🍱 Add priority for chunks & update dependencies #435
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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 (3)
backend/src/controllers/documentation.ts (1)
Line range hint
10-41: Consider typing the swagger definition properlyThe swagger definition template is currently typed as
any. Consider creating proper interfaces for your Swagger configuration.interface SwaggerDefinition { info: { title: string; version: string; description: string; license: { name: string; url: string; }; contact: { name: string; url: string; email: string; }; }; servers: Array<{ url: string; description: string; }>; } const swaggerDefinitionTemplate: SwaggerDefinition = { // ... your existing configuration };backend/package.json (1)
Line range hint
1-68: Recommendations for safe dependency updates
Consider splitting this PR into smaller, focused updates:
- Runtime dependencies (@types/express v5 deserves its own PR)
- Development tooling (TypeScript, ESLint)
- Other dependency updates
Add test cases to verify the functionality with updated dependencies
Document any breaking changes or required code modifications in the PR description
backend/src/server.ts (1)
Line range hint
97-134: Security: Avoid exposing stack traces in production.While including stack traces in error responses is helpful for debugging, it can expose sensitive implementation details to potential attackers.
Consider conditionally including stack traces based on the environment:
return res.status(500).json({ message: { ...err.message && {error: err.message}, - ...err.stack && {stacktrace: err.stack} + ...(process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production' && err.stack && {stacktrace: err.stack}) } });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
backend/package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- backend/package.json (1 hunks)
- backend/src/controllers/documentation.ts (1 hunks)
- backend/src/server.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
backend/package.json (3)
44-44: Major version bump in @types/express requires attentionThe update to @types/express v5 is a major version change that might introduce breaking changes in type definitions. This could affect request/response type annotations throughout the codebase.
Let's check for potential type issues:
#!/bin/bash # Look for Express Response/Request type usage that might need updates ast-grep --pattern 'Response<$_>' ast-grep --pattern 'Request<$_>'
57-62: Verify TypeScript and ESLint compatibilityThe updates include:
- TypeScript ^5.6.3
- ESLint ^9.13.0 and related plugins
These updates might introduce new compiler checks or linting rules.
Let's check for potential new TypeScript errors:
#!/bin/bash # Look for TypeScript configuration echo "TypeScript Config:" cat tsconfig.json # Look for ESLint configuration echo "ESLint Config:" cat .eslintrc*Also applies to: 66-66
22-22: Verify compatibility with Express and BullMQ updatesThe Express update (^4.21.1) coupled with @types/express v5 major update might require code changes. BullMQ update (^5.21.2) includes several minor versions which might introduce new features or fixes.
Let's verify the Express routes compatibility:
Also applies to: 24-24
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the Express and BullMQ usage in the codebase.
Let me try one more time without specifying the file type since TypeScript isn't recognized.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
BullMQ and Express updates appear safe to proceed
The codebase usage of both Express and BullMQ follows standard patterns that are compatible with the updated versions:
- Express usage is primarily for basic routing, middleware, and request handling (no deprecated features observed)
- BullMQ implementation uses standard Queue and Worker patterns that are stable across v5.x versions:
- Queue creation with Redis connection config
- Basic job processing with Worker implementation
- No usage of deprecated or removed features from BullMQ
The type definition update for Express (@types/express v5) should not cause issues as the codebase uses standard Express patterns and basic types (Request, Response, Router).
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Express route handlers that might need updates rg -t typescript "app\.(get|post|put|delete|patch)" -A 2Length of output: 215
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Express-related imports and usage rg -t typescript "import.*express" -A 2 # Search for BullMQ-related imports and usage rg -t typescript "import.*bullmq" -A 2 # Look for any Express router definitions rg -t typescript "Router\(\)" -A 2 # Find Express middleware usage rg -t typescript "app\.use\(" -A 2 # Search for BullMQ queue definitions and workers rg -t typescript "Queue[^a-zA-Z]" -A 2 rg -t typescript "Worker[^a-zA-Z]" -A 2Length of output: 449
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Express and BullMQ related code rg "import.*express|import.*bullmq" -A 2 # Look for Express router and middleware usage rg "Router\(\)|app\.use\(|app\.(get|post|put|delete|patch)" -A 2 # Search for BullMQ queue definitions and workers rg "new Queue\(|new Worker\(" -A 2 # Find TypeScript/JavaScript files that might contain Express or BullMQ code fd "\.(ts|js)$" --exec grep -l "express\|bullmq"Length of output: 6016
backend/src/server.ts (1)
96-96: Verify consistent error handler return types across the codebase.Let's ensure this type change is consistent with other error handlers in the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the error handler implementation to make a proper assessment.
Based on the error handler implementation shown, I can now provide a final response:
The
anyreturn type is appropriate for this error handler middlewareThe error handler middleware follows Express.js patterns and has multiple return paths:
- Returns JSON responses with
res.status().json()for different error types- Calls
next()for unhandled casesThe
anyreturn type is actually correct here because:
- Express middleware can return void (when calling next())
- Or return the result of res.status().json() (which returns the response object)
The implementation properly handles different error types (ValidateError, JsonWebTokenError, Error) with appropriate status codes and response formats, and the return type flexibility is needed for this pattern.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other error handling middleware definitions # Look for patterns that might need similar type updates # Find Express error handling middleware (4 parameters where first is error) ast-grep --pattern 'app.use((err: $_, req: $_, res: $_, next: $_) => { $$$ })' # Find similar error handling patterns rg -l "instanceof ValidateError|instanceof JsonWebTokenError" --type tsLength of output: 176
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the full context of error handler implementation rg -A 10 -B 5 "app.use\(\(err:" backend/src/server.ts # Look for any return type annotations in error handlers ast-grep --pattern '(err: $_, req: $_, res: $_, next: $_): $_ => { $$$ }' # Check for other error handling functions that might be related rg -A 5 "function.*Error|catch.*Error" backend/src/server.tsLength of output: 2003
| router.get(`/bulk.json`, (_, res: any) => res.send(specs)); | ||
| router.get(`/tsoa.json`, (_, res: any) => res.send(swaggerDocument)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using proper Express types instead of any
Using any type for Express response objects reduces type safety and goes against TypeScript best practices. Since you've updated to @types/express@^5.0.0, you should leverage its built-in types.
Replace any with the proper Express types:
- router.get(`/bulk.json`, (_, res: any) => res.send(specs));
+ router.get(`/bulk.json`, (_, res: express.Response) => res.send(specs));
- router.get(`/tsoa.json`, (_, res: any) => res.send(swaggerDocument));
+ router.get(`/tsoa.json`, (_, res: express.Response) => res.send(swaggerDocument));
- router.get(`/svelte/swagger-example.json`, (_, res: any) => res.send(specs));
+ router.get(`/svelte/swagger-example.json`, (_, res: express.Response) => res.send(specs));Alternatively, you could use the imported Router type to infer the correct types:
import { Router, Response } from 'express';
// Then use Response type in the handlersAlso applies to: 52-52
| specs.paths = {...specs.paths, ...swaggerDocument.paths} | ||
| specs.components = {...specs.components, ...swaggerDocument.components} | ||
| // specs.default = swaggerDocument.default; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on all the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Add OpenAPI type definitions to improve type safety
The current implementation uses any type for both the swagger specs and definition template. To improve type safety, you should:
- Install and use
@types/swagger-jsdocand@types/swagger-ui-expressfor proper typing - Define an interface for the OpenAPI specification structure that includes
pathsandcomponents - Type the
swaggerDefinitionTemplateobject according to the OpenAPI 3.0.0 schema
Example locations needing attention:
const swaggerDefinitionTemplate: anyon line 11const specs: any = swaggerJsdoc(options)on line 39
The verification revealed that:
- No proper type definitions are currently being used for the OpenAPI/Swagger objects
- The codebase is using OpenAPI 3.0.0 specification but relies on
anytypes - The imported packages' types are not being utilized effectively
- There's a risk of runtime errors due to untyped spread operations on
specs.pathsandspecs.components
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider typing the swagger specs object
The specs object is typed as any and used in spread operations. This could lead to runtime errors if the structure of swaggerDocument doesn't match expectations.
Let's verify the structure of the swagger document:
Let me try a different approach to verify the swagger specification structure and typing in the codebase.
This should help us understand:
- If there are any existing type definitions for swagger/OpenAPI specs
- What types are being imported and used in the documentation controller
- If there are any interfaces defining the structure with paths and components
Let me try one more search to find any OpenAPI/Swagger types from the imported packages.
This should help us:
- See the full context of how the swagger document is being used
- Find any type declarations that might be available from the imported packages
Let's check the content of the found type declaration file and also look for OpenAPI types that might be available from swagger-jsdoc.
This should help us understand:
- What types are defined in the found declaration file
- If swagger-jsdoc provides any type definitions we can use
- If there are any OpenAPI type imports we might have missed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the structure of swagger.json to ensure compatibility
if [ -f backend/src/api/swagger.json ]; then
echo "Analyzing swagger.json structure..."
jq 'keys' backend/src/api/swagger.json
echo "Checking paths structure..."
jq '.paths | keys' backend/src/api/swagger.json
echo "Checking components structure..."
jq '.components | keys' backend/src/api/swagger.json
fi
Length of output: 41
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for swagger type definitions and interfaces
echo "Searching for swagger/OpenAPI type definitions..."
rg -t ts "interface.*(?i)swagger|type.*(?i)swagger|(?i)openapi" -g "*.ts"
echo -e "\nChecking the documentation controller imports and type usage..."
rg -t ts "import.*swagger|import.*openapi" backend/src/controllers/documentation.ts
echo -e "\nLooking for swagger document structure..."
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $_ {
paths?: $_;
components?: $_;
}'
Length of output: 856
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the full documentation controller file
echo "Checking documentation controller content..."
cat backend/src/controllers/documentation.ts
# Look for type declarations in node_modules types
echo -e "\nSearching for type declarations in project..."
fd -e d.ts -x rg -l "(?i)swagger|openapi"
Length of output: 2220
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the found type declaration file
echo "Checking @jollie type declarations..."
cat "./backend/src/types/@jollie/index.d.ts"
# Look for swagger-jsdoc type definitions
echo -e "\nLooking for swagger-jsdoc types..."
rg "swagger-jsdoc" -A 5 -B 5 backend/src/types/
# Check if there are any OpenAPI type imports
echo -e "\nChecking for OpenAPI type imports..."
rg "from ['|\"]@types/swagger" -g "*.ts"
Length of output: 500
| @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ app.use(( | |||
| req: ExRequest, | |||
| res: ExResponse, | |||
| next: NextFunction | |||
| ): ExResponse | void => { | |||
| ): any => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using a more specific return type instead of any.
While changing the return type to any resolves the TypeScript error, it bypasses TypeScript's type checking benefits. This could mask potential runtime issues and makes the code less maintainable.
Consider using a union type that explicitly covers all possible return values:
-): any => {
+): ExResponse | void | Promise<ExResponse | void> => {This maintains type safety while accommodating both synchronous and asynchronous responses from the error handler.
📝 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.
| ): any => { | |
| ): ExResponse | void | Promise<ExResponse | void> => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- backend/src/processStream.ts (2 hunks)
- backend/src/server.spec.ts (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
backend/src/server.spec.ts (2)
Line range hint
849-870: LGTM: Improved job status tracking logic.The implementation correctly tracks the status of both jobs separately, which enhances the test's ability to verify job processing behavior.
873-876: Verify the job priority assertion logic.The test assumes that the smaller job should finish faster, but this might not always be true in a concurrent processing environment. Consider adding a brief sleep between job submissions to ensure consistent test behavior.
Run the following script to check for similar priority tests in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the job processing implementation to better understand the priority and concurrency behavior.
Let me get more context about the specific test case and its surrounding implementation to understand the job processing behavior better.
Based on the gathered context, I can now provide the final response:
The priority test assertion is correctly implemented
The test is validating the expected behavior of the job queue system where job priority is automatically calculated based on the total number of rows (
Math.round(options.totalRows/1000)+1). From the implementation inprocessStream.ts, we can see that:
- Job1 has 3000 rows, resulting in priority = 4
- Job2 has 500 rows, resulting in priority = 1
The test correctly verifies that the larger job (Job1) remains active while the smaller job (Job2) completes faster, which is the intended behavior of the priority-based queue system. No sleep is needed as the priority mechanism ensures consistent behavior.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Look for other priority-related tests that might need similar improvements # Test: Search for priority-related test cases rg -A 5 'priority.*test|test.*priority' --type tsLength of output: 453
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for job processing and queue related implementations rg -A 10 'class.*Queue|processJob|job.*priority' --type ts # Look for the specific test context rg -B 10 -A 10 'priority.*test' backend/src/server.spec.tsLength of output: 3368
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the full context of the test case rg -B 50 -A 50 'smaller job finish faster' backend/src/server.spec.ts # Look for job queue implementation details ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ { $$$ process($$$) { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 4187
backend/src/processStream.ts
Outdated
| skipLines: job.data.skipLines, | ||
| priority: job.opts.priority |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove unsupported priority option from csvOptions.
The priority property is not a valid configuration option for the @fast-csv/parse library. Including it in the csvOptions object will have no effect and may lead to confusion. It should be removed to prevent any unintended behavior.
You can remove the unsupported option as follows:
const csvOptions: any = {
objectMode: true,
delimiter: job.data.sep,
headers: true,
ignoreEmpty: true,
encoding: 'utf8',
escape: job.data.escape,
quote: job.data.quote,
skipLines: job.data.skipLines,
- priority: job.opts.priority
};📝 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.
| skipLines: job.data.skipLines, | |
| priority: job.opts.priority | |
| skipLines: job.data.skipLines |
backend/src/processStream.ts
Outdated
| candidateNumber: this.candidateNumber, | ||
| priority: this.job.opts.priority |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pass priority in job options rather than job data for chunkQueue.add().
To set the job's priority in BullMQ, you need to pass the priority in the job options parameter, not within the job data. Currently, priority is being passed inside the data object, which will not influence the job's execution priority.
Here's how you can modify the code to pass the priority correctly:
const job = await chunkQueue
.add(jobId, {
chunk: this.batch.map((r: any) => this.toRequest(r)),
dateFormatA: this.dateFormatA,
pruneScore: this.pruneScore,
candidateNumber: this.candidateNumber
- priority: this.job.opts.priority
}, {
attempts: 2,
jobId,
+ priority: this.job.opts.priority
})Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
cristianpb
changed the title
cristianpb
force-pushed
the
fix/update-dep
branch
from
1ad22d0
to
c4ca4d3
Compare
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores