fix: update api key now uses userId

[SEBRATHEZEBRA]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Risk Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/services/web-app/src/app/profile/page.tsx

• Potential bug: The code is accessing session.user.userId without checking if session.user exists. This could result in a runtime error if session.user is undefined.

• Potential bug: The code is making an API request to /getUser without properly validating the response.data type. It assumes that response.data will always be a string, which may not be the case. This could lead to unexpected behavior or errors.

• Potential bug: The code is not handling errors properly in the fetchData function. If an error occurs during the API request, the loading state will not be set to false, resulting in an indefinite loading state.

• Readability improvement: The code could benefit from better variable naming. For example, data could be renamed to something more descriptive like userData.

• Performance improvement: The code could avoid unnecessary re-renders by using the useMemo hook to memoize the parsed user data.

• SOLID principle: The code could benefit from separating the API request logic into a separate function, following the Single Responsibility Principle.

Example code snippet for handling errors in fetchData:

try {
  // API request code
} catch (error) {
  console.error(\"Failed to getUser, due to the following error \", error);
  setLoading(false);
}

Example code snippet for using useMemo to memoize parsed user data:

const parsedData = useMemo(() => {
  try {
    return JSON.parse(data);
  } catch (error) {
    console.error(\"Failed to parse user data\", error);
    return null;
  }
}, [data]);

---

Risk Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/services/web-app/src/pages/api/auth/[...nextauth].ts

The risk score for this code change is 3.

---

Risk Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/services/web-app/functions/add-user/index.ts

• There is a potential bug in the code. In the postEmail function, the url variable is concatenated with the string "api/email", but there is no check to ensure that url ends with a forward slash (/) before concatenating. This could result in an incorrect URL if url does not end with a forward slash. Consider adding a check to ensure that url ends with a forward slash before concatenating.
• The code could be made more readable by using template literals instead of concatenating strings in the postEmail function. This would make the code easier to understand and maintain. For example, instead of url.concat(\"api/email\"), you can use ${url}api/email.
• The code could be made cleaner by removing the unnecessary return statement in the postEmail function. Since the fetch function returns a promise, you can directly return the result of the fetch function instead of using return await fetch(...).
• The code could be improved by handling errors in the postEmail function. Currently, if the fetch function returns a non-ok response, an error message is logged to the console but no further action is taken. Consider throwing an error or returning a rejected promise in case of a non-ok response.
• The code could be improved by using destructuring assignment to extract the NewImage property from event.Records[0].dynamodb in the main function. This would make the code more concise and easier to read. For example, instead of if (event.Records[0].dynamodb?.NewImage), you can use const { NewImage } = event.Records[0].dynamodb; if (NewImage).
• The code could be improved by using optional chaining and nullish coalescing operators to handle undefined or null values more efficiently. For example, instead of userId === undefined, you can use userId ?? undefined.
• The code could be improved by using the PutCommand constructor directly instead of creating a new instance of PutCommand using new PutCommand(). This would make the code more concise. For example, instead of const command = new PutCommand({...}), you can use const command = PutCommand({...}).
• The code could be improved by using the send method directly on docClient instead of using docClient.send(command). This would make the code more concise. For example, instead of await docClient.send(command), you can use await docClient.send(new PutCommand({...})).

---

🐛📚🚀

---

Powered by Code Review GPT

[github-actions]

Test results summary:

✅ [PASS] - Test case: Bad variable name
❌ [FAIL] - Test case: Exposed secret
✅ [PASS] - Test case: Too many nested loops
⚠️ [WARN] - Test case: Unawaited Promise

SUMMARY: ✅ PASS: 2 - ⚠️ WARN: 1 - ❌ FAIL: 1

---

Tests Powered by Code Review GPT

[lizacullis]

2 small things! otherwise looks good!

[lizacullis]

Why did we move this image?

[lizacullis]

remove pls!

Changes have been made