Feat/fe/docker monitors, resolves #1139

[ajhollid]

This PR implements the FE component of #1139, builds off #1150

• Update create monitor UI to include an option for Docker monitors
  • Refactor labels and placeholders to use a map
• Update uptime monitor slice to handle docker types
• Update BE to process requests for docker monitors
  • Update joi validation
  • Update DB methods
• Update BE tests - Will do this in a separate PR

[llamapreview]

Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview

1. Overview

1.1 PR Summary

• Business value and requirements alignment: This PR implements the front-end component for adding Docker monitors, extending the existing features for HTTP and Ping monitors. It enhances the system's monitoring capabilities by allowing Docker container monitoring, aligning with the requirement to track server uptime and performance.
• Key components modified:
  • Client-side components in Client/src/Features/UptimeMonitors/uptimeMonitorsSlice.js and Client/src/Pages/Monitors/CreateMonitor/index.jsx.
  • Backend modifications in Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js, Server/service/networkService.js, and Server/validation/joi.js.
  • UI updates to accommodate Docker monitors in Client/src/Pages/Monitors/Home/MonitorTable/index.jsx.
• Impact assessment: The changes affect the front-end UI, the data processing logic on the server, and the validation schema.
• System dependencies and integration impacts: The front-end communicates with the back-end to validate and handle Docker monitor requests. The integration points impact the network service and validation schemas.

1.2 Architecture Changes

• System design modifications: Adds a new monitor type (Docker) to the system, impacting both the front-end and back-end components.
• Component interactions: The front-end communicates with the back-end to validate and handle Docker monitor requests.
• Integration points: The network service and validation schemas are updated to accommodate the new monitor type.

2. Detailed Technical Analysis

2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive

Core Logic Changes

Client/src/Features/UptimeMonitors/uptimeMonitorsSlice.js

• Submitted PR Code:

  export const getUptimeMonitorsByTeamId = createAsyncThunk(
    "monitors/getMonitorsByTeamId",
    async (token, thunkApi) => {
      const user = jwtDecode(token);
      try {
        const res = await networkService.getMonitorsAndSummaryByTeamId({
          authToken: token,
          teamId: user.teamId,

•     types: ["http", "ping"],
  

•     types: ["http", "ping", "docker"],
    });
    return res.data;
  } catch (error) {
    if (error.response && error.response.data) {
      return thunkApi.rejectWithValue(error.response.data);
    }
    const payload = {
      status: false,
      msg: error.message ? error.message : "Unknown error",
    };
    return thunkApi.rejectWithValue(payload);
  }
  

  }
  );

• Analysis:
  • The change updates the types of monitors to include "docker".
  • Ensures that the front-end can now request and handle Docker monitors.
  • Cross-component impact: The back-end must be able to process and return Docker monitor data.
• LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements: No immediate improvements needed; the change is straightforward and aligns with the requirements.

Client/src/Pages/Monitors/CreateMonitor/index.jsx

• Submitted PR Code:

  const monitorTypeMaps = {
    http: {
      label: "URL to monitor",
      placeholder: "google.com",
      namePlaceholder: "Google",
    },
    ping: {
      label: "IP address to monitor",
      placeholder: "1.1.1.1",
      namePlaceholder: "Google",
    },

• docker: {

• label: "Container ID",
  

• placeholder: "abc123",
  

• namePlaceholder: "My Container",
  

• },
  };

- **Analysis**:
- Introduces a mapping for Docker monitor types, ensuring the UI can dynamically adjust labels and placeholders based on the selected monitor type.
- Enhances user experience by providing relevant input fields and placeholders for Docker monitors.
- **LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements**: No immediate improvements needed; the change is well-implemented and enhances UI flexibility.

**Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js**
- **Submitted PR Code**:
```diff
const CHECK_MODEL_LOOKUP = {
  http: Check,
  ping: Check,
+   docker: Check,
  pagespeed: PageSpeedCheck,
  hardware: HardwareCheck,
};

• Analysis:
  • Updates the model lookup to include Docker checks, ensuring the back-end can process Docker monitor requests.
  • Ensures compatibility with the new monitor type.
• LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements: No immediate improvements needed; the change is essential for supporting Docker monitors.

Server/service/networkService.js

• Submitted PR Code:

• const containerExists = containers.some((c) => c.Id === job.data.url);

• const containerExists = containers.some((c) => c.Id.startsWith(job.data.url));

• Analysis:
  • Modifies the container existence check to use startsWith instead of strict equality.
  • This change could potentially introduce false positives if the container ID is a substring of another container ID.
• LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:

  const containerExists = containers.some((c) => c.Id === job.data.url);

• Improvement rationale:
  • Technical benefits: Ensures accurate container identification without false positives.
  • Business value: Maintains data integrity and correctness in container monitoring.
  • Risk assessment: Low risk, as it reverts to the original strict equality check.

2.2 Implementation Quality

• Code organization and structure:

  • The changes are well-organized and modular, with clear separation of concerns between front-end and back-end components.
  • The use of maps for monitor types in the front-end enhances flexibility and maintainability.

• Error handling:

  • The error handling in the front-end slice is robust, with proper error messaging and payload construction.
  • The back-end error handling is adequate, but the change in container existence check could introduce potential issues.

• Performance considerations:

  • The changes are unlikely to introduce significant performance overhead, as they primarily involve adding a new monitor type and updating validation schemas.
  • The startsWith check in networkService.js could be optimized, but the impact is likely minimal.

3. Critical Findings

3.1 Potential Issues

• 🔴 Critical Issues

  • Issue: The container existence check in networkService.js uses startsWith, which could lead to false positives.
  • Impact:
    • Technical implications: Inaccurate container identification could lead to incorrect monitoring data.
    • Business consequences: Potential monitoring failures and reduced system reliability.
    • User experience effects: Users may receive incorrect alerts or miss critical incidents.
  • Recommendation:
    • Specific code changes: Revert to strict equality check for container existence.
    • Configuration updates: N/A
    • Testing requirements: Validate container identification logic with various container IDs.

• 🟡 Warnings

  • Issue: The startsWith check in networkService.js could be optimized for performance.
  • Potential risks:
    • Performance implications: Potential minor performance overhead with the startsWith check.
    • Maintenance overhead: Increased complexity in container identification logic.
    • Future scalability: Minor impact on scalability due to increased complexity.
  • Suggested improvements:
    • Implementation approach: Revert to strict equality check for container existence.
    • Migration strategy: Update the container existence check in networkService.js.
    • Testing considerations: Validate the change with various container IDs to ensure accurate identification.

3.2 Code Quality Concerns

• Maintainability aspects:

  • The use of maps for monitor types enhances flexibility and maintainability.
  • The changes are well-organized and modular, with clear separation of concerns between front-end and back-end components.

• Readability issues:

  • The code is generally readable, but the container existence check in networkService.js could be clearer.
  • Improvement: Use strict equality for container existence to avoid false positives.

• Performance bottlenecks:

  • The changes are unlikely to introduce significant performance overhead.
  • The startsWith check in networkService.js could be optimized, but the impact is likely minimal.

4. Security Assessment

4.1 Security Considerations

• Input validation:
  • The validation schema updates ensure that the new monitor type is properly validated.
  • The front-end validation logic is robust and handles various error scenarios.

4.2 Vulnerability Analysis

• Potential security risks:
  • None identified.
• Mitigation strategies:
  • Ensure that the validation logic is thorough and covers all edge cases.
  • Conduct security testing to validate the input validation and error handling logic.

5. Testing Strategy

5.1 Test Coverage

• Unit test analysis:
  • Validate the front-end UI updates, back-end processing updates, and validation schema updates.
• Integration test scenarios:
  • Test the interaction between the front-end and back-end for Docker monitors.
• Edge case validation:
  • Validate the container existence check with various container IDs.

5.2 Test Recommendations

Suggested Test Cases

// Example test case for container existence check
describe('Container existence check', () => {
  it('should correctly identify the container by ID', async () => {
    const job = { data: { url: 'container_id' } };
    const containers = [{ Id: 'container_id' }, { Id: 'another_container_id' }];
    const containerExists = containers.some((c) => c.Id === job.data.url);
    expect(containerExists).toBe(true);
  });

  it('should not identify the container if ID does not match', async () => {
    const job = { data: { url: 'container_id' } };
    const containers = [{ Id: 'different_container_id' }, { Id: 'another_container_id' }];
    const containerExists = containers.some((c) => c.Id === job.data.url);
    expect(containerExists).toBe(false);
  });
});

• Coverage improvements:

  • Ensure that all edge cases are covered in the tests.
  • Validate the front-end and back-end integration for Docker monitors.

• Performance testing needs:

  • Conduct performance testing to identify any bottlenecks introduced by the new Docker monitoring logic.

6. Documentation & Maintenance

• Documentation updates needed:

  • Enhance documentation to include the new Docker monitor type and its implications on the system.
  • Update API documentation to reflect the changes in validation schemas and data processing logic.

• Long-term maintenance considerations:

  • Ensure that the validation schema updates do not introduce regressions in the future.
  • Monitor the performance of the system with the new Docker monitoring logic.

7. Deployment & Operations

• Deployment impact and strategy:

  • Ensure that the back-end can handle Docker monitor requests before deploying the front-end changes.
  • Validate the integration points between the front-end and back-end.

• Key operational considerations:

  • Monitor the system post-deployment to ensure that Docker monitors are functioning correctly.
  • Address any performance issues that arise from the new Docker monitoring logic.

8. Summary & Recommendations

8.1 Key Action Items

1. Critical changes required:

   • Revert the container existence check in networkService.js to strict equality to avoid false positives.

2. Important improvements suggested:

   • Optimize the container existence check in networkService.js for performance.

3. Best practices to implement:

   • Ensure that error messages are user-friendly and actionable.
   • Validate the new validation schema with existing and new monitor types to ensure compatibility and correctness.

4. Cross-cutting concerns to address:

   • Ensure that the network service and validation schemas are updated to accommodate the new monitor type.
   • Validate the integration points between the front-end and back-end for Docker monitors.

8.2 Future Considerations

• Technical evolution path:

  • Consider optimizing the data processing logic for Docker monitors to ensure that the system can handle a large number of monitors efficiently.

• Business capability evolution:

  • Enhance the monitoring capabilities by adding support for additional monitor types as needed.

• System integration impacts:

  • Ensure that the system can integrate with other monitoring tools and services to provide a comprehensive monitoring solution.

Conclusion

The PR introduces valuable functionality for Docker monitoring but requires careful consideration of the technical implications. The critical issue of the container existence check needs to be addressed to ensure accurate monitoring data. Additionally, thorough testing and validation of the new validation schema are essential to maintain system reliability. By following the recommended improvements and mitigation strategies, the system can be enhanced while minimizing risks and ensuring a good user experience.

[marcelluscaio]

Nice work, Alex! All looked good to me