feat(plugin-cc): Enable coverage #3939
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across multiple files, primarily focusing on the addition of a new Contact Center feature within the Webex SDK. Key modifications include the addition of new HTML and JavaScript files for the Contact Center sample application, enhancements to the Mercury and Socket classes to improve connection handling, and the introduction of a new WebSocket class. Additionally, a new README and configuration files for the Contact Center plugin have been created, along with updates to existing files to integrate this new functionality into the Webex framework. 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.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
🛑 Comments failed to post (58)
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/index.ts (1)
6-8: 💡 Codebase verification
Based on the analysis of the test files, I can now provide the final response:
Add missing test coverage for plugin registration
The current test suite in
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test/unit/spec/cc.tsfocuses on testing the ContactCenter class functionality but lacks specific tests for plugin registration. While it tests the initialization of the ContactCenter plugin through MockWebex, it doesn't verify:
- The correct registration of the plugin with the name 'cc'
- Proper passing of the config object during registration
- Error handling during plugin registration
Suggested test locations to add:
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test/unit/spec/index.ts(create this file for plugin registration tests)- Test scenarios should cover the registerPlugin call from
src/index.ts🔗 Analysis chain
Add test coverage for plugin registration.
Since we're enabling test coverage, ensure the following test scenarios are covered:
- Verify plugin registers with name 'cc'
- Verify config is properly passed to the plugin
- Test error handling for registration failures
Let's check if these test cases exist:
Let me check the content of the test file to see if it covers the plugin registration scenarios.
Let me check if there are any specific plugin registration tests in other test files, as the current test file focuses on the ContactCenter class functionality but not the plugin registration itself.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for existing test coverage of plugin registration # Look for test files that might contain plugin registration tests rg -l "registerPlugin.*cc.*ContactCenter" "packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test" || echo "No existing test coverage found for plugin registration"Length of output: 301
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of the test file cat "packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test/unit/spec/cc.ts"Length of output: 9291
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for plugin registration tests in the entire test directory rg -l "registerPlugin.*cc" packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test/Length of output: 60
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/config.ts (2)
1-12: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add TypeScript interface definitions for configuration.
The configuration object would benefit from explicit TypeScript interfaces to improve type safety and developer experience.
Consider adding interfaces before the export:
interface CCMetrics { clientName: string; clientType: string; } interface CCConfig { allowMultiLogin: boolean; clientType: string; isKeepAliveEnabled: boolean; force: boolean; metrics: CCMetrics; } interface Config { cc: CCConfig; } export default { // ... existing config } as Config;
3-10: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider extracting string literals as constants.
String literals should be extracted as named constants for better maintainability and reuse.
Consider refactoring:
const CC_CLIENT_TYPE = 'WebexCCSDK'; const CC_CLIENT_NAME = 'WEBEX_JS_SDK'; export default { cc: { allowMultiLogin: true, clientType: CC_CLIENT_TYPE, isKeepAliveEnabled: false, force: true, metrics: { clientName: CC_CLIENT_NAME, clientType: CC_CLIENT_TYPE, }, }, };packages/webex/src/contact-center.js (2)
14-18: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using an immutable approach to config merging.
The current implementation modifies the input parameter directly, requiring an eslint disable comment. Consider using an immutable approach instead:
-Webex.init = function init(attrs = {}) { - attrs.config = merge({}, config, attrs.config); // eslint-disable-line no-param-reassign - - return new Webex(attrs); -}; +Webex.init = function init(attrs = {}) { + return new Webex({ + ...attrs, + config: merge({}, config, attrs.config) + }); +};📝 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.Webex.init = function init(attrs = {}) { return new Webex({ ...attrs, config: merge({}, config, attrs.config) }); };
9-12:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd missing PACKAGE_VERSION import.
The code references
PACKAGE_VERSIONbut it's not imported or defined. This could lead to undefined behavior.Consider adding the import at the top of the file:
+import {version as PACKAGE_VERSION} from './package.json';Or define it as a constant if it's meant to be injected during build:
+const PACKAGE_VERSION = process.env.PACKAGE_VERSION || '0.0.0';Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/jest.config.js (2)
4-7: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider specifying transformIgnorePatterns
An empty
transformIgnorePatternsarray means Jest will transform all files, including those innode_modules. This could significantly impact test performance. Consider adding standard patterns:- transformIgnorePatterns: [], + transformIgnorePatterns: ['/node_modules/(?!@webex)'],This pattern will only transform
@webexpackages while skipping other node_modules.📝 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.rootDir: './', transformIgnorePatterns: ['/node_modules/(?!@webex)'], testPathIgnorePatterns: ['/node_modules/', '/dist/'], testResultsProcessor: 'jest-junit',
10-20: 💡 Codebase verification
Based on the gathered information, I can now generate the final response:
Consider a more gradual approach to coverage thresholds for this new package
The current implementation shows this is a newly created package (committed on Oct 23, 2024) with:
- 8 source files requiring coverage
- Only 2 test files currently present (
test/unit/spec/WebSocket.tsandtest/unit/spec/cc.ts)Setting an 85% threshold across all metrics (lines, functions, branches, statements) immediately for a new package could:
- Block initial contributions and slow down development
- Lead to rushed test implementations just to meet the threshold
- Create maintenance overhead in early development phases
Recommendation:
- Start with a lower initial threshold (e.g., 60-70%)
- Gradually increase it through subsequent PRs as the implementation stabilizes
- Consider different thresholds for different metrics (e.g., higher for lines/statements, lower for branches)
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify feasibility of 85% coverage threshold
While high coverage targets are admirable, an 85% threshold across all metrics (lines, functions, branches, statements) might be challenging to maintain, especially for a new plugin. Consider:
- Starting with a lower threshold and gradually increasing it
- Setting different thresholds for different metrics
Let me gather more information about the test coverage by examining the test files in more detail.
The previous results showed 8 source files but no test files with .test.ts or .spec.ts extensions. Let's check for tests with other naming patterns and understand if this is a new package, which would help us make a more informed decision about the coverage threshold.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check current test coverage in the codebase # Test: Search for existing test files to assess coverage potential echo "Checking test files distribution..." fd -e test.ts -e spec.ts . packages/@webex/plugin-cc/ echo "Checking source files that need coverage..." fd -e ts -e js . packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/Length of output: 632
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there are any existing test files in different locations echo "Searching for test files in all possible locations..." rg -l "describe|test\(" packages/@webex/plugin-cc/ # Check package.json for any test-related scripts echo -e "\nChecking package.json for test scripts..." cat packages/@webex/plugin-cc/package.json | jq '.scripts' # Check if this is a new package echo -e "\nChecking git history of the package..." git log --diff-filter=A -- packages/@webex/plugin-cc/ | head -n 5Length of output: 1311
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/WebSocket/config.ts (2)
1-47: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add TypeScript interface for configuration
Consider adding a TypeScript interface to properly type the configuration object and improve maintainability.
interface WebSocketConfig { pingInterval: number; pongTimeout: number; backoffTimeMax: number; backoffTimeReset: number; forceCloseDelay: number; beforeLogoutOptionsCloseReason: string; authorizationRequired: boolean; acknowledgementRequired: boolean; } const webSocketConfig: WebSocketConfig = { // ... existing configuration };
23-27:
⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect JSDoc type annotation
The
@typeannotation forforceCloseDelayis incorrect.- * @type {[type]} + * @type {number}📝 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.* Milliseconds to wait for a close frame before declaring the socket dead and * discarding it * @type {number} */ forceCloseDelay: process.env.MERCURY_FORCE_CLOSE_DELAY || 2000,packages/@webex/plugin-cc/README.md (3)
30-31:
⚠️ Potential issueRemove template text from Building section
This appears to be template content that should be replaced with actual build instructions specific to the Contact Center plugin.
70-71:
⚠️ Potential issueFix heading level and URL formatting
- The heading level should be h2 to maintain consistency with other sections
- The URL should be properly formatted as a markdown link
-### Kitchen Sink App -To test Contact Center SDK API, use this Kitchen Sink app: https://webex.github.io/webex-js-sdk/samples/contact-center/ +## Kitchen Sink App +To test Contact Center SDK API, use this [Kitchen Sink app](https://webex.github.io/webex-js-sdk/samples/contact-center/).📝 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.## Kitchen Sink App To test Contact Center SDK API, use this [Kitchen Sink app](https://webex.github.io/webex-js-sdk/samples/contact-center/).🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
70-70: Expected: h2; Actual: h3
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
71-71: null
Bare URL used(MD034, no-bare-urls)
16-18: 💡 Codebase verification
⚠️ Potential issueBased on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
Documentation links should reference existing Web Calling SDK documentation
The empty documentation links in the Contact Center plugin README should point to the existing Web Calling SDK documentation found in the
packages/calling/README.mdfile:
- Introduction link: https://github.com/webex/webex-js-sdk/wiki/Introducing-the-Webex-Web-Calling-SDK
- Quickstart guide link: https://github.com/webex/webex-js-sdk/wiki/Quickstart-Guide-(Calling)
Since the Contact Center plugin appears to be built on top of the Web Calling SDK functionality, these existing documentation resources would provide a good foundation for users getting started with the SDK.
🔗 Analysis chain
Documentation links need to be added before merging
The empty documentation links need to be populated with actual URLs to ensure users can access the introduction and quickstart guide.
Let's check if these docs exist elsewhere in the repository:
Let me try a different search strategy to find any documentation related to Web Calling SDK or Contact Center features.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for potential documentation files fd -e md -e mdx . | grep -i "quickstart\|introduction"Length of output: 56
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for documentation or guides related to Web Calling or Contact Center rg -i -g "*.{md,mdx}" "web calling|contact center|getting started" -A 2 -B 2Length of output: 3071
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for any docs directory or documentation files fd -t d "docs?" # List all markdown files in the repository for a broader view fd -e md -e mdx .Length of output: 4607
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there are any other README files that might contain these docs fd "README" -e mdLength of output: 4142
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
17-17: null
No empty links(MD042, no-empty-links)
18-18: null
No empty links(MD042, no-empty-links)
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/package.json (2)
25-32: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reorganize dependencies and review versions.
- Move
jest-html-reporterstodevDependenciesas it's only needed during development/testing.- Consider using a more recent version of
buffer(current latest is 6.0.3)."dependencies": { "@types/platform": "1.3.4", "@webex/calling": "workspace:*", "@webex/internal-plugin-mercury": "workspace:*", "@webex/webex-core": "workspace:*", - "buffer": "6.0.3", - "jest-html-reporters": "3.0.11" + "buffer": "6.0.3" }, "devDependencies": { + "jest-html-reporters": "3.0.11", // ... other dev dependencies }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
14-24: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add coverage-specific scripts to align with PR objectives.
To better support the coverage requirements:
"scripts": { "build:src": "webex-legacy-tools build -dest \"./dist\" -src \"./src\" -js -ts && yarn build", "build": "yarn run -T tsc --declaration true --declarationDir ./dist/types", "docs": "typedoc --emit none", "fix:lint": "eslint 'src/**/*.ts' --fix", "fix:prettier": "prettier \"src/**/*.ts\" --write", "prebuild": "rimraf dist", "test": "yarn test:style && yarn test:unit", "test:style": "eslint 'src/**/*.ts'", - "test:unit": "webex-legacy-tools test --unit --runner jest" + "test:unit": "webex-legacy-tools test --unit --runner jest --coverage", + "test:coverage": "yarn test:unit --coverage", + "coverage:open": "open coverage/lcov-report/index.html" }📝 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."scripts": { "build:src": "webex-legacy-tools build -dest \"./dist\" -src \"./src\" -js -ts && yarn build", "build": "yarn run -T tsc --declaration true --declarationDir ./dist/types", "docs": "typedoc --emit none", "fix:lint": "eslint 'src/**/*.ts' --fix", "fix:prettier": "prettier \"src/**/*.ts\" --write", "prebuild": "rimraf dist", "test": "yarn test:style && yarn test:unit", "test:style": "eslint 'src/**/*.ts'", "test:unit": "webex-legacy-tools test --unit --runner jest --coverage", "test:coverage": "yarn test:unit --coverage", "coverage:open": "open coverage/lcov-report/index.html" },docs/samples/contact-center/index.html (3)
6-6:
⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect plugin name in title.
The title mentions "Meetings Plugin" but this is actually a Contact Center sample.
- <title>Webex JavaScript SDK Sample: Meetings Plugin</title> + <title>Webex JavaScript SDK Sample: Contact Center Plugin</title>📝 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.<title>Webex JavaScript SDK Sample: Contact Center Plugin</title>
95-99:
⚠️ Potential issueFix HTML structure in Agent Desktop section.
There are mismatched closing tags and an empty content section.
Fix the HTML structure:
<div class="section-content"> - </div> - </div> - </fieldset> - </div> + <!-- Add your Agent Desktop content here --> + </div>📝 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.<div class="section-content"> <!-- Add your Agent Desktop content here --> </div>
54-64:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove security for access token handling.
The access token input field needs security improvements:
- The token is visible in plain text
- There's no validation for empty tokens
Apply these security enhancements:
- <input id="access-token" name="accessToken" placeholder="Access Token" value="" type="text"> + <input id="access-token" name="accessToken" placeholder="Access Token" value="" type="password" required + autocomplete="off" pattern=".{10,}" title="Please enter a valid access token">📝 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.<form id="credentials"> <p class="note"> NOTE: Click <a href="https://developer.webex.com/docs/getting-started" target="_blank">here</a> for access token </p> <div> <input id="access-token" name="accessToken" placeholder="Access Token" value="" type="password" required autocomplete="off" pattern=".{10,}" title="Please enter a valid access token"> <button id="access-token-save" class="btn-code" type="submit">webex.init()</button> <p id="access-token-status" class="status-par">Not initialized</p> </div> </form>docs/samples/contact-center/app.js (7)
1-18: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider reducing ESLint suppressions and adding type definitions.
The code starts with multiple ESLint suppressions that could hide potential issues:
no-unused-vars: Could mask dead codeno-console: Console statements should be replaced with proper loggingno-global-assign: Could lead to unexpected behaviorAdditionally, the global variables would benefit from type definitions.
Consider:
- Removing unnecessary ESLint suppressions
- Adding JSDoc type definitions for globals:
/** @type {import('@webex/webex-core').default} */ let webex; /** @type {string} */ let agentDeviceType; /** @type {string} */ let deviceId;
106-112:
⚠️ Potential issueEnhance registration error handling and UI feedback.
The current registration implementation lacks detailed error handling and user feedback.
Consider this improved implementation:
function register() { + const registerStatus = document.querySelector('#register-status'); + registerBtn.disabled = true; + registerStatus.innerText = 'Registering...'; + webex.cc.register().then((data) => { - console.log('Event subscription successful: ', data); + registerStatus.innerText = 'Registration successful!'; + console.log('Registration successful:', data); }).catch((error) => { - console.log('Event subscription failed'); + registerStatus.innerText = `Registration failed: ${error.message}`; + console.error('Registration error:', error); + registerBtn.disabled = false; }) }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
27-38:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: Improve token storage implementation.
The current token storage implementation has several security considerations:
- Storing sensitive tokens in localStorage without encryption
- Direct time comparison for expiration could be affected by system clock changes
- No error handling for localStorage operations
Consider implementing these improvements:
+ const TWELVE_HOURS_MS = 12 * 60 * 60 * 1000; + + function isTokenExpired() { + try { + const expiryTime = parseInt(localStorage.getItem('date'), 10); + return !expiryTime || expiryTime <= new Date().getTime(); + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error checking token expiration:', error); + return true; + } + } + + function storeToken(token) { + try { + // Consider encrypting token before storage + localStorage.setItem('access-token', token); + localStorage.setItem('date', String(new Date().getTime() + TWELVE_HOURS_MS)); + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error storing token:', error); + } + }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
148-169: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor collapse/expand functions to reduce duplication.
The current implementation has duplicated logic between collapse and expand functions.
Consider this more maintainable implementation:
-function collapseAll() { - allSectionContentElements.forEach((el) => { - el.classList.add('collapsed'); - }); - - allArrowElements.forEach((el) => { - el.classList.replace('fa-angle-down', 'fa-angle-up'); - }); -} - -function expandAll() { - allSectionContentElements.forEach((el) => { - el.classList.remove('collapsed'); - }); - - allArrowElements.forEach((el) => { - el.classList.replace('fa-angle-up', 'fa-angle-down'); - }); -} +function toggleAllSections(shouldCollapse) { + allSectionContentElements.forEach((el) => { + el.classList.toggle('collapsed', shouldCollapse); + }); + + allArrowElements.forEach((el) => { + const [fromClass, toClass] = shouldCollapse + ? ['fa-angle-down', 'fa-angle-up'] + : ['fa-angle-up', 'fa-angle-down']; + if (el.classList.contains(fromClass)) { + el.classList.replace(fromClass, toClass); + } + }); +} + +const collapseAll = () => toggleAllSections(true); +const expandAll = () => toggleAllSections(false);📝 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 allSectionContentElements = document.querySelectorAll('.section-content'); const allArrowElements = document.querySelectorAll('.arrow'); function toggleAllSections(shouldCollapse) { allSectionContentElements.forEach((el) => { el.classList.toggle('collapsed', shouldCollapse); }); allArrowElements.forEach((el) => { const [fromClass, toClass] = shouldCollapse ? ['fa-angle-down', 'fa-angle-up'] : ['fa-angle-up', 'fa-angle-down']; if (el.classList.contains(fromClass)) { el.classList.replace(fromClass, toClass); } }); } const collapseAll = () => toggleAllSections(true); const expandAll = () => toggleAllSections(false);
133-146:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity: Improve URL token handling.
The current implementation has several security and implementation concerns:
- Tokens in URL are visible in browser history
- No validation of token format
- Unsafe parseInt usage
- Comment acknowledges "hacky" implementation
Consider this safer implementation:
+ function validateToken(token) { + // Add your token format validation logic + return token && typeof token === 'string' && token.length > 0; + } + if (window.location.hash) { - // hacky way to get access token from hash - const urlParams = new URLSearchParams(window.location.hash.replace('#', '?')); + try { + const hashParams = new URLSearchParams(window.location.hash.slice(1)); + const accessToken = hashParams.get('access_token'); + const expiresIn = hashParams.get('expires_in'); - const accessToken = urlParams.get('access_token'); - const expiresIn = urlParams.get('expires_in'); - - if (accessToken) { - localStorage.setItem('access-token', accessToken); - localStorage.setItem('date', new Date().getTime() + parseInt(expiresIn, 10)); - tokenElm.value = accessToken; + if (validateToken(accessToken)) { + const expiryMs = Number(expiresIn) * 1000; + if (!Number.isNaN(expiryMs)) { + localStorage.setItem('access-token', accessToken); + localStorage.setItem('date', String(new Date().getTime() + expiryMs)); + tokenElm.value = accessToken; + // Clear hash to remove token from URL + window.history.replaceState(null, '', window.location.pathname); + } + } + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error processing URL token:', error); } }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
114-131: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor collapsible section implementation.
The current implementation has several issues:
- Hard-coded index for section reference is fragile
- Complex class toggling logic
- Long ternary expression reduces readability
Consider this improved implementation:
+ const AUTH_SECTION_ID = 'auth-registration-section'; + + function toggleArrowIcon(arrowIcon, isExpanded) { + const newClass = isExpanded ? 'fa-angle-down' : 'fa-angle-up'; + const oldClass = isExpanded ? 'fa-angle-up' : 'fa-angle-down'; + arrowIcon.classList.replace(oldClass, newClass); + } + allCollapsibleElements.forEach((el) => { el.addEventListener('click', (event) => { const {parentElement} = event.currentTarget; const sectionContentElement = parentElement.querySelector('.section-content'); const arrowIcon = parentElement.querySelector('.arrow'); + const isExpanded = !sectionContentElement.classList.contains('collapsed'); sectionContentElement.classList.toggle('collapsed'); - arrowIcon.classList.contains('fa-angle-down') ? arrowIcon.classList.replace('fa-angle-down', 'fa-angle-up') : arrowIcon.classList.replace('fa-angle-up', 'fa-angle-down'); + toggleArrowIcon(arrowIcon, isExpanded); - if(el.innerText !== 'Auth & Registration' && !sectionContentElement.classList.contains('collapsed')) { - // Note: Index of the Auth & Registration section may change if further re-ordering is done - allCollapsibleElements[1].parentElement.querySelector('.section-content').classList.add('collapsed'); - allCollapsibleElements[1].parentElement.querySelector('.arrow').classList.replace('fa-angle-down', 'fa-angle-up'); + if (parentElement.id !== AUTH_SECTION_ID && isExpanded) { + const authSection = document.getElementById(AUTH_SECTION_ID); + if (authSection) { + const authContent = authSection.querySelector('.section-content'); + const authArrow = authSection.querySelector('.arrow'); + authContent.classList.add('collapsed'); + toggleArrowIcon(authArrow, false); + } } }); });Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
76-102:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for Webex initialization.
The current implementation lacks error handling and exposes the Webex instance globally.
Consider these improvements:
function initWebex(e) { e.preventDefault(); - console.log('Authentication#initWebex()'); + try { + tokenElm.disabled = true; + saveElm.disabled = true; + authStatusElm.innerText = 'initializing...'; - tokenElm.disabled = true; - saveElm.disabled = true; - authStatusElm.innerText = 'initializing...'; + const webexConfig = generateWebexConfig({}); + webex = Webex.init({ + config: webexConfig, + credentials: { + access_token: tokenElm.value + } + }); - const webexConfig = generateWebexConfig({}) - - webex = window.webex = Webex.init({ - config: webexConfig, - credentials: { - access_token: tokenElm.value - } - }); - - webex.once('ready', async () => { - console.log('Authentication#initWebex() :: Webex Ready'); - - authStatusElm.innerText = 'Saved access token!'; - - registerBtn.disabled = false; - }); + webex.once('ready', () => { + authStatusElm.innerText = 'Saved access token!'; + registerBtn.disabled = false; + }); + webex.on('error', (error) => { + authStatusElm.innerText = 'Initialization failed!'; + console.error('Webex initialization error:', error); + }); + } catch (error) { + authStatusElm.innerText = 'Initialization failed!'; + console.error('Error initializing Webex:', error); + tokenElm.disabled = false; + saveElm.disabled = false; + } return false; }📝 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.function initWebex(e) { e.preventDefault(); try { tokenElm.disabled = true; saveElm.disabled = true; authStatusElm.innerText = 'initializing...'; const webexConfig = generateWebexConfig({}); webex = Webex.init({ config: webexConfig, credentials: { access_token: tokenElm.value } }); webex.once('ready', () => { authStatusElm.innerText = 'Saved access token!'; registerBtn.disabled = false; }); webex.on('error', (error) => { authStatusElm.innerText = 'Initialization failed!'; console.error('Webex initialization error:', error); }); } catch (error) { authStatusElm.innerText = 'Initialization failed!'; console.error('Error initializing Webex:', error); tokenElm.disabled = false; saveElm.disabled = false; } return false; }packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test/unit/spec/WebSocket.ts (1)
173-193: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider splitting event listener tests and adding edge cases.
While the current test is good, consider:
- Splitting into separate test cases for
onandoff- Adding tests for edge cases:
- Multiple listeners for the same event
- Invalid event types
- Removing non-existent listeners
docs/samples/contact-center/style.css (4)
261-298: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reconsider use of !important in utility classes.
While !important in utility classes is a common pattern, consider:
- Using a more specific selector instead
- Adding more comprehensive spacing utilities
.u-m { - margin: 1rem !important; + margin: var(--spacing-base); } +/* Add more granular spacing utilities */ +.u-m-sm { + margin: var(--spacing-sm); +} + +.u-m-lg { + margin: var(--spacing-lg); +}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
414-424: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize rendering performance.
Consider the following performance optimizations:
- Use will-change for animated elements
- Optimize box-shadow rendering
.global-toggle-btn { width: 10rem; display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; padding: 0.25rem; background-color: white; color: #0052bf; border: #0052bf 1px solid; - box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px 1px rgb(0 0 0 / 40%); + /* Optimize box-shadow */ + box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgb(0 0 0 / 20%); + /* Add will-change for smooth animations */ + will-change: transform, box-shadow; }📝 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..global-toggle-btn { width: 10rem; display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; padding: 0.25rem; background-color: white; color: #0052bf; border: #0052bf 1px solid; /* Optimize box-shadow */ box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgb(0 0 0 / 20%); /* Add will-change for smooth animations */ will-change: transform, box-shadow; }
80-90: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance accessibility and animations for collapsible sections.
The current implementation could benefit from:
- ARIA attributes for better screen reader support
- Smooth height transitions
.collapsible { cursor: pointer; + /* Add ARIA support */ + role: button; + aria-expanded: true; } .section-content { height: auto; + transition: height 0.3s ease-in-out; } .collapsed { height: 0; + overflow: hidden; }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
154-190: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve z-index management and speaking indicator.
Consider the following improvements:
- Use CSS variables for z-index values
- Add animation to the speaking indicator
+:root { + --z-index-base: 0; + --z-index-overlay: 1; + --z-index-label: 2; +} .multistream-remote-video { - z-index: 0; + z-index: var(--z-index-base); } .video-label { - z-index: 2; + z-index: var(--z-index-label); } .video-overlay { - z-index: 1; + z-index: var(--z-index-overlay); } .speaking { background-color: rgba(94, 217, 248, 0.5); + transition: background-color 0.3s ease-in-out; }📝 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.:root { --z-index-base: 0; --z-index-overlay: 1; --z-index-label: 2; } .multistream-remote-video { z-index: var(--z-index-base); } .video-label { z-index: var(--z-index-label); position: absolute; bottom: 0px; left: 0px; width: 100%; text-align: center; color: black; background-color: rgba(255,255,255,0.5); } .video-overlay { z-index: var(--z-index-overlay); position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 100%; height: 100%; display: flex; align-items: center; align-content: center; border-radius: 0.5rem; background-color: lightgray; } .video-overlay-text { color: black; width: 100%; text-align: center; } .speaking { background-color: rgba(94, 217, 248, 0.5); transition: background-color 0.3s ease-in-out; }packages/@webex/plugin-cc/test/unit/spec/cc.ts (1)
232-249:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove reliability of timeout test.
The current timeout test could be flaky as it relies on real timers and actual timeouts. Consider refactoring to use Jest's fake timers consistently:
- it('should reject the promise if the event times out', (done) => { - const resolveMock = jest.fn(); - const rejectMock = jest.fn().mockImplementation((error) => { - expect(error.message).toBe('Time out waiting for event: register'); - done(); - }); - - webex.cc.addEventHandler('register', resolveMock, rejectMock); - - const eventHandler = webex.cc.eventHandlers.get('register'); - expect(eventHandler).toBeDefined(); - - // Simulate timeout - setTimeout(() => { - expect(rejectMock).toHaveBeenCalled(); - }, WEBSOCKET_EVENT_TIMEOUT + 100); - }, WEBSOCKET_EVENT_TIMEOUT + 200); + it('should reject the promise if the event times out', () => { + jest.useFakeTimers(); + + const resolveMock = jest.fn(); + const rejectMock = jest.fn(); + + webex.cc.addEventHandler('register', resolveMock, rejectMock); + + const eventHandler = webex.cc.eventHandlers.get('register'); + expect(eventHandler).toBeDefined(); + + jest.advanceTimersByTime(WEBSOCKET_EVENT_TIMEOUT + 1); + + expect(rejectMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith( + expect.objectContaining({ + message: 'Time out waiting for event: register' + }) + ); + + jest.useRealTimers(); + });📝 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.it('should reject the promise if the event times out', () => { jest.useFakeTimers(); const resolveMock = jest.fn(); const rejectMock = jest.fn(); webex.cc.addEventHandler('register', resolveMock, rejectMock); const eventHandler = webex.cc.eventHandlers.get('register'); expect(eventHandler).toBeDefined(); jest.advanceTimersByTime(WEBSOCKET_EVENT_TIMEOUT + 1); expect(rejectMock).toHaveBeenCalledWith( expect.objectContaining({ message: 'Time out waiting for event: register' }) ); jest.useRealTimers(); });packages/@webex/webex-core/test/unit/spec/services/service-catalog.js (1)
281-310: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using test.each for protocol variations.
While the tests are comprehensive, they could be more maintainable using Jest's
test.eachto test different protocol combinations:const protocols = [ ['https', 'https://signin.example.com'], ['wss', 'https://signin.example.com'], ['http', 'https://signin.example.com'], ]; it.each(protocols)( 'should handle %s protocol correctly', (protocol, expectedUrl) => { catalog.serviceGroups = { signin: [{defaultUrl: expectedUrl, hosts: []}], }; const result = catalog.findServiceUrlFromUrl(`${protocol}://signin.example.com/resource`); assert.deepEqual(result, {defaultUrl: expectedUrl, hosts: []}); } );packages/@webex/internal-plugin-mercury/src/socket/socket-base.js (2)
331-337: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve message handling robustness and performance.
A few suggestions for the message handling changes:
- Add validation for the ping message type
- Optimize the pong event emission
if (this.acknowledgementRequired) { this._acknowledge(processedEvent); } -if (data.type === 'pong' || data.type === 'ping') { +// Validate message type for ping/pong handling +const isPingOrPong = data.type === 'pong' || + (data.type === 'ping' && typeof data.id === 'string'); + +if (isPingOrPong) { // added above ping condition to handle pong messages of contact center where type is 'ping' instead of 'pong' - this.emit('pong', {...processedEvent, type: 'pong'}); + this.emit('pong', processedEvent); } else {Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
266-277:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove robustness of authorization bypass flow.
The current implementation has potential issues:
- The
socket.onclosehandler isn't set when bypassing authorization- Missing error handling in the non-authorization path
if (this.authorizationRequired) { this._authorize() .then(() => { this.logger.info(`socket,${this._domain}: authorized`); socket.onclose = this.onclose; resolve(); }) .catch(reject); } else { + this.logger.info(`socket,${this._domain}: skipping authorization`); + socket.onclose = this.onclose; this._ping(); + resolve(); }📝 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.// Added the "authorizationRequired" condition to bypass the "_authorize" in case of the contact center context, in which case it is configured as false. if (this.authorizationRequired) { this._authorize() .then(() => { this.logger.info(`socket,${this._domain}: authorized`); socket.onclose = this.onclose; resolve(); }) .catch(reject); } else { this.logger.info(`socket,${this._domain}: skipping authorization`); socket.onclose = this.onclose; this._ping(); resolve(); }packages/@webex/internal-plugin-mercury/src/mercury.js (1)
519-527:
⚠️ Potential issueFix duplicate event emission and indentation.
There are two issues in the event emission logic:
- The namespace event is emitted twice when there's a fully qualified event type
- The indentation is inconsistent
Apply this diff to fix the issues:
if (data.eventType) { const [namespace] = data.eventType.split('.'); - if (namespace === data.eventType) { - this._emit(`event:${namespace}`, envelope); - } else { - this._emit(`event:${namespace}`, envelope); - this._emit(`event:${data.eventType}`, envelope); - } + this._emit(`event:${namespace}`, envelope); + if (namespace !== data.eventType) { + this._emit(`event:${data.eventType}`, envelope); + } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.if (data.eventType) { const [namespace] = data.eventType.split('.'); this._emit(`event:${namespace}`, envelope); if (namespace !== data.eventType) { this._emit(`event:${data.eventType}`, envelope); } }packages/@webex/internal-plugin-mercury/test/unit/spec/socket.js (2)
203-243: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add test cases for error scenarios.
The test suite is missing error scenarios for the new authorization and acknowledgment options. Consider adding test cases for:
- Network errors during authorization
- Invalid authorization responses
- Timeout scenarios
Would you like me to provide example test cases for these scenarios?
203-243:
⚠️ Potential issueFix syntax errors in test cases and improve assertions.
The test cases for
authorizationRequiredoption contain syntax errors (missing function body wrapping) and could benefit from better assertions.-it('accepts authorizationRequired option as false and skip authorize', () => { +it('accepts authorizationRequired option as false and skips authorize', () => { const s = new Socket(); const authorizeSpy = sinon.spy(socket, '_authorize'); - socket.open('ws://example.com', { + return socket.open('ws://example.com', { forceCloseDelay: mockoptions.forceCloseDelay, pingInterval: mockoptions.pingInterval, pongTimeout: mockoptions.pongTimeout, logger: console, token: 'mocktoken', trackingId: 'mocktrackingid', logLevelToken: 'mocklogleveltoken', authorizationRequired: false, - }); + }).then(() => { + mockWebSocket.readyState = 1; + mockWebSocket.emit('open'); + assert.notCalled(authorizeSpy); + assert.called(socket._ping); + }); }); -it('accepts authorizationRequired option as true and calles authorize', () => { +it('accepts authorizationRequired option as true and calls authorize', () => { const s = new Socket(); const authorizeSpy = sinon.spy(socket, '_authorize'); - socket.open('ws://example.com', { + return socket.open('ws://example.com', { forceCloseDelay: mockoptions.forceCloseDelay, pingInterval: mockoptions.pingInterval, pongTimeout: mockoptions.pongTimeout, logger: console, token: 'mocktoken', trackingId: 'mocktrackingid', logLevelToken: 'mocklogleveltoken', authorizationRequired: true, - }); + }).then(() => { + mockWebSocket.readyState = 1; + mockWebSocket.emit('open'); + assert.called(authorizeSpy); + assert.called(socket._ping); + }); });📝 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.it('accepts authorizationRequired option as false and skips authorize', () => { const s = new Socket(); const authorizeSpy = sinon.spy(socket, '_authorize'); return socket.open('ws://example.com', { forceCloseDelay: mockoptions.forceCloseDelay, pingInterval: mockoptions.pingInterval, pongTimeout: mockoptions.pongTimeout, logger: console, token: 'mocktoken', trackingId: 'mocktrackingid', logLevelToken: 'mocklogleveltoken', authorizationRequired: false, }).then(() => { mockWebSocket.readyState = 1; mockWebSocket.emit('open'); assert.notCalled(authorizeSpy); assert.called(socket._ping); }); }); it('accepts authorizationRequired option as true and calls authorize', () => { const s = new Socket(); const authorizeSpy = sinon.spy(socket, '_authorize'); return socket.open('ws://example.com', { forceCloseDelay: mockoptions.forceCloseDelay, pingInterval: mockoptions.pingInterval, pongTimeout: mockoptions.pongTimeout, logger: console, token: 'mocktoken', trackingId: 'mocktrackingid', logLevelToken: 'mocklogleveltoken', authorizationRequired: true, }).then(() => { mockWebSocket.readyState = 1; mockWebSocket.emit('open'); assert.called(authorizeSpy); assert.called(socket._ping); }); });packages/@webex/internal-plugin-mercury/test/unit/spec/mercury.js (1)
716-730: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider expanding test coverage for edge cases.
The new test case for handling messages without eventType is good. Consider adding more edge cases to create a comprehensive suite:
+ it('handles message with null eventType', () => { + sinon.spy(mercury, '_getEventHandlers'); + sinon.spy(mercury, '_emit'); + const event = {data: {data: {eventType: null, mydata: 'some data'}}}; + return Promise.resolve(mercury._onmessage(event)).then(() => { + assert.calledWith(mercury._getEventHandlers, null); + assert.calledWith(mercury._emit, 'event', event.data); + mercury._emit.restore(); + mercury._getEventHandlers.restore(); + }); + }); + + it('handles message with missing data property', () => { + sinon.spy(mercury, '_getEventHandlers'); + sinon.spy(mercury, '_emit'); + const event = {data: {}}; + return Promise.resolve(mercury._onmessage(event)).then(() => { + assert.calledWith(mercury._getEventHandlers, undefined); + assert.calledWith(mercury._emit, 'event', event.data); + mercury._emit.restore(); + mercury._getEventHandlers.restore(); + }); + });Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/WebSocket/WebSocket.ts (5)
33-35:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid directly invoking prototype methods in the constructor.
Directly calling
Mercury.prototype.initializeis unconventional and may lead to unexpected behavior. Thesuper()call should handle necessary initialization from the parent class.Consider removing the direct prototype method call:
constructor(options = {}) { super(options); - Mercury.prototype.initialize(this, options); }If additional initialization is required, consider overriding lifecycle methods or properly extending the base class.
📝 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.constructor(options = {}) { super(options); }
130-136: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor 'disconnectWebSocket' to use 'async/await' for consistency.
Using
async/awaithere aligns with modern practices and improves code clarity.Refactored method:
- disconnectWebSocket(): Promise<void> { - return this.disconnect().then(() => { - this.datachannelUrl = undefined; - this.subscriptionId = undefined; - this.webSocketUrl = undefined; - }); - } + async disconnectWebSocket(): Promise<void> { + await this.disconnect(); + this.datachannelUrl = undefined; + this.subscriptionId = undefined; + this.webSocketUrl = undefined; + }📝 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.async disconnectWebSocket(): Promise<void> { await this.disconnect(); this.datachannelUrl = undefined; this.subscriptionId = undefined; this.webSocketUrl = undefined; }
6-6:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid using 'any' in class extension.
Casting
Mercurytoanydisables TypeScript's type checking and defeats the purpose of using types. Consider resolving type incompatibilities properly without resorting toany.Consider updating the class declaration:
- class WebSocket extends (Mercury as any) implements IWebSocket { + class WebSocket extends Mercury implements IWebSocket {If type incompatibilities exist, you may need to adjust the types or interfaces of
MercuryorIWebSocketto ensure compatibility.Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
89-99: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor 'subscribeAndConnect' to use 'async/await' and remove unnecessary error handling.
Adopting
async/awaitimproves readability, and removing redundantcatchblocks streamlines the code.Refactored
subscribeAndConnectmethod:- subscribeAndConnect({ datachannelUrl, body }: { datachannelUrl: string; body: SubscribeRequest; }): Promise<void> { - return this.subscribeNotifications({ datachannelUrl, body }) - .then(() => { - this.datachannelUrl = datachannelUrl; - this.connect(this.webSocketUrl); - }); - } + async subscribeAndConnect({ datachannelUrl, body }: { datachannelUrl: string; body: SubscribeRequest; }): Promise<void> { + await this.subscribeNotifications({ datachannelUrl, body }); + this.datachannelUrl = datachannelUrl; + this.connect(this.webSocketUrl); + }📝 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.async subscribeAndConnect({ datachannelUrl, body }: { datachannelUrl: string; body: SubscribeRequest; }): Promise<void> { await this.subscribeNotifications({ datachannelUrl, body }); this.datachannelUrl = datachannelUrl; this.connect(this.webSocketUrl); }
70-72: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to use 'async/await' for better readability.
Using
async/awaitcan enhance the clarity of asynchronous operations and reduce complexity.Refactored
subscribeNotificationsmethod:- subscribeNotifications({ datachannelUrl, body }: { datachannelUrl: string; body: SubscribeRequest; }): Promise<void> { - return this.request({ - method: HTTP_METHODS.POST, - url: datachannelUrl, - body, - }) - .then((res) => { - this.webSocketUrl = res.body.webSocketUrl; - this.subscriptionId = res.body.subscriptionId; - }); - } + async subscribeNotifications({ datachannelUrl, body }: { datachannelUrl: string; body: SubscribeRequest; }): Promise<void> { + const res = await this.request({ + method: HTTP_METHODS.POST, + url: datachannelUrl, + body, + }); + this.webSocketUrl = res.body.webSocketUrl; + this.subscriptionId = res.body.subscriptionId; + }📝 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.async subscribeNotifications({ datachannelUrl, body }: { datachannelUrl: string; body: SubscribeRequest; }): Promise<void> { const res = await this.request({ method: HTTP_METHODS.POST, url: datachannelUrl, body, }); this.webSocketUrl = res.body.webSocketUrl; this.subscriptionId = res.body.subscriptionId; }packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/types.ts (10)
159-159:
⚠️ Potential issueClarify and resolve the TODO comment
The TODO comment on line 159 contains grammatical errors and lacks clarity. Please update the comment to clearly describe the intended action and ensure that the
EventResulttype is correctly defined when the related PR is merged.
116-120:
⚠️ Potential issueReconsider exposing '$config' and '$webex' in 'IContactCenter' interface
The properties
$configand$webexare marked with@ignorebut are included in the publicIContactCenterinterface. If these properties are intended to be internal, consider removing them from the public interface or marking them as private to prevent unintended access.
77-77: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Specify a more precise type for 'presence' property
The
presenceproperty is currently typed asunknown. Providing a more specific type will improve type safety and code clarity.
94-94: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Provide a specific type for 'data' in 'submitClientMetrics'
The
dataparameter insubmitClientMetricsis typed asunknown. Specifying a more precise type will enhance type safety and help prevent runtime errors.
53-53: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Ensure consistent interface naming conventions
Interfaces such as
WebexSDK,IContactCenter, andWebSocketEventhave inconsistent naming conventions regarding theIprefix. Consider adopting a consistent naming strategy for interfaces to improve code readability and maintainability.Also applies to: 112-112, 145-145
61-61:
⚠️ Potential issueCorrect 'callBack' to 'callback' in 'once' method for consistency
The parameter name
callBackshould be renamed tocallbackto follow standard camelCase naming conventions in JavaScript and TypeScript.Apply this diff to fix the parameter name:
- once: (event: string, callBack: () => void) => void; + once: (event: string, callback: () => void) => void;📝 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.once: (event: string, callback: () => void) => void;
40-46:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid duplication of 'clientType' in 'CCPluginConfig'
The
clientTypeproperty appears both at the top level ofCCPluginConfigand within themetricsobject. This duplication could lead to inconsistencies. Consider removing one instance or ensuring they are consistently updated.Apply this diff to remove the duplicate:
export interface CCPluginConfig { allowMultiLogin: boolean; - clientType: string; isKeepAliveEnabled: boolean; force: boolean; metrics: { clientName: string; clientType: string; };📝 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.isKeepAliveEnabled: boolean; force: boolean; metrics: { clientName: string; clientType: string; };
91-91:
⚠️ Potential issueHandle cases where the service may not be found in 'get' method
The
getmethod returns astring, but if the requested service is not found, it might returnundefined. Consider updating the return type tostring | undefinedto handle such cases safely.Apply this diff to update the return type:
- get(name: string, priorityHost?: boolean, serviceGroup?: string): string; + get(name: string, priorityHost?: boolean, serviceGroup?: string): string | undefined;📝 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.get(name: string, priorityHost?: boolean, serviceGroup?: string): string | undefined;
15-25:
⚠️ Potential issueReview inclusion of 'statusCode' in 'WebexRequestPayload'
The
statusCodeproperty inWebexRequestPayloadis typically associated with responses rather than requests. Including it in the request payload may cause confusion. Consider removing it or clarifying its intended use.Apply this diff to remove
statusCode:type WebexRequestPayload = { method?: HTTP_METHODS; uri?: string; addAuthHeader?: boolean; headers?: { [key: string]: string | null; }; body?: object; - statusCode?: number; json?: boolean; };📝 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.type WebexRequestPayload = { method?: HTTP_METHODS; uri?: string; addAuthHeader?: boolean; headers?: { [key: string]: string | null; }; body?: object; json?: boolean; };
145-150: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Design 'WebSocketEvent' to accommodate various event data
Currently, the
WebSocketEventinterface has a fixeddatastructure with onlyagentId. If different events carry different data payloads, consider makingdatamore flexible or using generics to handle various event types.Apply this diff to make
datageneric:-export interface WebSocketEvent { +export interface WebSocketEvent<T = unknown> { type: CC_EVENTS; data: T; }This change allows
datato be of any type, accommodating different event payloads.📝 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.export interface WebSocketEvent<T = unknown> { type: CC_EVENTS; data: T; }packages/@webex/plugin-cc/src/cc.ts (5)
28-28:
⚠️ Potential issueReplace
anytypes with specific types for better type safetyUsing
anyreduces type safety. Consider replacingdata: anyanderror: anywith more specific types to leverage TypeScript's strengths.
34-35:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid using
@ts-ignore; address the underlying type issuesUsing
@ts-ignoresuppresses TypeScript errors, potentially hiding real issues. Consider properly typingthis.webexto eliminate the need for@ts-ignore.
38-39:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid using
@ts-ignore; address the underlying type issuesSuppressing TypeScript errors with
@ts-ignorecan mask underlying problems. Ensurethis.configis correctly typed to avoid the need for@ts-ignore.
72-77: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using
async/awaitsyntax for consistency and error handlingTo maintain consistency with the
registermethod and improve readability, refactorunregisterto useasync/awaitand handle potential errors.Apply this diff to refactor the method:
-public unregister(): Promise<void> { - return this.webSocket.disconnectWebSocket().then(() => { - this.webSocket.off(EVENT, this.processEvent); - this.registered = false; - }); +public async unregister(): Promise<void> { + try { + await this.webSocket.disconnectWebSocket(); + this.webSocket.off(EVENT, this.processEvent); + this.registered = false; + } catch (error) { + this.$webex.logger.error(`Error disconnecting WebSocket: ${error}`); + throw error; + } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.public async unregister(): Promise<void> { try { await this.webSocket.disconnectWebSocket(); this.webSocket.off(EVENT, this.processEvent); this.registered = false; } catch (error) { this.$webex.logger.error(`Error disconnecting WebSocket: ${error}`); throw error; } }
94-114: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor
establishConnectionto return aPromisefor cleaner error handlingPassing the
rejectfunction toestablishConnectionincreases coupling. RefactorestablishConnectionto return aPromiseand useasync/awaitfor better error handling.Here's how you might refactor:
Modify
establishConnectionto return aPromise<void>:-private async establishConnection(reject: (error: Error) => void) { +private async establishConnection(): Promise<void> {Update the
registermethod to handle the promise:public async register(): Promise<string> { this.wccApiUrl = this.$webex.internal.services.get(WCC_API_GATEWAY); this.listenForWebSocketEvents(); - return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { - this.addEventHandler( - REGISTER_EVENT, - (result) => { - this.registered = true; - resolve(result); - }, - reject - ); - this.establishConnection(reject); - }); + try { + await this.establishConnection(); + return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { + this.addEventHandler( + REGISTER_EVENT, + (result) => { + this.registered = true; + resolve(result); + }, + reject + ); + }); + } catch (error) { + this.$webex.logger.error(`Error establishing connection: ${error}`); + throw error; + } }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
packages/@webex/webex-core/src/lib/services/service-catalog.js (1)
273-273:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Hostname Comparisons are Case-Insensitive
Hostnames are case-insensitive as per RFC 4343. The current code uses strict equality to compare hostnames, which could lead to mismatches if the hostnames differ in case (e.g.,
Example.comvs.example.com). To handle all cases correctly, consider normalizing the hostnames to lowercase before comparison.Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- if (inputUrl.hostname === defaultHostname) { + if (inputUrl.hostname.toLowerCase() === defaultHostname.toLowerCase()) { ... - if (inputUrl.hostname === alternateUrl.hostname) { + if (inputUrl.hostname.toLowerCase() === alternateUrl.hostname.toLowerCase()) {Also applies to: 289-289
|
This pull request is automatically being deployed by Amplify Hosting (learn more). |
COMPLETES #AD-HOC
This pull request addresses
Enables unit test coverage for the code
by making the following changes
Updated jest config to set collectCoverage property to true.
Change Type
The following scenarios were tested
Ran the yarn run test:unit command and coverage report generated.
I certified that
I have read and followed contributing guidelines
I discussed changes with code owners prior to submitting this pull request
I have not skipped any automated checks
All existing and new tests passed
I have updated the documentation accordingly
Make sure to have followed the contributing guidelines before submitting.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
ContactCenterclass for handling contact center operations.Documentation
@webex/plugin-ccpackage with sections on getting started, development, and usage.Bug Fixes
Tests
WebSocketandContactCenterclasses, including edge cases and error handling scenarios.