Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(http-core): test pipeline #3949

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: next
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

robstax
Copy link
Contributor

@robstax robstax commented Oct 31, 2024

testing pipeline

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved handling of the options parameter in the request function, ensuring proper assignment of URL properties.
  • Refactor

    • Enhanced internal logic for better clarity and functionality without altering the public interface.

@robstax robstax requested review from a team as code owners October 31, 2024 18:49
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 31, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes involve a modification to the request function in the @webex/http-core package. The handling of the options parameter is updated so that when options.url is defined, its value is assigned to options.uri. Following this, options.url is set to undefined and then to null. The rest of the function's logic, including the initialization of headers and event emitters, remains unchanged.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
packages/@webex/http-core/src/request/index.js Modified handling of options parameter: assigns options.url to options.uri, then clears options.url.

Poem

In the meadow where bunnies play,
A change was made, hip-hip-hooray!
Options dance with a new delight,
Clearing paths, making things right.
With a hop and a skip, we cheer and sing,
For the joy that these changes bring! 🐇✨


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
🪧 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.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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.

@robstax robstax added the validated If the pull request is validated for automation. label Oct 31, 2024
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a807933 and 278f8e4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • packages/@webex/http-core/src/request/index.js (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/@webex/http-core/src/request/index.js (1)

Line range hint 13-20: Verify the scope and impact of this change

This implementation change raises several concerns:

  1. The PR is titled "test pipeline" but includes implementation changes to URL handling
  2. The impact on existing code that might rely on options.url remaining available needs verification
  3. No tests are included despite this being a testing-related PR

Let's verify the usage of options.url in the codebase:

Consider:

  1. Adding unit tests to verify this URL handling behavior
  2. Documenting why this change is necessary for the test pipeline
  3. Adding JSDoc to explain the URL to URI conversion behavior

Would you like me to help draft the test cases for this change?

✅ Verification successful

URL to URI normalization is an existing, tested behavior

The implementation change is consistent with the existing codebase behavior:

  1. The code in utils.ts already performs the same URL to URI normalization
  2. There's an existing test case specifically for this normalization: "normalizes options.url as options.uri"
  3. The xhr.js module already handles both options.uri and options.url equivalently

The change appears to be consolidating the URL normalization behavior that's already present in the codebase, rather than introducing a breaking change.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any code that might be reading options.url after this function
rg -l "options\.url" packages/@webex/

# Search for test files that might need updating
rg -l "options\.url.*test" packages/@webex/

Length of output: 880


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual usage of options.url in the found files
rg -B2 -A2 "options\.url" packages/@webex/http-core/src/request/request.js packages/@webex/http-core/src/request/utils.ts packages/@webex/http-core/src/lib/xhr.js packages/@webex/http-core/test/integration/spec/request.js

# Check if there are any tests specifically for URL handling
rg -B2 -A2 "url.*test|test.*url" packages/@webex/http-core/test/

Length of output: 2522

Comment on lines +17 to 18
options.url = undefined;
options.url = null;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Simplify the url cleanup logic

The current implementation has redundant assignments:

  1. Setting to undefined followed immediately by null is unnecessary
  2. These assignments don't fully clean up the property from the options object

Consider this cleaner approach:

-    options.url = undefined;
-    options.url = null;
+    delete options.url;

This will:

  • Remove the property entirely instead of leaving it as null
  • Make the code more concise and clearer in its intent
  • Prevent any potential memory leaks from keeping the property around
📝 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.

Suggested change
options.url = undefined;
options.url = null;
delete options.url;

Copy link

This pull request is automatically being deployed by Amplify Hosting (learn more).

Access this pull request here: https://pr-3949.d3m3l2kee0btzx.amplifyapp.com

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
validated If the pull request is validated for automation.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant