fix(regulations-admin): No diff no addition in appendix

[thordurhhh]

What

When no addition or change is in appendix, no need to add diff to payload.

Why

Fix unnecessary additions.

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• Formatting passes locally with my changes
• I have rebased against main before asking for a review

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Improved handling of appendix changes in the editing component, providing clearer feedback when no changes are detected.
• Bug Fixes
  • Enhanced clarity of the diff output for new appendices versus unchanged ones.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the EditChange component within EditChange.tsx. Modifications include the introduction of logic to manage scenarios where there are no changes in appendix text and to differentiate between new appendices and those without changes. The getAppendixDiffHtml function has been updated to return undefined when no changes are detected, and comments have been refined for clarity. The core functionality of saving changes and managing state remains unchanged.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
libs/portals/admin/regulations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx	Updated getAppendixDiffHtml to return undefined for no changes, refined comments for clarity.

Possibly related PRs

• feat(regulations-admin): Add change appendix diff #15811: This PR adds a diff property to various models related to appendixes, which is directly relevant to the changes made in the EditChange component regarding the handling of appendix differences.
• fix(regulations-admin): Minor bugfixes for diff output #15824: This PR includes modifications to the formatAmendingRegBody function, which is related to how changes in appendixes are processed, aligning with the enhancements made in the EditChange component for diff generation.
• fix(regulations-admin): Update draft impact default date #16204: This PR modifies the logic for updating change dates in the EditChange component, indicating a direct relationship with the changes made in the main PR regarding the handling of appendix changes.

Suggested reviewers

• Valur
• Tryggvig

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)

libs/portals/admin/regulations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx (2)

243-253: Improved handling of appendix changes. Consider minor refactoring for clarity.

The changes to getAppendixDiffHtml function effectively address the PR objective by eliminating unnecessary additions when there are no modifications in the appendix. The function now correctly handles new appendices, unchanged appendices, and those with modifications.

To further improve code clarity, consider refactoring the last condition:

-    if (diff) {
-      // If the appendix has changes
-      return diff
-    } else {
-      // If the appendix has no diff
-      return undefined
-    }
+    // If the appendix has changes, return the diff; otherwise, return undefined
+    return diff || undefined

This change maintains the same logic while making the code more concise and easier to read.

---

Line range hint 359-361: Enhance type safety for localActions.revokeAppendix

The revokeAppendix function in the localActions object is currently defined with a return type of undefined. This might not accurately represent the intended behavior of the function.

Consider updating the function signature to better reflect its purpose:

revokeAppendix: (idx: number, revoked: boolean) => void

If the function is intended to perform an action without returning a value, using void as the return type would be more appropriate than undefined. This change enhances type safety and makes the code's intent clearer.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between b1623cc and 58901f9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• libs/portals/admin/regulations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

libs/portals/admin/regulations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx (1)

Pattern libs/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:

• Reusability of components and hooks across different NextJS apps.
• TypeScript usage for defining props and exporting types.
• Effective tree-shaking and bundling practices."

🔇 Additional comments (1)

libs/portals/admin/regulations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx (1)

Line range hint 1-577: Overall assessment: Changes align with PR objectives and maintain code quality

The modifications to the EditChange component, particularly in the getAppendixDiffHtml function, successfully address the PR objective of eliminating unnecessary additions to the payload when there are no modifications in the appendix. The changes maintain good coding practices, including:

1. Effective use of TypeScript for type safety.
2. Adherence to React best practices in component structure and state management.
3. Maintaining reusability of the component within the libs directory.

The suggested minor improvements in the previous comments will further enhance code clarity and type safety. Overall, the changes are well-implemented and ready for merging, pending the addressed suggestions.

[datadog-island-is]

Datadog Report

Branch report: regulations-admin/no-diff-no-addition
Commit report: d35f8fa
Test service: portals-admin-regulations-admin

✅ 0 Failed, 24 Passed, 0 Skipped, 15.85s Total Time
➡️ Test Sessions change in coverage: 1 no change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.83%. Comparing base (dcd0002) to head (3b1d16e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16293      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   36.86%   36.83%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        6798     6796       -2     
  Lines      140483   140404      -79     
  Branches    39935    39922      -13     
==========================================
- Hits        51792    51724      -68     
+ Misses      88691    88680      -11     

Flag	Coverage Δ
portals-admin-regulations-admin	1.88% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
testing-e2e	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ations-admin/src/components/impacts/EditChange.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update dcd0002...3b1d16e. Read the comment docs.