fix: Update error message in Password panel, confirm new password field #1267
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces updates to validation schemas in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
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 (2)
Client/src/Validation/validation.js (2)
Line range hint
134-142: Yo dawg, we need to beef up this validation! 💪The maintenanceWindowValidation schema needs some improvements:
- Missing error messages for most fields (what if someone messes up?)
- Duration of 0 is allowed - that's sus
- No maximum duration limit could lead to some wild maintenance windows
Here's how we can make it better:
const maintenanceWindowValidation = joi.object({ - repeat: joi.string(), + repeat: joi.string().messages({ + "string.empty": "Repeat interval is required" + }), startDate: joi.custom(dayjsValidator, "Day.js date validation"), startTime: joi.custom(dayjsValidator, "Day.js date validation"), - duration: joi.number().integer().min(0), + duration: joi.number().integer().min(1).max(168).messages({ + "number.base": "Duration must be a number", + "number.min": "Duration must be at least 1", + "number.max": "Duration cannot exceed 168 (1 week)" + }), - durationUnit: joi.string(), + durationUnit: joi.string().valid('minutes', 'hours').messages({ + "any.only": "Duration unit must be either minutes or hours" + }), - name: joi.string(), + name: joi.string().required().max(50).messages({ + "string.empty": "Maintenance window name is required", + "string.max": "Name cannot exceed 50 characters" + }), monitors: joi.array().min(1), });
Yo, these commented validations can be safely dropped! 🧹
After checking the entire codebase, the
usage_systemandusage_swapfields aren't used anywhere except in these commented validation rules. The infrastructure monitoring slice doesn't handle these metrics either, so they're just hanging around collecting dust.
- Remove the commented validation rules for
usage_systemandusage_swapfromClient/src/Validation/validation.js🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
201-206: Yo, what's the deal with this commented code? 🤔There's some commented validation for system and swap usage. If these aren't needed, we should remove them to keep the codebase clean. If they're for future use, let's track them properly.
Let's check if these metrics are used elsewhere:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage_system and usage_swap references echo "Searching for usage_system references..." rg "usage_system" --type js echo "Searching for usage_swap references..." rg "usage_swap" --type jsLength of output: 385
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check if these metrics were recently removed or if they're used in tests echo "Checking git history for these metrics..." git log -p --grep="usage_system\|usage_swap" -- '*.js' echo "Checking for any test files that might reference these..." fd -e test.js -e spec.js -x rg -l "usage_system|usage_swap" {}Length of output: 284
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's also check the infrastructure monitoring related files echo "Checking infrastructure monitoring files..." fd -e js -x rg -l "infrastructure.*monitor" {} # Then check their content echo "Content of infrastructure monitoring files..." fd -e js -x rg "infrastructure.*monitor" -C 2 {}Length of output: 1307
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the infrastructureMonitorsSlice.js file for any system or swap usage echo "Checking infrastructureMonitorsSlice.js content..." cat ./Client/src/Features/InfrastructureMonitors/infrastructureMonitorsSlice.js # Also check for any model or type definitions that might use these fields echo "Checking for types or models..." fd -e js -x rg "interface.*Infrastructure|type.*Infrastructure|class.*Infrastructure" -C 5 {}Length of output: 12945
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Client/src/Validation/validation.js(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
Client/src/Validation/validation.js (1)
85-85: Yo, this error message update is straight fire! 🔥
The change from "empty" to "This field can't be empty" is exactly what we needed - more descriptive and user-friendly. This perfectly addresses the issue #1206.
![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 enhances user experience by providing clearer error messages for the
Confirm new passwordfield in the Password Panel, aligning with the goal of improving usability. - Key components modified: The validation logic in
Client/src/Validation/validation.js. - Impact assessment: Minimal impact on other components as the change is isolated to the validation message.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: No significant dependencies or integration impacts identified.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: None
- Component interactions: No changes to component interactions.
- Integration points: No new integration points introduced.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
Client/src/Validation/validation.js - confirmPasswordValidation
- Submitted PR Code:
.messages({ - "string.empty": "empty", + "string.empty": "This field can't be empty", different: "Passwords do not match", }),
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The current logic updates the error message for an empty
Confirm new passwordfield from"empty"to"This field can't be empty". While this change improves user understanding, it does not address potential localization issues. Hardcoding the error message directly in the validation logic can make localization challenging. - Edge cases and error handling: The change handles the edge case where the field is left empty. However, it does not consider scenarios where the user's input might be whitespace characters, which are technically not empty but should still trigger an error.
- **Cross-component impact **: There is no direct cross-component impact, but the change affects the user interface and user experience, which are critical components of the application.
- **Business logic considerations **: The change aligns with the business requirement to provide clear and user-friendly error messages. However, it does not consider the need for localization and internationalization, which are important for a global user base.
- Current logic and potential issues: The current logic updates the error message for an empty
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
.messages({ "string.empty": "validation.confirmPassword.empty", different: "validation.confirmPassword.different", }),
- **Improvement rationale **:
- Technical benefits: Using a localization key (e.g.,
"validation.confirmPassword.empty") instead of a hardcoded string allows for easier localization and internationalization. This makes the application more maintainable and scalable for a global audience. - Business value: Improves user experience for non-English speakers by providing error messages in their native language. This can increase user satisfaction and adoption in different regions.
- Risk assessment: Low risk as the change is minor and isolated to the validation message. However, it requires ensuring that the localization framework is in place and that the corresponding translation files are updated.
- Technical benefits: Using a localization key (e.g.,
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
-
🔴 Critical Issues
- None
-
🟡 Warnings
- Warning description: The current implementation hardcodes the error message, which can make localization challenging.
- Potential risks: Difficulty in supporting multiple languages and maintaining the application for a global user base.
- Suggested improvements: Use localization keys for error messages to facilitate internationalization.
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The hardcoded error message can make the application less maintainable for a global user base.
- Readability issues: None
- Performance bottlenecks: None
4. Security Assessment
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: None
- Data handling concerns: None
- Input validation: The change improves input validation by providing a clearer error message for empty fields.
- Security best practices: None
- Potential security risks: None
- Mitigation strategies: None
- Security testing requirements: Ensure that the new error message is displayed correctly in all supported languages.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: Ensure that a unit test covers the scenario where the
Confirm new passwordfield is left empty and the new error message is displayed. - Integration test requirements: Verify that the new error message is displayed correctly in the Password Panel when the field is empty.
- Edge cases coverage: Test the edge case where the field is left empty and contains only whitespace characters.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
// Unit test example
describe('ConfirmPasswordValidation', () => {
it('should return error message for empty confirm password field', () => {
const schema = confirmPasswordValidation;
const { error } = schema.validate({ confirmPassword: '' });
expect(error.message).toBe('"This field can\'t be empty"');
});
it('should return error message for whitespace confirm password field', () => {
const schema = confirmPasswordValidation;
const { error } = schema.validate({ confirmPassword: ' ' });
expect(error.message).toBe('"This field can\'t be empty"');
});
});- Coverage improvements: Ensure that the new error message is covered in both unit and integration tests.
- Performance testing needs: None
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed (API, architecture, configuration): Update the documentation to reflect the new error message for the
Confirm new passwordfield and include instructions for localization. - Long-term maintenance considerations: Ensure that the localization framework is in place and that the corresponding translation files are updated.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements: Monitor the application for any localization issues and update the translation files as needed.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: No significant deployment impact. Ensure that the localization framework is deployed and configured correctly.
- Key operational considerations: Monitor the application for any localization issues and update the translation files as needed.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
- Update the error message to use localization keys.
- Ensure that the localization framework is in place and that the corresponding translation files are updated.
- Update the documentation to reflect the new error message for the
Confirm new passwordfield and include instructions for localization. - Add unit and integration tests to cover the new error message and edge cases.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: Continue to improve the localization and internationalization of the application to support a global user base.
- Business capability evolution: Enhance user experience by providing clear and user-friendly error messages in multiple languages.
- System integration impacts: Ensure that the localization framework is integrated correctly with the application.
💡 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.
marcelluscaio
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2024
ajhollid
approved these changes
Dec 4, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR fixes the issue of the error message under
Confirm new passwordfield in the Password Panel.Changes Made
empty -> This field can't be emptyRelated Issue/s
Fixes #1206
Screenshot
Before
After
Additional Context
N/A