fix: Refactor Create PageSpeed #1303
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several modifications to 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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx (6)
1-26: Yo! Let's organize these imports better, eh?While the imports are grouped by category, some imports like
parseDomainNameandConfigBoxare missing category comments. Consider adding appropriate headers for better organization.
34-34: Consider moving MS_PER_MINUTE to a constants fileThis magic number could be reused across the application. Moving it to a shared constants file would improve maintainability.
- const MS_PER_MINUTE = 60000;Create a new file
src/Constants/time.js:export const MS_PER_MINUTE = 60000;
49-67: Eh, let's clean up this state management, buddy!Consider consolidating the form state into a single useState hook for better maintainability:
- const [monitor, setMonitor] = useState({ - url: "", - name: "", - type: "pagespeed", - notifications: [], - interval: 3, - }); - const [https, setHttps] = useState(true); - const [errors, setErrors] = useState({}); + const initialState = { + formData: { + url: "", + name: "", + type: "pagespeed", + notifications: [], + interval: 3, + https: true, + }, + errors: {}, + }; + + const [state, setState] = useState(initialState);
Line range hint
68-119: Yo, this handleCreateMonitor is doing too much, dawg!This function is handling form validation, endpoint checking, and form submission. Let's break it down into smaller, more focused functions:
const validateForm = (formData) => { const { error } = monitorValidation.validate(formData, { abortEarly: false, }); if (error) { return error.details.reduce((acc, err) => ({ ...acc, [err.path[0]]: err.message, }), {}); } return null; }; const checkEndpoint = async (url) => { const response = await dispatch( checkEndpointResolution({ authToken, monitorURL: url }) ); return response.meta.requestStatus === "fulfilled"; }; const handleCreateMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); const formData = prepareFormData(); const validationErrors = validateForm(formData); if (validationErrors) { setErrors(validationErrors); createToast({ body: "Please check the form for errors." }); return; } if (!(await checkEndpoint(formData.url))) { handleEndpointError(); return; } await submitForm(formData); };
141-165: This notification handler could use some love, eh?The notification handling logic is a bit complex. Consider using a more declarative approach:
- const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { - const { value } = event.target; - let notifications = [...monitor.notifications]; - const notificationExists = notifications.some((notification) => { - if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { - return true; - } - return false; - }); - if (notificationExists) { - notifications = notifications.filter((notification) => { - if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { - return false; - } - return true; - }); - } else { - notifications.push({ type, address: value }); - } - - setMonitor((prev) => ({ - ...prev, - notifications, - })); - }; + const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { + const { value } = event.target; + const notification = { type, address: value }; + + setMonitor((prev) => { + const exists = prev.notifications.some( + n => n.type === type && n.address === value + ); + + return { + ...prev, + notifications: exists + ? prev.notifications.filter( + n => !(n.type === type && n.address === value) + ) + : [...prev.notifications, notification], + }; + }); + };
342-343: The submit button's disabled state logic is hard to readConsider extracting the validation logic to a separate function for better readability:
- disabled={!Object.values(errors).every((value) => value === undefined)} + disabled={hasValidationErrors(errors)} // Add this helper function +const hasValidationErrors = (errors) => { + return !Object.values(errors).every((value) => value === undefined); +};
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx(11 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx (1)
278-279: Those comments about ButtonGroup are sus, my dude!
The comments indicate confusion about the ButtonGroup variant props. This should be documented or the implementation should be more explicit.
![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:
The PR aims to refactor the "Create PageSpeed Monitor" page to simplify the code and remove unnecessary complexity. This aligns with the business requirement to improve maintainability and readability, facilitating easier future enhancements and bug fixes. -
Key components modified:
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx
-
Impact assessment:
The changes primarily affect the CreatePageSpeed component, potentially impacting how notifications and form submissions are handled. The refactoring does not introduce significant changes to the system architecture or integration points with backend services.
1.2 Architecture Changes
-
System design modifications:
The refactoring does not introduce any significant changes to the system architecture. -
Component interactions:
The interactions between the CreatePageSpeed component and other parts of the system remain unchanged. -
Integration points:
The integration points with the backend services (e.g.,createPageSpeedandcheckEndpointResolution) are not affected by this refactoring.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx - handleNotifications
- Submitted PR Code:
const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { const { value } = event.target; let notifications = [...monitor.notifications]; const notificationExists = notifications.some((notification) => { if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { return true; } return false; }); if (notificationExists) { notifications = notifications.filter((notification) => { if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { return false; } return true; }); } else { notifications.push({ type, address: value }); } setMonitor((prev) => ({ ...prev, notifications, })); };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The
handleNotificationsfunction manages the addition and removal of notifications based on thetypeandvalueprovided. However, the function does not handle cases where thetypeis not "email" and does not account for potential future notification types. - Edge cases and error handling: The function currently only handles the "email" notification type. It does not account for other notification types that may be added in the future, such as SMS or push notifications.
- Cross-component impact: The function interacts with the
monitorstate, which is used across the component to manage the form data. Any changes to this function may impact the overall form submission process. - Business logic considerations: The business logic requires handling different types of notifications, and the current implementation may not scale well with the addition of new notification types.
- Current logic and potential issues: The
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { const { value } = event.target; let notifications = [...monitor.notifications]; const notificationExists = notifications.some((notification) => { if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { return true; } return false; }); if (notificationExists) { notifications = notifications.filter((notification) => { if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { return false; } return true; }); } else { notifications.push({ type, address: value }); } setMonitor((prev) => ({ ...prev, notifications, })); };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: The suggested improvement ensures that the
handleNotificationsfunction is more generic and can handle different notification types. This makes the code more scalable and maintainable. - Business value: Ensures that the application can handle different types of notifications, improving the overall user experience and business functionality.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as the change is a best practice and does not introduce any new functionality. It only improves the existing functionality to handle more notification types.
- Technical benefits: The suggested improvement ensures that the
- Analysis:
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx - handleChange
- Submitted PR Code:
const handleChange = (event, formItemName) => { const { value } = event.target; setMonitor({ ...monitor, [formItemName]: value, }); const { error } = monitorValidation.validate( { [formItemName]: value }, { abortEarly: false } ); setErrors((prev) => ({ ...prev, ...(error ? { [formItemName]: error.details[0].message } : { [formItemName]: undefined }), })); };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The
handleChangefunction updates themonitorstate and validates the input. However, it directly updates themonitorstate without using the previous state, which may lead to unexpected behavior if the state updates are batched or if the component is re-rendered. - Edge cases and error handling: The function does not handle edge cases where the
formItemNameis not a valid key in themonitorstate. This may lead to potential errors or unexpected behavior. - Cross-component impact: The function interacts with the
monitorstate, which is used across the component to manage the form data. Any changes to this function may impact the overall form submission process. - Business logic considerations: The business logic requires that the
monitorstate is updated correctly and validated before submission. The current implementation may not handle all edge cases and potential errors.
- Current logic and potential issues: The
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const handleChange = (event, formItemName) => { const { value } = event.target; setMonitor((prev) => ({ ...prev, [formItemName]: value, })); const { error } = monitorValidation.validate( { [formItemName]: value }, { abortEarly: false } ); setErrors((prev) => ({ ...prev, ...(error ? { [formItemName]: error.details[0].message } : { [formItemName]: undefined }), })); };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: The suggested improvement ensures that the
monitorstate is updated immutably, which is a best practice in React. This prevents potential bugs and ensures that the state is managed correctly. - Business value: Ensures that the state is managed correctly, preventing potential bugs and improving the overall reliability of the application.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as the change is a best practice and does not introduce any new functionality. It only improves the existing functionality to handle state updates correctly.
- Technical benefits: The suggested improvement ensures that the
- Analysis:
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx - handleCreateMonitor
- Submitted PR Code:
const handleCreateMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); let form = { url: `http${https ? "s" : ""}://` + monitor.url, name: monitor.name === "" ? monitor.url : monitor.name, type: monitor.type, interval: monitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, }; const { error } = monitorValidation.validate(form, { abortEarly: false, }); if (error) { const newErrors = {}; error.details.forEach((err) => { newErrors[err.path[0]] = err.message; }); setErrors(newErrors); createToast({ body: "Please check the form for errors." }); return; } const checkEndpointAction = await dispatch( checkEndpointResolution({ authToken, monitorURL: form.url }) ); if (checkEndpointAction.meta.requestStatus === "rejected") { createToast({ body: "The endpoint you entered doesn't resolve. Check the URL again.", }); setErrors({ url: "The entered URL is not reachable." }); return; } form = { ...form, description: form.name, teamId: user.teamId, userId: user._id, notifications: monitor.notifications, }; const action = await dispatch(createPageSpeed({ authToken, monitor: form })); if (action.meta.requestStatus === "fulfilled") { createToast({ body: "Monitor created successfully!" }); navigate("/pagespeed"); } else { createToast({ body: "Failed to create monitor." }); } };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The
handleCreateMonitorfunction constructs theformobject and performs validation. However, it does not handle the case where themonitor.nameis an empty string after validation. This may lead to potential data inconsistencies. - Edge cases and error handling: The function does not handle edge cases where the
monitor.nameis an empty string after validation. This may lead to potential errors or unexpected behavior. - Cross-component impact: The function interacts with the
monitorstate and the backend services. Any changes to this function may impact the overall monitor creation process. - Business logic considerations: The business logic requires that the monitor is created with a valid name. The current implementation may not handle all edge cases and potential errors.
- Current logic and potential issues: The
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const handleCreateMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); let form = { url: `http${https ? "s" : ""}://` + monitor.url, name: monitor.name === "" ? monitor.url : monitor.name, type: monitor.type, interval: monitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, }; const { error } = monitorValidation.validate(form, { abortEarly: false, }); if (error) { const newErrors = {}; error.details.forEach((err) => { newErrors[err.path[0]] = err.message; }); setErrors(newErrors); createToast({ body: "Please check the form for errors." }); return; } if (form.name === "") { setErrors({ name: "Monitor name cannot be empty." }); createToast({ body: "Please provide a valid monitor name." }); return; } const checkEndpointAction = await dispatch( checkEndpointResolution({ authToken, monitorURL: form.url }) ); if (checkEndpointAction.meta.requestStatus === "rejected") { createToast({ body: "The endpoint you entered doesn't resolve. Check the URL again.", }); setErrors({ url: "The entered URL is not reachable." }); return; } form = { ...form, description: form.name, teamId: user.teamId, userId: user._id, notifications: monitor.notifications, }; const action = await dispatch(createPageSpeed({ authToken, monitor: form })); if (action.meta.requestStatus === "fulfilled") { createToast({ body: "Monitor created successfully!" }); navigate("/pagespeed"); } else { createToast({ body: "Failed to create monitor." }); } };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: The suggested improvement ensures that the
monitor.nameis not an empty string before constructing theformobject. This prevents potential data inconsistencies and ensures that the monitor is created with a valid name. - Business value: Ensures that the monitor creation process is robust and provides clear feedback to the user.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as the change is a best practice and does not introduce any new functionality. It only improves the existing functionality to handle edge cases correctly.
- Technical benefits: The suggested improvement ensures that the
- Analysis:
2.2 Implementation Quality
-
Code organization and structure:
The refactored code is well-organized and modular, with clear separation of concerns. The use of hooks and state management is consistent and follows React best practices. -
Error handling approach:
The error handling in the refactored code is improved, with clear error messages and user feedback. The use ofcreateToastfor error notifications is a good practice. -
Performance considerations:
The refactored code does not introduce any significant performance issues. The use of asynchronous operations (e.g.,dispatch) is appropriate and should not cause performance bottlenecks.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
-
🔴 Critical Issues
- Issue description: The
handleCreateMonitorfunction does not handle the case where themonitor.nameis an empty string after validation. - Impact:
- Technical implications: The monitor may be created with an incorrect name, leading to potential data inconsistencies.
- Business consequences: Users may experience confusion or errors when managing their monitors.
- User experience effects: Users may see incorrect monitor names in the UI.
- Recommendation:
- Specific code changes: Add a check to ensure that
monitor.nameis not an empty string before constructing theformobject. - Testing requirements: Update unit tests to cover this edge case.
- Specific code changes: Add a check to ensure that
- Issue description: The
-
🟡 Warnings
- Warning description: The
handleNotificationsfunction does not handle the case where thetypeis not "email". - Potential risks:
- Performance implications: None.
- Maintenance overhead: Adding new notification types may require significant changes to the
handleNotificationsfunction. - Future scalability: The current implementation may not scale well with the addition of new notification types.
- Suggested improvements:
- Implementation approach: Refactor the
handleNotificationsfunction to be more generic and handle different notification types. - Testing considerations: Update unit tests to cover the new notification types.
- Implementation approach: Refactor the
- Warning description: The
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
-
Maintainability aspects:
The PR improves the maintainability of the code by simplifying the logic and removing unnecessary complexity. -
Readability issues:
The refactored code is more readable and follows best practices, making it easier to understand and maintain. -
Performance bottlenecks:
The refactored code does not introduce any significant performance issues. The use of asynchronous operations (e.g.,dispatch) is appropriate and should not cause performance bottlenecks.
4. Testing Strategy
4.1 Test Coverage
-
Unit test analysis:
Update unit tests to cover the refactoredhandleChange,handleCreateMonitor, andhandleNotificationsfunctions. -
Integration test requirements:
Ensure that the integration tests cover the creation of a PageSpeed monitor and handle edge cases such as empty monitor names and unreachable URLs. -
Edge cases coverage:
Validate edge cases such as empty monitor names and unreachable URLs in the tests.
4.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
// Example unit test for handleChange
test('handleChange updates monitor state and validates input', () => {
const mockSetMonitor = jest.fn();
const mockSetErrors = jest.fn();
const event = { target: { value: 'newValue' } };
const formItemName = 'url';
handleChange(event, formItemName);
expect(mockSetMonitor).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.any(Function));
expect(mockSetErrors).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.any(Function));
});
// Example unit test for handleCreateMonitor
test('handleCreateMonitor creates monitor successfully', async () => {
const mockEvent = { preventDefault: jest.fn() };
const mockDispatch = jest.fn(() => ({ meta: { requestStatus: 'fulfilled' } }));
const mockNavigate = jest.fn();
const mockCreateToast = jest.fn();
await handleCreateMonitor(mockEvent);
expect(mockDispatch).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2);
expect(mockNavigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/pagespeed');
expect(mockCreateToast).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ body: 'Monitor created successfully!' });
});
// Example unit test for handleNotifications
test('handleNotifications adds new notification', () => {
const mockSetMonitor = jest.fn();
const event = { target: { value: 'newValue' } };
const type = 'email';
handleNotifications(event, type);
expect(mockSetMonitor).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.any(Function));
});-
Coverage improvements:
Ensure that the test coverage includes all edge cases and potential errors. -
Performance testing needs:
Benchmark the performance of the refactored code to ensure that it meets the required performance metrics.
5. Documentation & Maintenance
-
Documentation updates needed:
Update the documentation to reflect the refactored code and any changes in the component's behavior. -
Long-term maintenance considerations:
The refactored code is more maintainable and should be easier to update in the future. Ensure that any future changes are well-documented and tested. -
Technical debt and monitoring requirements:
Monitor the performance and behavior of the refactored code to ensure that it meets the required standards. Address any technical debt that may arise from future changes.
6. Deployment & Operations
-
Deployment impact and strategy:
The deployment of the refactored code should be straightforward, as it does not introduce any significant changes to the system architecture or integration points. Ensure that the deployment is well-tested and monitored. -
Key operational considerations:
Monitor the performance and behavior of the refactored code in the production environment to ensure that it meets the required standards.
7. Summary & Recommendations
7.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical changes required:
- Add a check to ensure that
monitor.nameis not an empty string before constructing theformobject.
- Add a check to ensure that
-
Important improvements suggested:
- Refactor the
handleNotificationsfunction to be more generic and handle different notification types.
- Refactor the
-
Best practices to implement:
- Ensure that the
monitorstate is updated immutably to prevent potential bugs and ensure that the state is managed correctly.
- Ensure that the
-
Cross-cutting concerns to address:
- Ensure that the refactored code handles all edge cases and potential errors, providing clear feedback to the user.
7.2 Future Considerations
-
Technical evolution path:
The refactored code is more maintainable and should be easier to update in the future. Ensure that any future changes are well-documented and tested. -
Business capability evolution:
The refactoring aligns with the business requirements and improves the user experience by providing clear error messages and feedback. -
System integration impacts:
The refactoring does not introduce any significant changes to the system architecture or integration points. Ensure that any future changes are well-tested and monitored.
💡 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.
| const handleChange = (event, formItemName) => { | ||
| const { value } = event.target; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could just get the event if we passed a name to the inputs, ant then got the name from the event.target
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good idea, will implement!
| const CRUMBS = [ | ||
| { name: "pagespeed", path: "/pagespeed" }, | ||
| { name: "create", path: `/pagespeed/create` }, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| const SELECT_VALUES = [ | ||
| { _id: 3, name: "3 minutes" }, | ||
| { _id: 5, name: "5 minutes" }, | ||
| { _id: 10, name: "10 minutes" }, | ||
| { _id: 20, name: "20 minutes" }, | ||
| { _id: 60, name: "1 hour" }, | ||
| { _id: 1440, name: "1 day" }, | ||
| { _id: 10080, name: "1 week" }, | ||
| ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like the constant approach. I suggest we put them out of the component (line 31) so they don't get recreated on rerender (since they don't depend on props. If they did, it would be a case for using useMemo)
Agreed on all points, I'll make the revisions! |
|
@marcelluscaio changes implemented! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx (4)
47-65: Consider consolidating the state management, buddy!The
httpsstate could be part of the mainmonitorstate object since it's related to the monitor configuration. This would make state updates more centralized and easier to manage.const [monitor, setMonitor] = useState({ url: "", name: "", type: "pagespeed", notifications: [], interval: 3, + https: true, }); - const [https, setHttps] = useState(true);Then update the references to use
monitor.httpsinstead of the separatehttpsstate.
138-162: Simplify the notification handling logic, eh?The notification toggle logic is a bit complex with multiple array operations. We can simplify this using Array methods.
const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { const { value } = event.target; - let notifications = [...monitor.notifications]; - const notificationExists = notifications.some((notification) => { - if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { - return true; - } - return false; - }); - if (notificationExists) { - notifications = notifications.filter((notification) => { - if (notification.type === type && notification.address === value) { - return false; - } - return true; - }); - } else { - notifications.push({ type, address: value }); - } + const notification = { type, address: value }; + const notifications = monitor.notifications.some(n => + n.type === type && n.address === value + ) + ? monitor.notifications.filter(n => + !(n.type === type && n.address === value) + ) + : [...monitor.notifications, notification]; setMonitor(prev => ({ ...prev, notifications, })); };
Line range hint
67-118: Improve error handling in form submission, my friend!The error handling in
handleCreateMonitorcould be more robust. Let's add some specific error messages and handle network errors better.const handleCreateMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); try { let form = { url: `http${monitor.https ? "s" : ""}://` + monitor.url, name: monitor.name === "" ? monitor.url : monitor.name, type: monitor.type, interval: monitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, }; const { error } = monitorValidation.validate(form, { abortEarly: false, }); if (error) { const newErrors = {}; error.details.forEach((err) => { newErrors[err.path[0]] = err.message; }); setErrors(newErrors); - createToast({ body: "Please check the form for errors." }); + createToast({ + body: "Please fix the following errors:", + details: Object.values(newErrors).join(", ") + }); return; } const checkEndpointAction = await dispatch( checkEndpointResolution({ authToken, monitorURL: form.url }) ); if (checkEndpointAction.meta.requestStatus === "rejected") { + const errorMessage = checkEndpointAction.payload?.message || + "The endpoint you entered doesn't resolve. Check the URL again."; createToast({ - body: "The endpoint you entered doesn't resolve. Check the URL again.", + body: errorMessage, }); setErrors({ url: "The entered URL is not reachable." }); return; } form = { ...form, description: form.name, teamId: user.teamId, userId: user._id, notifications: monitor.notifications, }; const action = await dispatch(createPageSpeed({ authToken, monitor: form })); if (action.meta.requestStatus === "fulfilled") { createToast({ body: "Monitor created successfully!" }); navigate("/pagespeed"); } else { + const errorMessage = action.payload?.message || "Failed to create monitor."; createToast({ - body: "Failed to create monitor." + body: errorMessage, + type: "error" }); } + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error creating monitor:", error); + createToast({ + body: "An unexpected error occurred", + type: "error" + }); } };
277-278: Yo dawg, let's document these custom button props!The comments indicate confusion about the
variant="group"andfilledprops. We should document these custom props in the ButtonGroup component.Consider adding prop documentation in the ButtonGroup component:
interface ButtonGroupProps { /** * Variant of the button. Use "group" for buttons within a ButtonGroup */ variant?: "group" | "contained" | "outlined"; /** * Whether the button should appear filled */ filled?: string; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx(10 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx
[error] 234-234: 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 (1)
Client/src/Pages/PageSpeed/CreatePageSpeed/index.jsx (1)
32-45: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo! Let's move these constants to a separate file, eh?
These constants (CRUMBS and SELECT_VALUES) are being recreated on every render, but they don't depend on any component state or props. Let's move them to a separate constants file to improve performance and maintainability.
+ // src/Constants/pageSpeed.js
+ export const CRUMBS = [
+ { name: "pagespeed", path: "/pagespeed" },
+ { name: "create", path: `/pagespeed/create` },
+ ];
+
+ export const SELECT_VALUES = [
+ { _id: 3, name: "3 minutes" },
+ { _id: 5, name: "5 minutes" },
+ { _id: 10, name: "10 minutes" },
+ { _id: 20, name: "20 minutes" },
+ { _id: 60, name: "1 hour" },
+ { _id: 1440, name: "1 day" },
+ { _id: 10080, name: "1 week" },
+ ];Then import them in this file:
+ import { CRUMBS, SELECT_VALUES } from "../../../Constants/pageSpeed";
- const CRUMBS = [...]
- const SELECT_VALUES = [...]
This PR refactors the "Create PageSpeed Monitor" page to remove complexity.
nameon all inputs, useevent.target.nameinstead of passing an extraformItemNamevarialbe tohandleChange