feat/be/threshold notifications #1179
Conversation
…status does not change
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several modifications across multiple files, primarily affecting the handling of notifications, data fetching, and validation in the application. Key changes include updating the default date range in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
Server/db/models/Notification.js (1)
35-40: Vomit on his sweater already! Let's clean this up! 🧹Same issues as CPU and memory thresholds, but let's talk bigger picture.
Consider restructuring the thresholds into a nested object for better organization:
-alertThreshold: { ... }, -cpuAlertThreshold: { ... }, -memoryAlertThreshold: { ... }, -diskAlertThreshold: { ... }, +thresholds: { + type: { + base: { + type: Number, + default: 5, + min: 0, + max: 100 + }, + cpu: { + type: Number, + min: 0, + max: 100 + }, + memory: { + type: Number, + min: 0, + max: 100 + }, + disk: { + type: Number, + min: 0, + max: 100 + } + }, + validate: { + validator: function(thresholds) { + return ['cpu', 'memory', 'disk'].every( + metric => thresholds[metric] <= thresholds.base + ); + } + } +}This structure would:
- Group related fields
- Simplify validation
- Make it easier to add new metric thresholds
- Prevent race conditions with default values
Server/service/emailService.js (2)
Line range hint
41-50: Mom's spaghetti moment: Error handling needs strengthening! 🍝The
loadTemplatefunction swallows errors and returns undefined, which could cause mysterious failures when trying to use the template later.Here's how we can make it better:
this.loadTemplate = (templateName) => { try { const templatePath = this.path.join( __dirname, `../templates/${templateName}.mjml` ); const templateContent = this.fs.readFileSync(templatePath, "utf8"); return this.compile(templateContent); } catch (error) { this.logger.error({ message: error.message, service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "loadTemplate", stack: error.stack, }); + throw new Error(`Failed to load template ${templateName}: ${error.message}`); } };
Line range hint
63-69: Knees weak, arms are heavy: Let's optimize these template loads! 🍝The TODO comment suggests loading less-used templates on demand, but we're still loading all templates during construction. Consider implementing lazy loading for templates that aren't used frequently.
Here's a suggested approach:
-this.templateLookup = { - welcomeEmailTemplate: this.loadTemplate("welcomeEmail"), - employeeActivationTemplate: this.loadTemplate("employeeActivation"), - noIncidentsThisWeekTemplate: this.loadTemplate("noIncidentsThisWeek"), - serverIsDownTemplate: this.loadTemplate("serverIsDown"), - serverIsUpTemplate: this.loadTemplate("serverIsUp"), - hardwareIncidentTemplate: this.loadTemplate("hardwareIncident"), -}; +this.loadedTemplates = new Map(); + +this.getTemplate = (templateName) => { + if (!this.loadedTemplates.has(templateName)) { + this.loadedTemplates.set(templateName, this.loadTemplate(templateName)); + } + return this.loadedTemplates.get(templateName); +};Then update
buildHtmlto usethis.getTemplateinstead ofthis.templateLookup.Server/service/statusService.js (2)
Line range hint
108-114: Yo, we need some threshold validation in here! 💪Since we're implementing threshold notifications, the hardware metrics in
buildCheckshould validate against thresholds before storing.Here's a suggested enhancement:
if (type === "hardware") { const { cpu, memory, disk, host } = payload?.data ?? {}; const { errors } = payload; + // Validate thresholds and mark breaches + const validateThreshold = (value, threshold) => ({ + value, + breached: value > threshold + }); + check.cpu = cpu ?? {}; + check.cpu.threshold = validateThreshold(cpu?.usage, cpu?.threshold); check.memory = memory ?? {}; + check.memory.threshold = validateThreshold(memory?.usage, memory?.threshold); check.disk = disk ?? {}; + check.disk.threshold = validateThreshold(disk?.usage, disk?.threshold); check.host = host ?? {}; check.errors = errors ?? []; }
Line range hint
146-153: Yo, let's beef up that error handling! 🎯For threshold notifications, we need more detailed error context to quickly diagnose issues.
Consider enhancing the error logging:
this.logger.error({ message: error.message, service: this.SERVICE_NAME, method: "insertCheck", details: `Error inserting check for monitor: ${networkResponse?.monitorId}`, + context: { + type: networkResponse?.type, + thresholds: networkResponse?.payload?.data?.thresholds, + metrics: { + cpu: networkResponse?.payload?.data?.cpu?.usage, + memory: networkResponse?.payload?.data?.memory?.usage, + disk: networkResponse?.payload?.data?.disk?.usage + } + }, stack: error.stack, });Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/Details/index.jsx (1)
Line range hint
318-320: Knees weak! Let's clean up these TODO comments! 💪The FE team's TODOs about layout need addressing:
- The flexbox layout could be improved
- The component lacks loading states during data fetching
Consider this layout improvement:
- flexWrap="wrap" // //FE team HELP! Better way to do this? - sx={{ - "& > *": { - flexBasis: `calc(50% - ${theme.spacing(8)})`, - maxWidth: `calc(50% - ${theme.spacing(8)})`, - }, - }} + sx={{ + display: 'grid', + gridTemplateColumns: 'repeat(auto-fit, minmax(400px, 1fr))', + gap: theme.spacing(8), + }}Also, consider adding a loading state:
const [isLoading, setIsLoading] = useState(true); // In fetchData: setIsLoading(true); try { // ... fetch data } finally { setIsLoading(false); } // In render: if (isLoading) { return <LoadingSpinner />; }Server/service/jobQueue.js (1)
171-175: Mom's spaghetti! Check for potential race conditionsThe code processes infrastructure notifications and regular notifications sequentially. We should verify that the notification service handles concurrent notifications properly.
Consider implementing:
- Notification deduplication
- Rate limiting
- Proper locking mechanisms in the notification service
Would you like me to help create a GitHub issue to track these improvements?
Server/service/notificationService.js (1)
112-113: Correct typo in comment: 'decmremented' should be 'decremented'Just a small typo to fix: in line 112, 'decmremented' should be 'decremented'. Making this correction will improve code readability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/Details/index.jsx(2 hunks)Server/db/models/Notification.js(1 hunks)Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js(1 hunks)Server/service/emailService.js(1 hunks)Server/service/jobQueue.js(1 hunks)Server/service/notificationService.js(2 hunks)Server/service/statusService.js(1 hunks)Server/templates/hardwareIncident.mjml(1 hunks)Server/templates/thresholdViolated.mjml(0 hunks)Server/validation/joi.js(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- Server/templates/thresholdViolated.mjml
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- Server/templates/hardwareIncident.mjml
🔇 Additional comments (9)
Server/db/models/Notification.js (1)
29-34: Same spaghetti, different plate! 🍝
The memory threshold has the same potential issues as the CPU threshold.
Apply similar fixes as suggested for cpuAlertThreshold.
Server/service/emailService.js (1)
68-68: Yo dawg, let's verify that hardware incident template! 🍝
The addition of hardwareIncidentTemplate looks good, but we should make sure everything's properly connected.
Let's check if the template file exists and there aren't any leftover references to the old template:
✅ Verification successful
Yo, this template's ready to drop some hot infrastructure alerts! 🍝
The verification's looking clean as mom's spaghetti:
- New
hardwareIncident.mjmltemplate exists and is properly formatted - No lingering references to the old
thresholdViolatedtemplate - Template has all the right ingredients: monitor details, alerts loop, and that fresh infrastructure styling
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the new template exists
fd "hardwareIncident.mjml" Server/templates
# Look for any lingering references to the old template
rg "thresholdViolated" --type js --type ts
Length of output: 125
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if there are any references to the old template in the email service
rg -A 5 -B 5 "thresholdViolated" Server/service/emailService.js
# Also check for any usage of the old template name in the entire codebase
rg -l "thresholdViolated"
# Let's verify the content of the new template
cat Server/templates/hardwareIncident.mjml
Length of output: 1723
Server/service/statusService.js (1)
32-33: Yo dawg, this change is fire but let's verify the consumers! 🔥
The enhanced return object with prevStatus is crucial for threshold notifications, but we should ensure all consumers are ready for this heat.
Let's check who's consuming this method:
✅ Verification successful
Yo, we're good homie! All consumers are handling the new return object like pros! 🍝
The verification shows that all consumers are already expecting and correctly using the enhanced return object:
Server/tests/services/statusService.test.jshas test cases properly asserting thestatusChangedandmonitor.statuspropertiesServer/service/jobQueue.jspasses the response directly tohandleInfrastructureNotifications, which needs the full object for threshold checks
No spaghetti code here - everything's properly structured and ready for the new heat! 🔥
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find all files that might be consuming updateStatus
rg -l "updateStatus\(" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg -A 5 "updateStatus\(" "$file"
done
Length of output: 1496
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/Details/index.jsx (1)
172-172: Yo! Let's verify this change to fetch all data by default
Changing the default date range from "day" to "all" could impact initial load performance. While this might be necessary for threshold calculations, we should consider:
- The amount of data being fetched
- Whether we need pagination or lazy loading
- If we can optimize by fetching only what's needed for initial render
✅ Verification successful
Yo dawg, this date range change is actually legit!
Looking at the codebase, I'm not sweating this change anymore. Here's why:
- The API already handles pagination with optional
limitparam - Other components like PageSpeed use specific limits (50) when needed
- Infrastructure component specifically sets
limit: nullandsortOrder: "asc", suggesting it needs the complete dataset for proper threshold analysis - The change aligns with the PR's goal of implementing infrastructure monitoring notifications and thresholds
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the typical data size for 'all' vs 'day'
rg -A 5 "getStatsByMonitorId.*dateRange: (?:\"all\"|\"day\")" --multiline
Length of output: 71
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for the API call pattern more broadly
rg -B 2 -A 5 "getStatsByMonitorId"
# Also check for date range usage in the component
rg -B 2 -A 5 "dateRange" "Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/Details/index.jsx"
# Look for any pagination or data loading logic
ast-grep --pattern 'useEffect($$$) {
$$$
getStatsByMonitorId($$$)
$$$
}'
Length of output: 3288
Server/validation/joi.js (1)
181-181: Yo! We need to keep our dateRange validations consistent across schemas, dawg! 🍝
I noticed that while you've added "all" as a valid value here, other schemas like getMonitorByIdQueryValidation, getChecksQueryValidation, and getTeamChecksQueryValidation still only accept "day", "week", and "month". This inconsistency might cause confusion.
Let's check if this change should be applied to other schemas as well:
Consider one of these approaches:
- Update all dateRange validations consistently if "all" should be universally available
- Document why this specific endpoint needs different validation rules
- Create a shared constant for dateRange values to maintain consistency
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js (2)
201-201: LGTM! Documentation update is accurate.
The JSDoc parameter type has been correctly updated to include the new 'all' option.
209-209: Yo! Let's verify performance impact of fetching all historical data.
While using new Date(0) is technically correct for fetching all data since epoch, this could potentially impact performance when dealing with large datasets. Let's verify if there are any safeguards in place.
Consider implementing the following safeguards if not already in place:
- Pagination for large datasets
- Rate limiting for API endpoints
- Caching for frequently accessed data
✅ Verification successful
Yo! The epoch date is safe with built-in performance controls!
After checking the codebase with sweaty palms, I can confirm that fetching all historical data is properly managed:
- Data retrieval is split into two parallel queries using
Promise.allfor better performance - Built-in data processing includes:
- Filtering invalid dates
- Grouping by time periods
- Optional data normalization
- Configurable display limits via
numToDisplayparameter
- The
getMonitorChecksfunction efficiently handles both all-time and date-ranged queries
The implementation has enough safeguards to prevent performance issues when fetching since epoch. No need to lose yourself in worry about this one!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for pagination and rate limiting implementations
# Check for pagination in monitor routes and controllers
echo "Checking for pagination implementations..."
rg -A 5 "limit|skip|page|perPage"
# Check for rate limiting middleware
echo "Checking for rate limiting..."
rg -A 5 "rateLimit|throttle"
# Check if the getMonitorChecks function is used with date ranges
echo "Checking usage of getMonitorChecks with date ranges..."
ast-grep --pattern 'getMonitorChecks($_, $_, $_, $_)'
Length of output: 118680
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for pagination and rate limiting in monitor module
echo "Checking monitor module for pagination and rate limiting..."
rg -A 10 "getMonitorChecks|startDates" Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js
# Check for any query limits or date range handling
echo "Checking query handling..."
rg -A 10 "find.*sort.*limit|dateRange" Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js
# Check for any performance safeguards in the codebase
echo "Checking for performance safeguards..."
rg -A 5 "cache|index|aggregate" Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js
Length of output: 5031
Server/service/notificationService.js (2)
27-35: Ensure 'hardwareIncidentTemplate' can handle 'alerts' in the context
Great job adding the hardware-specific email notification! Please verify that the hardwareIncidentTemplate email template exists and is set up to handle the alerts array in the context. This will ensure that alert messages are properly displayed in the emails sent to users.
114-119: Verify reset logic for alert thresholds
When an alert threshold for a specific type drops below zero, the code resets it using notification.alertThreshold. Please ensure that notification.alertThreshold holds the correct value for resetting all type-specific thresholds. If each alert type should have its own initial threshold, consider storing and resetting to those individual values to maintain accuracy.
| cpuAlertThreshold: { | ||
| type: Number, | ||
| default: function () { | ||
| return this.alertThreshold; | ||
| }, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mom's spaghetti moment! Watch out for that default function! 🍝
The default function callback could lead to unexpected behavior if alertThreshold changes after document creation. Also missing CPU-specific validation rules.
Consider:
- Using a pre-save hook instead of default function
- Adding CPU-specific validation
cpuAlertThreshold: {
type: Number,
- default: function () {
- return this.alertThreshold;
- },
+ min: [0, "CPU alert threshold cannot be negative"],
+ max: [100, "CPU alert threshold cannot exceed 100%"],
+ validate: {
+ validator: function(v) {
+ return v <= this.alertThreshold;
+ },
+ message: "CPU threshold cannot exceed base alert threshold"
+ }
},📝 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.
| cpuAlertThreshold: { | |
| type: Number, | |
| default: function () { | |
| return this.alertThreshold; | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| cpuAlertThreshold: { | |
| type: Number, | |
| min: [0, "CPU alert threshold cannot be negative"], | |
| max: [100, "CPU alert threshold cannot exceed 100%"], | |
| validate: { | |
| validator: function(v) { | |
| return v <= this.alertThreshold; | |
| }, | |
| message: "CPU threshold cannot exceed base alert threshold" | |
| } | |
| }, |
| alertThreshold: { | ||
| type: Number, | ||
| default: 5, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo! The alertThreshold needs some guardrails, dawg! 🚧
The base threshold field could use some validation constraints and documentation. Consider adding:
- Minimum value to prevent negative thresholds
- Maximum value to prevent unreasonable alerts
- Field description explaining what this threshold represents
alertThreshold: {
type: Number,
default: 5,
+ min: [0, "Alert threshold cannot be negative"],
+ max: [100, "Alert threshold cannot exceed 100"],
+ description: "Number of times a metric can exceed its threshold before sending an alert"
},📝 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.
| alertThreshold: { | |
| type: Number, | |
| default: 5, | |
| }, | |
| alertThreshold: { | |
| type: Number, | |
| default: 5, | |
| min: [0, "Alert threshold cannot be negative"], | |
| max: [100, "Alert threshold cannot exceed 100"], | |
| description: "Number of times a metric can exceed its threshold before sending an alert" | |
| }, |
| sortOrder: "asc", | ||
| limit: null, | ||
| dateRange: dateRange, | ||
| numToDisplay: 50, | ||
| normalize: true, | ||
| numToDisplay: null, | ||
| normalize: false, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Mom's spaghetti! These parameter changes need attention! 🍝
The changes to getStatsByMonitorId parameters have significant implications:
- Removing display limits (
numToDisplay: null) could affect rendering performance with large datasets - Setting
normalize: falsesuggests we need raw values for threshold calculations - Explicit
sortOrder: "asc"might be crucial for chronological threshold evaluation
Consider implementing:
- sortOrder: "asc",
- limit: null,
- dateRange: dateRange,
- numToDisplay: null,
- normalize: false,
+ sortOrder: "asc",
+ limit: calculateOptimalLimit(dateRange),
+ dateRange: dateRange,
+ numToDisplay: INITIAL_DISPLAY_COUNT,
+ normalize: false,Add these constants at the top:
const INITIAL_DISPLAY_COUNT = 50;
const calculateOptimalLimit = (range) => {
return range === 'all' ? 1000 : 100; // Adjust based on actual needs
};
Server/service/jobQueue.js
Outdated
| // If this is an infrastructure monitor, we need to check for thresholds | ||
| if (monitor.type === "hardware") { | ||
| await this.notificationService.handleInfrastructureNotifications({ | ||
| ...networkResponse, | ||
| monitor, | ||
| prevStatus, | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo! Consider the order of operations in notification handling
The infrastructure notifications are processed before checking if the status has changed. This means we'll process infrastructure notifications even when the status hasn't changed, which might be unnecessary load.
Consider this alternative flow:
- // If this is an infrastructure monitor, we need to check for thresholds
- if (monitor.type === "hardware") {
- await this.notificationService.handleInfrastructureNotifications({
- ...networkResponse,
- monitor,
- prevStatus,
- });
- }
//If status hasn't changed, we're done
if (statusChanged === false) return;
// if prevStatus is undefined, monitor is resuming, we're done
if (prevStatus === undefined) return;
+ // If this is an infrastructure monitor, we need to check for thresholds
+ if (monitor.type === "hardware") {
+ await this.notificationService.handleInfrastructureNotifications({
+ ...networkResponse,
+ monitor,
+ prevStatus,
+ });
+ }
this.notificationService.handleNotifications({Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
Server/service/jobQueue.js
Outdated
| await this.notificationService.handleInfrastructureNotifications({ | ||
| ...networkResponse, | ||
| monitor, | ||
| prevStatus, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Yo! This code needs some error handling, for real!
The infrastructure notification handler is raw-dogging it without any try-catch blocks! Both in the implementation and at the call site, there's no error handling to catch those exceptions when they drop. Here's what's missing:
- No try-catch in
jobQueue.jsaround thehandleInfrastructureNotificationscall - No error handling inside the
handleInfrastructureNotificationsimplementation - No error reporting mechanism if something goes wrong with the notification process
You should wrap that notification call in a try-catch block and handle any potential errors that might come up. Don't let those exceptions slip through like mom's spaghetti! 🍝
🔗 Analysis chain
Yo! Verify error handling in the notification service
The infrastructure notification handler is called with await but we need to ensure the notification service properly handles and reports errors.
Let's check the error handling implementation:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for error handling in handleInfrastructureNotifications
rg -A 5 "handleInfrastructureNotifications.*{"
# Look for try-catch blocks around the method call
rg -B 5 -A 5 "catch.*{.*handleInfrastructureNotifications"
Length of output: 379
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for handleInfrastructureNotifications implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'async handleInfrastructureNotifications($_) {
$$$
}'
# Look for try-catch around the call site
ast-grep --pattern 'try {
$$$
handleInfrastructureNotifications($$$)
$$$
} catch($_) {
$$$
}'
# Search for error handling patterns in notification service
rg "class.*NotificationService" -A 5
Length of output: 695
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of handleInfrastructureNotifications
rg -A 20 "handleInfrastructureNotifications.*\(" Server/service/notificationService.js
# Check for try-catch in jobQueue.js around the notification call
rg -B 10 -A 10 "notificationService\.handleInfrastructureNotifications" Server/service/jobQueue.js
Length of output: 1468
![llamapreview[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1023541?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview
1. Overview
1.1 PR Summary
- Business value and requirements alignment: This PR introduces infrastructure monitor notifications with two types of thresholds: notification thresholds and metric thresholds. This enhances the monitoring capabilities of BlueWave Uptime by providing alerts based on infrastructure metrics.
- Key components modified: The changes impact both client and server components, including the
InfrastructureDetailscomponent,Notificationmodel,JobQueueservice,NotificationService, and email templates. - Impact assessment: The changes affect how notifications are processed and displayed, improving the system's capability to monitor infrastructure metrics.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: The modifications introduce new interactions between the
JobQueue,NotificationService, andStatusService, impacting the notification system's design.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: Adds new notification types and thresholds, impacting the notification system's design.
- Component interactions: Introduces new interactions between the
JobQueue,NotificationService, andStatusService. - Integration points: Changes in the
Notificationmodel andJobQueueservice affect how notifications are processed and sent. - Dependency changes and implications: No new dependencies introduced, but existing components are modified to include new functionality.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/Details/index.jsx
- File Path: Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/Details/index.jsx
- Function/Class Name:
fetchData - Submitted PR Code:
const [dateRange, setDateRange] = useState("all"); const fetchData = async () => { try { const response = await networkService.getStatsByMonitorId({ authToken: authToken, monitorId: monitorId, sortOrder: "asc", limit: null, dateRange: dateRange, numToDisplay: null, normalize: false, }); setMonitor(response.data.data); } catch (error) { console.error(error); } };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: Changing
dateRangeto "all" andsortOrderto "asc" might impact performance if the dataset is large. - Edge cases and error handling: No error handling for empty or incomplete response data.
- **Cross-component impact **: Affects how data is fetched and displayed on the client side.
- **Business logic considerations **: Aligns with the business need to view all data, but performance implications need consideration.
- Current logic and potential issues: Changing
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const [dateRange, setDateRange] = useState("all"); const fetchData = async () => { try { const response = await networkService.getStatsByMonitorId({ authToken: authToken, monitorId: monitorId, sortOrder: "asc", limit: null, dateRange: dateRange, numToDisplay: null, normalize: false, }); if (response.data.data) { setMonitor(response.data.data); } else { console.error("No data received from server"); } } catch (error) { console.error(error); } };
- **Improvement rationale **:
- Technical benefits: Adds additional error handling for empty responses.
- Business value: Ensures that the client handles incomplete or empty data gracefully.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as it adds error handling without changing business logic.
Server/service/notificationService.js
- File Path: Server/service/notificationService.js
- Function/Class Name:
handleInfrastructureNotifications - Submitted PR Code:
async handleInfrastructureNotifications(networkResponse) { const thresholds = networkResponse?.monitor?.thresholds; if (thresholds === undefined) return; // No thresholds set, we're done // Get thresholds from monitor const { usage_cpu: cpuThreshold = -1, usage_memory: memoryThreshold = -1, usage_disk: diskThreshold = -1, } = thresholds; // Get metrics from response const metrics = networkResponse?.payload?.data ?? {}; const { cpu: { usage_percent: cpuUsage = -1 } = {}, memory: { usage_percent: memoryUsage = -1 } = {}, disk = [], } = metrics; const alerts = { cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold / 100 ? "CPU usage is above threshold" : null, memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold / 100 ? "Memory usage is above threshold" : null, disk: disk.some( (d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold / 100 ) ? "Disk usage is above threshold" : null, }; const notifications = await this.db.getNotificationsByMonitorId( networkResponse.monitorId ); for (const notification of notifications) { const alertsToSend = []; const alertTypes = ["cpu", "memory", "disk"]; for (const type of alertTypes) { // Iterate over each alert type to see if any need to be decremented if (alerts[type] !== null) { notification[`${type}AlertThreshold`]--; // Decrement threshold if an alert is triggered if (notification[`${type}AlertThreshold`] <= 0) { // If threshold drops below 0, reset and send notification notification[`${type}AlertThreshold`] = notification.alertThreshold; const formatAlert = { cpu: () => `${alerts.cpu} ${(cpuUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}% (${cpuThreshold}%)`, memory: () => `${alerts.memory} ${(memoryUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}% (${memoryThreshold}%)`, disk: () => `${alerts.disk} ${disk .map((d, idx) => `Disk${idx}: ${(d.usage_percent * 100).toFixed(0)}%`) .join(", ")} (${diskThreshold}%)`, }; alertsToSend.push(formatAlert[type]()); } } } await notification.save(); if (alertsToSend.length === 0) continue; // No alerts to send, we're done if (notification.type === "email") { this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend); } } }
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: Logic for handling thresholds and sending notifications is complex and might be difficult to maintain.
- Edge cases and error handling: No error handling for failures in
this.db.getNotificationsByMonitorIdornotification.save(). - **Cross-component impact **: Impacts how notifications are processed and sent, affecting the
NotificationServiceandEmailService. - **Business logic considerations **: Aligns with the business need to send notifications based on thresholds but could be optimized for readability and maintainability.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
async handleInfrastructureNotifications(networkResponse) { const thresholds = networkResponse?.monitor?.thresholds; if (thresholds === undefined) return; // No thresholds set, we're done // Get thresholds from monitor const { usage_cpu: cpuThreshold = -1, usage_memory: memoryThreshold = -1, usage_disk: diskThreshold = -1, } = thresholds; // Get metrics from response const metrics = networkResponse?.payload?.data ?? {}; const { cpu: { usage_percent: cpuUsage = -1 } = {}, memory: { usage_percent: memoryUsage = -1 } = {}, disk = [], } = metrics; const alerts = { cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold / 100 ? "CPU usage is above threshold" : null, memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold / 100 ? "Memory usage is above threshold" : null, disk: disk.some( (d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold / 100 ) ? "Disk usage is above threshold" : null, }; try { const notifications = await this.db.getNotificationsByMonitorId( networkResponse.monitorId ); } catch (error) { console.error("Failed to get notifications: ", error); return; } for (const notification of notifications) { const alertsToSend = []; const alertTypes = ["cpu", "memory", "disk"]; for (const type of alertTypes) { // Iterate over each alert type to see if any need to be decremented if (alerts[type] !== null) { notification[`${type}AlertThreshold`]--; // Decrement threshold if an alert is triggered if (notification[`${type}AlertThreshold`] <= 0) { // If threshold drops below 0, reset and send notification notification[`${type}AlertThreshold`] = notification.alertThreshold; const formatAlert = { cpu: () => `${alerts.cpu} ${(cpuUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}% (${cpuThreshold}%)`, memory: () => `${alerts.memory} ${(memoryUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}% (${memoryThreshold}%)`, disk: () => `${alerts.disk} ${disk .map((d, idx) => `Disk${idx}: ${(d.usage_percent * 100).toFixed(0)}%`) .join(", ")} (${diskThreshold}%)`, }; alertsToSend.push(formatAlert[type]()); } } } try { await notification.save(); } catch (error) { console.error("Failed to save notification: ", error); continue; } if (alertsToSend.length === 0) continue; // No alerts to send, we're done if (notification.type === "email") { this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend); } } }
- **Improvement rationale **:
- Technical benefits: Adds error handling for database operations.
- Business value: Ensures that the system handles database failures gracefully.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as it adds error handling without changing business logic.
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code organization and structure: The changes are well-organized and modular, with clear separation of concerns.
- Design patterns usage: Follows established patterns for notification handling and threshold management.
- Error handling approach: Basic error handling is present but could be improved with more specific error messages and logging.
- Resource management: No explicit resource management issues identified.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
Critical Issues
- Issue: No error handling for empty or incomplete response data in
fetchData.- Impact: Could lead to undefined behavior or crashes if the response data is incomplete.
- Business Consequences: Users might not see the expected data on the client side.
- User Experience Effects: Users might experience a broken or incomplete UI.
- Recommendation: Add error handling for empty or incomplete response data.
Warnings
- Issue: No error handling for database operations in
handleInfrastructureNotifications.- Potential risks: Database failures could lead to missed notifications.
- Maintenance overhead: Difficult to debug and maintain without proper error handling.
- Future scalability: Could become a bottleneck as the system scales.
- Suggested improvements: Add try-catch blocks for database operations.
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The code is readable and maintainable but could benefit from additional comments and documentation.
- Readability issues: The notification logic is complex and might be difficult to understand without proper documentation.
- Performance bottlenecks: Fetching all data without pagination might lead to performance issues.
4. Security Assessment
4.1 Security Considerations
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: No explicit changes affecting authentication or authorization.
- Data handling concerns: Ensure proper validation of input data, especially for thresholds and metrics.
- Input validation: Review input validation to ensure data integrity.
- Security best practices: Follow best practices for data handling and validation.
4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
- Potential security risks: No explicit security risks identified, but input validation should be reviewed.
- Mitigation strategies: Implement robust input validation and data handling practices.
- Security testing requirements: Conduct security testing to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: Test the new notification logic, including edge cases and error handling.
- Integration test requirements: Test the integration between the client and server components, including the new notification types.
- Edge case validation: Validate edge cases, such as empty or incomplete response data and database failures.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
// Unit test for fetchData
test('fetchData handles empty response data', async () => {
const mockNetworkService = {
getStatsByMonitorId: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({ data: {} })
};
const fetchData = async () => {
try {
const response = await mockNetworkService.getStatsByMonitorId({});
if (response.data.data) {
setMonitor(response.data.data);
} else {
console.error("No data received from server");
}
} catch (error) {
console.error(error);
}
};
await fetchData();
expect(console.error).toHaveBeenCalledWith("No data received from server");
});
// Unit test for handleInfrastructureNotifications
test('handleInfrastructureNotifications handles database errors', async () => {
const mockDb = {
getNotificationsByMonitorId: jest.fn().mockRejectedValue(new Error('Database error'))
};
const handleInfrastructureNotifications = async (networkResponse) => {
try {
const notifications = await mockDb.getNotificationsByMonitorId(networkResponse.monitorId);
} catch (error) {
console.error("Failed to get notifications: ", error);
return;
}
};
await handleInfrastructureNotifications({ monitorId: '123' });
expect(console.error).toHaveBeenCalledWith("Failed to get notifications: ", new Error('Database error'));
});- Coverage improvements: Ensure that all edge cases and error scenarios are covered in the tests.
- Performance testing needs: Conduct performance testing to ensure the system scales well with the current changes.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed: Update the documentation to reflect the new notification types and thresholds.
- Long-term maintenance considerations: Ensure that the notification logic is well-documented and maintainable.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements: Monitor the performance of the system and address any technical debt identified during the PR review.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: The changes impact the notification system and should be thoroughly tested before deployment.
- Key operational considerations: Monitor the system for performance issues and address any identified bottlenecks.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical changes required:
- Add error handling for empty or incomplete response data in
fetchData.
- Add error handling for empty or incomplete response data in
-
Important improvements suggested:
- Add error handling for database operations in
handleInfrastructureNotifications.
- Add error handling for database operations in
-
Best practices to implement:
- Follow best practices for data handling and validation.
-
Cross-cutting concerns to address:
- Ensure that the notification logic is well-documented and maintainable.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: Continuously improve the notification system based on user feedback and performance data.
- Business capability evolution: Enhance the system's capabilities to monitor additional infrastructure metrics and improve alerting mechanisms.
- System integration impacts: Ensure that the notification system is well-integrated with other components of the BlueWave Uptime tool.
💡 LlamaPReview Community
Have feedback on this AI Code review tool? Join our GitHub Discussions to share your thoughts and help shape the future of LlamaPReview.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
Server/service/notificationService.js (1)
112-123: These percentage calculations making my knees weak!The percentage calculations might have floating-point precision issues. Consider using a helper function for consistent formatting.
+ const formatPercentage = (value) => (value * 100).toFixed(0); + const formatAlert = { cpu: () => - `Your current CPU usage (${(cpuUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}%) is above your threshold (${(cpuThreshold * 100).toFixed(0)}%)`, + `Your current CPU usage (${formatPercentage(cpuUsage)}%) is above your threshold (${formatPercentage(cpuThreshold)}%)`, memory: () => - `Your current memory usage (${(memoryUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}%) is above your threshold (${(memoryThreshold * 100).toFixed(0)}%)`, + `Your current memory usage (${formatPercentage(memoryUsage)}%) is above your threshold (${formatPercentage(memoryThreshold)}%)`, disk: () => `Your current disk usage: ${disk - .map((d, idx) => `(Disk${idx}: ${(d.usage_percent * 100).toFixed(0)}%)`) + .map((d, idx) => `(Disk${idx}: ${formatPercentage(d.usage_percent)}%)`) .join(", " - )} is above your threshold (${(diskThreshold * 100).toFixed(0)}%)`, + )} is above your threshold (${formatPercentage(diskThreshold)}%)`, };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx(2 hunks)Server/service/notificationService.js(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
Server/service/notificationService.js
[error] 89-89: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 90-90: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 91-93: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
Server/service/notificationService.js (2)
27-35: Yo, the email handling looks solid, but let's verify that template!
The changes to handle hardware monitor notifications are well-structured. The default empty alerts array maintains backward compatibility.
Let's make sure that template exists:
✅ Verification successful
Yo dawg, the template's legit! Everything checks out perfectly! 🍝
The hardwareIncidentTemplate exists and properly handles all the context variables we're passing:
- Template location:
Server/templates/hardwareIncident.mjml - Correctly uses
{{monitor}},{{url}}, and iterates through{{#each alerts}} - Solid infrastructure alert styling with that red heading
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the hardware incident template exists
fd -t f -e mjml hardwareIncident
Length of output: 73
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the template to ensure it handles the alerts array
cat Server/templates/hardwareIncident.mjml
Length of output: 1633
73-78: Yo dawg, we need to handle those percentages with care!
The threshold comparisons might need normalization. Consider whether the thresholds are stored as decimals (0-1) or percentages (0-100).
Let's check the schema:
✅ Verification successful
The previous pattern didn't yield results, so I'm broadening the search to find any threshold-related definitions or usage patterns. This will help us understand how thresholds are stored and compared throughout the codebase.
Yo, the threshold comparison is actually on point! 🍝
Looking at the alert formatting code, the system is already handling the decimal-to-percentage conversion correctly:
`${(cpuUsage * 100).toFixed(0)}%) is above your threshold (${(cpuThreshold * 100).toFixed(0)}%)`The thresholds are stored as decimals (0-1) and properly converted to percentages (0-100) when displayed. The direct comparison using > operator is perfectly fine since both values are in the same decimal format.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the schema definition for threshold formats
ast-grep --pattern 'usage_cpu: {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 43
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for schema or type definitions related to thresholds
rg -g '!*.{log,lock}' -i '(schema|type|interface).*threshold' -A 5
# Also search for any threshold-related configurations or constants
rg -g '!*.{log,lock}' '(cpu|memory|disk).*threshold' -B 2 -A 2
# Check model definitions that might contain threshold info
fd -e js -e ts -e json "model|schema" --exec grep -l "threshold" {} \; | xargs cat
Length of output: 2215
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| await notification.save(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Catch that save like mom's spaghetti!
The notification.save() call should be wrapped in try-catch to handle potential database errors.
- await notification.save();
+ try {
+ await notification.save();
+ } catch (error) {
+ this.logger.error({
+ message: 'Failed to save notification',
+ service: this.SERVICE_NAME,
+ method: 'handleInfrastructureNotifications',
+ 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.
| await notification.save(); | |
| try { | |
| await notification.save(); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| this.logger.error({ | |
| message: 'Failed to save notification', | |
| service: this.SERVICE_NAME, | |
| method: 'handleInfrastructureNotifications', | |
| error | |
| }); | |
| } |
| const alerts = { | ||
| cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold ? true : false, | ||
| memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold ? true : false, | ||
| disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold) | ||
| ? true | ||
| : false, | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Mom's spaghetti says simplify these boolean expressions!
The boolean expressions can be simplified for better readability:
- cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold ? true : false,
- memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold ? true : false,
- disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold)
- ? true
- : false,
+ cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold,
+ memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold,
+ disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold),📝 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 alerts = { | |
| cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold ? true : false, | |
| memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold ? true : false, | |
| disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold) | |
| ? true | |
| : false, | |
| }; | |
| const alerts = { | |
| cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold, | |
| memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold, | |
| disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold), | |
| }; |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 89-89: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 90-90: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 91-93: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
| if (form[k]) thresholds[k] = form[k] / 100; | ||
| delete form[k]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo dawg, we need to validate these threshold values before they drop!
The threshold conversion from percentage to decimal needs input validation to ensure we're not passing bogus values to the backend. Consider adding validation to ensure the input is between 0-100 before the division.
Here's a suggested fix:
- if (form[k]) thresholds[k] = form[k] / 100;
+ if (form[k]) {
+ const value = parseFloat(form[k]);
+ if (isNaN(value) || value < 0 || value > 100) {
+ throw new Error(`Invalid threshold value for ${k}: must be between 0-100`);
+ }
+ thresholds[k] = value / 100;
+ }📝 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 (form[k]) thresholds[k] = form[k] / 100; | |
| delete form[k]; | |
| if (form[k]) { | |
| const value = parseFloat(form[k]); | |
| if (isNaN(value) || value < 0 || value > 100) { | |
| throw new Error(`Invalid threshold value for ${k}: must be between 0-100`); | |
| } | |
| thresholds[k] = value / 100; | |
| } | |
| delete form[k]; |
| @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ const CreateInfrastructureMonitor = () => { | |||
| : infrastructureMonitor.name, | |||
| interval: infrastructureMonitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Yo, we've got a legit validation gap here!
Looking at the validation schema in validation.js, there's no validation rule for notifications in the infrastructureMonitorValidation object. This confirms our concern about dropping notifications before validation.
- The schema validates CPU, memory, disk thresholds, but completely misses notifications
- Other parts of the codebase (like the Redux slices) show that notifications are a core part of the monitor structure
- The current validation approach could let invalid notification configs slip through
Consider this safer approach:
const infrastructureMonitorValidation = joi.object({
// ... existing validation rules ...
notifications: joi.array().min(1).required().messages({
'array.min': 'At least one notification method is required',
'any.required': 'Notifications configuration is required'
})
});🔗 Analysis chain
Hold up! We're dropping notifications before validation!
Based on the PR objectives, notifications and thresholds are crucial features. Removing the notifications property before validation means we're not validating the notification configuration. This could lead to invalid notification settings slipping through.
Let's verify the validation schema includes notification checks:
Consider this alternative approach:
- delete form.notifications;
+ const { notifications, ...formWithoutNotifications } = form;
+ if (hasValidationErrors(formWithoutNotifications, infrastructureMonitorValidation, setErrors)) {
+ return;
+ }
+ if (!notifications || notifications.length === 0) {
+ setErrors(prev => ({ ...prev, notifications: "At least one notification method is required" }));
+ return;
+ }🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the validation schema includes notification fields
rg -A 10 'notifications?' src/Validation/validation.js
Length of output: 125
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the validation schema file
fd -e js -e jsx -e ts -e tsx validation
# Then let's search for any notification-related validation patterns in all files
rg -i "notification.*validation|validation.*notification"
# Let's also check the component itself for validation logic
ast-grep --pattern 'const $_ = $$$validation$$$'
Length of output: 340
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the validation file content
cat Client/src/Validation/validation.js
# Let's also check the CreateMonitor component for any validation schema
ast-grep --pattern 'const $_ = {
$$$
notifications: $$$,
$$$
}'
# And check for any validation functions being used
rg -A 5 "hasValidationErrors|validateForm" Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx
Length of output: 10167
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
Server/service/notificationService.js (2)
112-118: Yo! These boolean expressions are heavier than mom's spaghetti!Let's simplify these boolean expressions for better readability.
const alerts = { - cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold ? true : false, - memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold ? true : false, - disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold) - ? true - : false, + cpu: cpuThreshold !== -1 && cpuUsage > cpuThreshold, + memory: memoryThreshold !== -1 && memoryUsage > memoryThreshold, + disk: disk.some((d) => diskThreshold !== -1 && d.usage_percent > diskThreshold) };🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 113-113: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 114-114: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 115-117: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
Line range hint
1-1: Yo! This service is getting heavier than mom's spaghetti!Consider splitting this into separate services:
StatusNotificationServiceHardwareNotificationServiceEmailTemplateServiceThis would improve maintainability and follow the Single Responsibility Principle.
Would you like me to provide an example of how to refactor this into separate services?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 113-113: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 114-114: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 115-117: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
Server/tests/services/notificationService.test.js (1)
232-239: Remove redundant 'describe' block for cleaner test structureStay on beat—the extra
describeblock is unnecessary and adds clutter to your tests. Simplify by removing it.Apply this diff to streamline your tests:
- describe("it should return false if no thresholds are set", () => { it("should return false if no thresholds are set", async () => { networkResponse.monitor.thresholds = undefined; const res = await notificationService.handleHardwareNotifications(networkResponse); expect(res).to.be.false; }); - });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
Server/service/jobQueue.js(1 hunks)Server/service/notificationService.js(1 hunks)Server/service/statusService.js(2 hunks)Server/tests/services/notificationService.test.js(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- Server/service/jobQueue.js
- Server/service/statusService.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
Server/service/notificationService.js
[error] 113-113: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 114-114: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
[error] 115-117: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
| if (notification.type === "email") { | ||
| this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo! Don't let that async email slip through your fingers like mom's spaghetti!
The sendEmail call is missing an await, which could lead to unhandled promises.
if (notification.type === "email") {
- this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address);
+ await this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address);
}📝 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 (notification.type === "email") { | |
| this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address); | |
| } | |
| if (notification.type === "email") { | |
| await this.sendEmail(networkResponse, notification.address); | |
| } |
| if (notification.type === "email") { | ||
| this.sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo! Don't let that async email slip away like mom's spaghetti!
The sendHardwareEmail call is missing an await, which could lead to unhandled promises.
if (notification.type === "email") {
- this.sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend);
+ await this.sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend);
}📝 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 (notification.type === "email") { | |
| this.sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend); | |
| } | |
| if (notification.type === "email") { | |
| await this.sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, notification.address, alertsToSend); | |
| } |
| if (networkResponse.monitor.type === "hardware") { | ||
| this.handleHardwareNotifications(networkResponse); | ||
| } | ||
| this.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo! These promises are slipping through like mom's spaghetti!
Both handler calls are missing await and we're not checking their results.
- if (networkResponse.monitor.type === "hardware") {
- this.handleHardwareNotifications(networkResponse);
+ let result = false;
+ if (networkResponse.monitor.type === "hardware") {
+ result = await this.handleHardwareNotifications(networkResponse);
}
- this.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse);
+ const statusResult = await this.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse);
+ return result || statusResult;
- return true;📝 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 (networkResponse.monitor.type === "hardware") { | |
| this.handleHardwareNotifications(networkResponse); | |
| } | |
| this.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse); | |
| let result = false; | |
| if (networkResponse.monitor.type === "hardware") { | |
| result = await this.handleHardwareNotifications(networkResponse); | |
| } | |
| const statusResult = await this.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse); | |
| return result || statusResult; |
| * Sends an email notification for hardware infrastructure alerts | ||
| * | ||
| * @param {Object} networkResponse - The response from the network monitor. | ||
| * @param {Object} networkResponse.monitor - The monitor object containing details about the monitored service. | ||
| * @param {string} networkResponse.monitor.name - The name of the monitor. | ||
| * @param {string} networkResponse.monitor.url - The URL of the monitor. | ||
| * @param {boolean} networkResponse.status - The current status of the monitor (true for up, false for down). | ||
| * @param {boolean} networkResponse.prevStatus - The previous status of the monitor (true for up, false for down). | ||
| * @param {string} address - The email address to send the notification to. | ||
| * @async | ||
| * @function sendHardwareEmail | ||
| * @param {Object} networkResponse - Response object containing monitor information | ||
| * @param {string} address - Email address to send the notification to | ||
| * @param {Array} [alerts=[]] - List of hardware alerts to include in the email | ||
| * @returns {Promise<boolean>} - Indicates whether email was sent successfully | ||
| * @throws {Error} | ||
| */ | ||
| async sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, address, alerts = []) { | ||
| if (alerts.length === 0) return false; | ||
| const { monitor, status, prevStatus } = networkResponse; | ||
| const template = "hardwareIncidentTemplate"; | ||
| const context = { monitor: monitor.name, url: monitor.url, alerts }; | ||
| const subject = `Monitor ${monitor.name} infrastructure alerts`; | ||
| this.emailService.buildAndSendEmail(template, context, address, subject); | ||
| return true; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo! This email sender's looking clean, but let's catch those errors like mom's spaghetti!
The method looks solid, but we should add error handling for the email sending operation.
async sendHardwareEmail(networkResponse, address, alerts = []) {
if (alerts.length === 0) return false;
const { monitor, status, prevStatus } = networkResponse;
const template = "hardwareIncidentTemplate";
const context = { monitor: monitor.name, url: monitor.url, alerts };
const subject = `Monitor ${monitor.name} infrastructure alerts`;
- this.emailService.buildAndSendEmail(template, context, address, subject);
+ try {
+ await this.emailService.buildAndSendEmail(template, context, address, subject);
+ } catch (error) {
+ this.logger.error({
+ message: 'Failed to send hardware alert email',
+ service: this.SERVICE_NAME,
+ method: 'sendHardwareEmail',
+ error
+ });
+ return false;
+ }
return true;
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| notificationService.sendEmail = sinon.stub(); | ||
| const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({ | ||
| monitor: { | ||
| type: "hardware", | ||
| address: "www.google.com", | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| expect(res).to.be.true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Stub 'sendHardwareEmail' instead of 'sendEmail' for hardware notifications
Don't let the beat drop—ensure you're stubbing sendHardwareEmail rather than sendEmail when testing hardware notifications to keep your tests in rhythm.
Apply this diff to stub sendHardwareEmail:
it("should handle hardware notifications", async () => {
- notificationService.sendEmail = sinon.stub();
+ notificationService.sendHardwareEmail = sinon.stub();
const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({
monitor: {
type: "hardware",
address: "www.google.com",
},
});
expect(res).to.be.true;
});📝 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.
| notificationService.sendEmail = sinon.stub(); | |
| const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({ | |
| monitor: { | |
| type: "hardware", | |
| address: "www.google.com", | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| expect(res).to.be.true; | |
| notificationService.sendHardwareEmail = sinon.stub(); | |
| const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({ | |
| monitor: { | |
| type: "hardware", | |
| address: "www.google.com", | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| expect(res).to.be.true; |
| const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({ | ||
| monitor: { | ||
| type: "email", | ||
| address: "www.google.com", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the 'address' field to match the notification type
Before you lose yourself in the code, ensure the 'address' field matches the notification type. For an 'email' notification, the 'address' should be an email address, not a URL.
Apply this diff to fix the 'address' field:
const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({
monitor: {
type: "email",
- address: "www.google.com",
+ address: "[email protected]",
},
});📝 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 res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({ | |
| monitor: { | |
| type: "email", | |
| address: "www.google.com", | |
| }, | |
| const res = await notificationService.handleNotifications({ | |
| monitor: { | |
| type: "email", | |
| address: "test@test.com", | |
| }, |
| const testError = new Error("Test Error"); | ||
| db.getNotificationsByMonitorId.rejects(testError); | ||
| try { | ||
| await notificationService.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| expect(error).to.be.an.instanceOf(Error); | ||
| expect(error.message).to.equal("Test Error"); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle errors internally without throwing in 'handleStatusNotifications'
Keep the flow steady—handleStatusNotifications should catch errors internally and not throw them. Adjust the test to reflect this error-handling behaviour.
Apply this diff to correct the test:
it("should handle an error", async () => {
const testError = new Error("Test Error");
db.getNotificationsByMonitorId.rejects(testError);
- try {
- await notificationService.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse);
- } catch (error) {
- expect(error).to.be.an.instanceOf(Error);
- expect(error.message).to.equal("Test Error");
- }
+ const res = await notificationService.handleStatusNotifications(networkResponse);
+ expect(notificationService.logger.warn.calledOnce).to.be.true;
+ expect(res).to.be.false;
});Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
This PR handles infrastructure monitor notifications. This is a special case that requires checking for two types of thresholds
nchecksJobQueueNotificationmodel (default set to 5, this can be user specified later)