ - // description: "Add a pattern", - // parameters: z.object({ - // ruleName: z - // .string() - // .describe("The name of the rule to add the pattern to"), - // type: z - // .enum(["from", "subject"]) - // .describe("The type of the pattern to add"), - // value: z - // .string() - // .describe( - // "The value of the pattern to add. e.g. '@company.com', 'matt@company.com', 'Receipt from'", - // ), - // }), - // execute: async ({ ruleName, type, value }) => { - // logger.info("Add To Learned Patterns", { ruleName, type, value }); - // const group = rules.find((r) => r.group?.name === groupName)?.group; - // const groupId = group?.id; - // if (!groupId) { - // logger.error("Group not found", { - // ...loggerOptions, - // groupName, - // }); - // return { error: "Group not found" }; - // } - // const groupItemType = getPatternType(type); - // if (!groupItemType) { - // logger.error("Invalid pattern type", { - // ...loggerOptions, - // type, - // }); - // return { error: "Invalid pattern type" }; - // } - // try { - // await addGroupItem({ groupId, type: groupItemType, value }); - // } catch (error) { - // const message = - // error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error); - // logger.error("Error while adding pattern", { - // ...loggerOptions, - // groupId, - // type: groupItemType, - // value, - // error: message, - // }); - // return { - // error: "Failed to add pattern", - // message, - // }; - // } - // return { success: true }; - // }, - // }),apps/web/utils/actions/rule.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-309: Consider implementing a migration strategy for existing rules.Given the architectural shift from group-based to AI-based rules, consider:
- Adding a migration script to convert existing group-based rules to AI-based rules
- Implementing feature flags to gradually roll out the changes
- Adding telemetry to monitor the effectiveness of AI-based rules compared to group-based rules
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx(8 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/automation/create/examples.tsx(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/ai-rule.ts(6 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/rule.ts(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts(8 hunks)apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-rule-schema.ts(0 hunks)apps/web/utils/condition.ts(2 hunks)apps/web/utils/config.ts(0 hunks)apps/web/utils/group/group.ts(0 hunks)apps/web/utils/rule/rule.ts(4 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- apps/web/utils/config.ts
- apps/web/utils/ai/rule/create-rule-schema.ts
- apps/web/utils/group/group.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- apps/web/utils/rule/rule.ts
🔇 Additional comments (21)
apps/web/utils/actions/ai-rule.ts (5)
40-40: Centralizing rule logic is a good move.
It’s beneficial to consolidate all rule-related operations (deleteRule,safeCreateRule, etc.) in one module for improved consistency and error handling.
190-190: Good defensive programming.
Validatingsession.accessTokenensures that automation actions are performed only by authenticated users.
214-214: Verify passing null for group ID.
Double-check thatsafeCreateRulegracefully handlesnullfor the group ID. If group IDs are universally removed, consider refactoring the function signature accordingly.
310-310: Consistent session access check.
Mirroring the earlier safeguard forsession.accessTokenmaintains a uniform security posture.
457-460: Confirm necessity ofgroupIdduring deletion.
The codebase appears to deprecate group handling elsewhere. Confirm whethergroupIdremains necessary here, or remove it if obsolete.apps/web/utils/actions/validation.ts (1)
106-108: Verify the impact of optional groupId on existing rules.The addition of an optional
groupIdfield and the stricter name validation look good. However, we should verify the handling of existing rules during this architectural change.Let's verify the impact on existing rules and their group associations:
✅ Verification successful
Optional groupId field is safely implemented and backward compatible
The implementation properly handles both grouped and ungrouped rules with appropriate validation and error handling. Existing rules are unaffected by this change.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for existing rules and their group relationships # Search for rule creation/updates to understand current usage rg -A 5 "createRule|updateRule" --type ts # Search for group-related database queries to ensure proper migration rg -A 5 "groupId|\.group" --type tsLength of output: 70967
apps/web/utils/condition.ts (5)
91-91: LGTM! Type parameter updated to exclude group conditions.The type change ensures type safety by preventing the creation of group conditions, aligning with the removal of group functionality.
187-197: LGTM! Improved string building logic.The refactoring to use arrays for collecting string segments improves code readability and maintainability.
Also applies to: 199-200, 202-216, 223-223
218-220: Include group name in the output string.The current implementation only shows "Group" without any identifying information. Since the group name is available in the type definition (
group?: { name: string } | null), consider including it in the output string for better clarity.if (rule.groupId) { - conditions.push("Group"); + conditions.push(`Group: ${rule.group?.name ?? "Unknown"}`); }
Line range hint
654-668: LGTM! Well-structured XML representation for patterns.The XML representation for patterns maintains consistent structure and proper indentation.
Line range hint
686-686: LGTM! Function renamed to reflect pattern terminology.The function name change from
getGroupItemTypetogetPatternTypealigns with the shift from group items to patterns.apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts (3)
20-20: LGTM! Import added for pattern deletion.The import for
deleteGroupItemis correctly placed and used in the pattern removal functionality.
69-79: LGTM! Clear and accurate system prompt for pattern management.The system prompt effectively explains:
- Patterns are learned from email history
- Patterns ignore the conditionalOperator setting
- The section is conditionally included based on pattern availability
89-89: LGTM! Clear explanation of condition matching logic.The explanation effectively communicates:
- Top-level conditions support both AND and OR logic
- The logic is controlled by the conditionalOperator setting
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/RuleForm.tsx (4)
66-66: LGTM! Added form submission state for error handling.The addition of
isSubmittedenables better error message handling by showing validation errors only after form submission.
182-195: LGTM! Well-structured error display.The error display section effectively:
- Shows errors only after form submission
- Uses a list structure for better readability
- Properly scopes error messages
492-496: LGTM! Added learned patterns section.The learned patterns section is properly:
- Conditionally rendered based on groupId
- Integrated with the LearnedPatterns component
321-321: LGTM! Clear and consistent placeholder text.The placeholder text for email fields:
- Provides clear examples
- Maintains consistent format
Also applies to: 332-332
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/create/examples.tsx (1)
28-29: Verify the migration impact of replacing group-based conditions with AI instructions.The shift from
RuleType.GROUPtoRuleType.AIwith instruction-based conditions represents a significant architectural change. While this aligns with the PR's objective of auto-updating groups, we should ensure:
- Existing rules using
RuleType.GROUPare properly migrated- The AI instructions provide equivalent or better functionality compared to the previous group-based approach
Also applies to: 45-46
✅ Verification successful
Migration from group-based to AI instructions is properly implemented
The codebase has been properly structured to handle the migration:
- The UI prevents creation of new group-based rules
- Form validation ensures only AI, STATIC, and CATEGORY types are available
- Examples demonstrate correct usage of AI instructions
- Type system properly handles the transition
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining GROUP type usage that might need migration rg -l "RuleType\.GROUP" --type ts --type tsx # Check for existing rules that might be affected ast-grep --pattern 'type: RuleType.GROUP'Length of output: 118
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for RuleType.GROUP usage with correct extension handling rg "RuleType\.GROUP" --type typescript # Find RuleType enum definition rg "enum\s+RuleType" --type typescript -A 5 # Look for rule-related files fd -e ts -e tsx | grep -i "rule" # Search for any group-related configurations or types rg "type.*Group|interface.*Group" --type typescriptLength of output: 2601
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check content of potential type definition files cat apps/web/utils/ai/rule/types.ts cat apps/web/utils/ai/choose-rule/types.ts # Search for RuleType usage with correct type flag rg "RuleType" -t ts # Check RuleForm implementation cat apps/web/app/\(app\)/automation/RuleForm.tsx # Look for migration-related code cat apps/web/utils/ai/rule/diff-rules.tsLength of output: 37615
apps/web/utils/actions/rule.ts (2)
22-22: LGTM! Import changes align with the new architecture.The addition of
RuleTypeanddeleteRuleimports support the transition to AI-based rules and improved rule deletion handling.Also applies to: 30-30
274-277: Verify cascade deletion behavior for rules with associated groups.The new
deleteRuleimplementation includesgroupId, suggesting potential changes in how rule-group relationships are handled during deletion.✅ Verification successful
Cascade deletion behavior for rules and associated groups is properly implemented ✅
The deletion behavior is safe and well-implemented through:
- Explicit group deletion in the same transaction as rule deletion
- Cascade deletion configuration for all dependent entities
- Atomic transaction ensuring data consistency
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for potential orphaned groups or related entities after rule deletion ast-grep --pattern 'prisma.rule.delete' # Search for cascade delete configurations in schema rg "onDelete:" --type prismaLength of output: 190
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for schema definitions and relationships fd -e prisma | xargs cat # Find all rule deletion implementations rg -A 5 "rule.*delete" # Look for group-rule relationship handling rg -B 3 -A 3 "groupId.*rule|rule.*groupId"Length of output: 21076
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
apps/web/app/(app)/smart-categories/page.tsx (1)
103-106: LGTM! Consider enhancing the description clarity.The text changes effectively communicate the feature's purpose. However, the description could be more explicit about the AI's role.
Consider this minor improvement to the description:
- Now that you have some categories, our AI can categorize - senders. + Now that you have some categories, our AI can help you categorize + your email senders.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/LearnedPatterns.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/smart-categories/page.tsx(1 hunks)apps/web/app/(app)/smart-categories/setup/SetUpCategories.tsx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- apps/web/app/(app)/smart-categories/setup/SetUpCategories.tsx
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- apps/web/app/(app)/automation/group/LearnedPatterns.tsx
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
apps/web/utils/ai/rule/prompt-to-rules.ts (3)
66-66: Consider maintaining consistency in logging labels.The logging label "Input" is inconsistent with the logger scope name "ai-prompt-to-rules" defined earlier. Consider using a consistent naming convention across all logging statements.
- logger.trace("Input", { + logger.trace("prompt-to-rules:input", {
91-91: Maintain consistency with the previous logging label suggestion.For consistency with the previous logging statement and the logger scope name:
- logger.trace("Output", { rules }); + logger.trace("prompt-to-rules:output", { rules });
Line range hint
190-201: Update rule name and enhance urgency criteria.The example has several inconsistencies:
- The rule name "Matt Urgent Emails" is too specific for a domain-wide filter.
- The urgency criteria could benefit from more specific guidelines in the AI instructions.
- "name": "Matt Urgent Emails", + "name": "Company Urgent Emails", "condition": { "conditionalOperator": "AND", - "aiInstructions": "Apply this rule to urgent emails", + "aiInstructions": "Apply this rule to emails marked as urgent, containing urgent keywords, or with high priority flags", "static": { "from": "@company.com" }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
apps/web/utils/ai/rule/prompt-to-rules.ts(5 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/web/utils/ai/rule/prompt-to-rules.ts (1)
130-131: Consider adding validation for newsletter detection.While the AI instructions are clear, consider adding validation logic or confidence thresholds to handle cases where the AI might misclassify newsletters. This could help prevent false positives.
Would you like me to propose a validation approach or generate example code for handling misclassifications?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts (1)
Line range hint
350-408: Improve error handling in remove_pattern tool.The error handling could be more informative and consistent:
- logger.error("Pattern not found", { + logger.error("Pattern not found in the matched rule", { ...loggerOptions, type, value, + ruleId: matchedRule.id, + groupId: matchedRule.group?.id, }); - return { error: "Pattern not found" }; + return { + error: "Pattern not found", + details: `Pattern '${value}' of type '${type}' was not found in the matched rule.` + };
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts (2)
286-347: Consider preserving add_pattern functionality.The commented-out
add_patterntool suggests that pattern addition might be needed in the future. Since the system still supports pattern removal, consider:
- Keeping pattern addition for manual pattern learning
- Adding validation for pattern format
If you plan to bring this back, consider:
+ // Validate pattern format + const isValidPattern = (type: string, value: string) => { + if (type === "from") return value.includes("@"); + if (type === "subject") return value.length >= 3; + return false; + };
688-691: Improve type safety in getPatternType function.The function could be more type-safe and handle invalid inputs better:
- function getPatternType(type: string) { + function getPatternType(type: string): GroupItemType | undefined { if (type === "from") return GroupItemType.FROM; if (type === "subject") return GroupItemType.SUBJECT; + return undefined; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts(7 hunks)apps/web/utils/ai/rule/prompt-to-rules.ts(6 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- apps/web/utils/ai/rule/prompt-to-rules.ts
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/web/utils/ai/assistant/process-user-request.ts (1)
69-98: System prompt updates need clarification on pattern management.The system prompt introduces "Learned Patterns" but doesn't clearly explain:
- How patterns are learned/derived from email history
- Whether patterns are automatically or manually added
- The relationship between patterns and rules
Could you clarify these aspects to ensure users understand the new pattern-based system?
|
|
||
| ${ | ||
| rule.group?.items?.length | ||
| ? `<patterns> | ||
| ${rule.group.items | ||
| .map( | ||
| (item) => | ||
| `<pattern> | ||
| <type>${item.type}</type> | ||
| <value>${item.value}</value> | ||
| </pattern>`, | ||
| ) | ||
| .join("\n ")} | ||
| </patterns>` | ||
| : "" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
XML representation of patterns needs error handling.
The XML generation for patterns lacks escaping of special characters which could cause XML parsing issues.
- <value>${item.value}</value>
+ <value>${escapeXml(item.value)}</value>
+ // Add this helper function
+ function escapeXml(unsafe: string) {
+ return unsafe.replace(/[<>&'"]/g, (c) => {
+ switch (c) {
+ case '<': return '<';
+ case '>': return '>';
+ case '&': return '&';
+ case "'": return ''';
+ case '"': return '"';
+ default: return c;
+ }
+ });
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
elie222
changed the title
1 participant
Summary by CodeRabbit
Based on the comprehensive summary, here are the updated release notes:
Major Changes
Rule Management
User Experience
LearnedPatternscomponent for better pattern management.Technical Improvements
Deprecations