fix: fe/create infra refactor #1310
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| .trim() | ||
| .custom((value, helpers) => { | ||
| const urlRegex = | ||
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$/i; |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Inefficient regular expression High
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 1 month ago
To fix the problem, we need to modify the regular expression to remove the ambiguity that can lead to catastrophic backtracking. Specifically, we should replace the ambiguous character class [\/\w \.-]* with a more precise pattern that avoids overlapping matches.
- We will replace
[\/\w \.-]*with a more specific pattern that clearly defines the allowed characters and their repetitions without ambiguity. - The new pattern will ensure that each part of the URL is matched in a deterministic way, reducing the risk of inefficiency.
| @@ -98,3 +98,3 @@ | ||
| const urlRegex = | ||
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$/i; | ||
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?(\/[\w\.-]*)*\/?$/i; | ||
|
|
| .trim() | ||
| .custom((value, helpers) => { | ||
| const urlRegex = | ||
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$/i; |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Inefficient regular expression High
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 1 month ago
To fix the problem, we need to modify the regular expression to remove the ambiguity and prevent excessive backtracking. Specifically, we can replace the ambiguous repetition [\/\w \.-]* with a more precise pattern that avoids matching an empty string and reduces the potential for backtracking.
- We will change the pattern to ensure that it matches valid URL paths without ambiguity.
- The updated pattern will be
([\/\w\.-]+)?which ensures that the repetition is not ambiguous and does not match an empty string.
| @@ -197,3 +197,3 @@ | ||
| const urlRegex = | ||
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$/i; | ||
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?([\/\w\.-]+)?\/?$/i; | ||
|
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@ajhollid has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 13 minutes and 51 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve significant updates 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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx (4)
155-155: Clean up console logs to keep the code running smoothThere's an extra
console.log(form);at line 155 that might weigh down your production code. Let's remove it to keep everything light and ready.Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary console log:
- console.log(form);
186-186: Remove debugging logs for a cleaner outputThe
console.log(event.target.checked, formName);at line 186 seems to be leftover from testing. Dropping it can help your code run steady without extra noise.Apply this diff to eliminate the debug statement:
- console.log(event.target.checked, formName);
195-195: Eliminate unnecessary console logs to keep the flowAt line 195, the
console.log("hanldeBlur", event);might not be needed anymore. Let's cut it out to keep the code on beat.Apply this diff to remove the log:
- console.log("hanldeBlur", event);
293-302: Simplify boolean handling in 'filled' prop for clarityCurrently, the
filledprop is using.toString()on boolean values at lines 295 and 302. Passing the boolean directly keeps the code lighter and more efficient.Apply these diffs to simplify the boolean handling:
- filled={https.toString()} + filled={https}- filled={(!https).toString()} + filled={!https}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/CustomThreshold/index.jsx(4 hunks)Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx(7 hunks)Client/src/Validation/validation.js(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
Client/src/Validation/validation.js
[failure] 99-99: Inefficient regular expression
This part of the regular expression may cause exponential backtracking on strings starting with '-' and containing many repetitions of ' '.
[failure] 198-198: Inefficient regular expression
This part of the regular expression may cause exponential backtracking on strings starting with '-' and containing many repetitions of ' '.
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx
[error] 286-286: 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)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/CustomThreshold/index.jsx
[error] 87-87: 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)
| * @param {Object} props.infrastructureMonitor - Infrastructure monitor configuration object | ||
| * | ||
| * @returns {React.ReactElement} Rendered CustomThreshold component | ||
| * |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update propTypes and documentation to match the new props
The infrastructureMonitor prop has been removed but is still mentioned in the component's documentation and propTypes. To keep things aligned and avoid confusion, please update the documentation and propTypes accordingly.
Apply this diff to reflect the current prop structure:
@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@
* @param {Object} props.errors - Object containing validation errors
- * @param {Object} props.infrastructureMonitor - Infrastructure monitor configuration object
*
* @returns {React.ReactElement} Rendered CustomThreshold component
*
@@ -103,7 +102,6 @@ CustomThreshold.propTypes = {
checkboxLabel: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
isChecked: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
onCheckboxChange: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
fieldId: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
fieldValue: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
onFieldChange: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
onFieldBlur: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
alertUnit: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
- infrastructureMonitor: PropTypes.object.isRequired,
errors: PropTypes.object.isRequired,
};Also applies to: 41-42, 103-105
| /^(https?:\/\/)?(([0-9]{1,3}\.){3}[0-9]{1,3}|[\da-z\.-]+)(\.[a-z\.]{2,6})?(:(\d+))?([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$/i; | ||
|
|
||
| if (!urlRegex.test(value)) { | ||
| return helpers.error("string.invalidUrl"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keep your regex lean to avoid performance issues
The urlRegex patterns at lines 99 and 198 might be a bit heavy and could stumble on certain inputs, causing your app to get shaky. Let's slim them down to keep the performance steady.
Consider refactoring the regex to prevent potential backtracking issues that can affect performance. Would you like assistance in crafting a more efficient regex pattern?
Also applies to: 198-201
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
[failure] 99-99: Inefficient regular expression
This part of the regular expression may cause exponential backtracking on strings starting with '-' and containing many repetitions of ' '.
![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 Core Changes
- Primary purpose and scope: This PR aims to refactor the "Create Infrastructure Monitor" page to reduce complexity and improve maintainability.
- Key components modified:
CustomThresholdcomponentCreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponentinfrastructureMonitorValidationschema
- Cross-component impacts:
- The
CustomThresholdcomponent is now more reusable and decoupled from theCreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent. - The validation schema for the infrastructure monitor has been enhanced for better URL validation.
- The
- Business value alignment: The refactoring aligns with the goal of simplifying the codebase, improving maintainability, and enhancing the user experience by reducing complexity.
1.2 Technical Architecture
- System design modifications:
- The
CustomThresholdcomponent has been restructured to be more reusable and self-contained. - The
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent has been refactored to improve state management and event handling.
- The
- Component interaction changes:
- The
CustomThresholdcomponent now receives more granular props, reducing its dependency on theinfrastructureMonitorobject. - The
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent has been simplified to handle state changes and form submission more efficiently.
- The
- Integration points impact:
- The changes in the
CustomThresholdcomponent may require updates in other parts of the application where it is used. - The validation schema changes may impact other components that use the same schema.
- The changes in the
- Dependency changes and implications:
- The removal of
onBlurmay impact the performance of the application, as it was used to avoid the performance hit ofonChange. - The addition of
HttpAdornmentandButtonGroupcomponents may introduce new dependencies.
- The removal of
2. Deep Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Analysis
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/CustomThreshold/index.jsx
- [File Path] -
CustomThreshold- Submitted PR Code:
export const CustomThreshold = ({ checkboxId, checkboxLabel, onCheckboxChange, isChecked, fieldId, fieldValue, onFieldChange, onFieldBlur, alertUnit, errors, }) => { const theme = useTheme(); return ( <Stack direction={"row"} sx={{ width: "50%", justifyContent: "space-between", flexWrap: "wrap", }} > <Box> <Checkbox id={checkboxId} label={checkboxLabel} isChecked={isChecked} onChange={onCheckboxChange} /> </Box> <Stack direction={"row"} sx={{ justifyContent: "flex-end", }} > <TextInput maxWidth="var(--env-var-width-4)" type="number" id={fieldId} value={fieldValue} onBlur={onFieldBlur} onChange={onFieldChange} error={errors[fieldId] ? true : false} disabled={!isChecked} /> <Typography component="p" m={theme.spacing(3)} > {alertUnit} </Typography> </Stack> </Stack> ); };
- Analysis:
- The
CustomThresholdcomponent has been refactored to receive more granular props, making it more reusable and self-contained. - The component now uses
isCheckedinstead of accessing theinfrastructureMonitorobject directly, which improves maintainability. - The
onBlurevent handler has been removed, which may impact performance.
- The
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
// No suggested improvements for this block.
- Submitted PR Code:
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx
- [File Path] -
CreateInfrastructureMonitor- Submitted PR Code:
const CreateInfrastructureMonitor = () => { const theme = useTheme(); const { user, authToken } = useSelector((state) => state.auth); const monitorState = useSelector((state) => state.infrastructureMonitor); const dispatch = useDispatch(); const navigate = useNavigate(); const [errors, setErrors] = useState({}); const [https, setHttps] = useState(false); const [infrastructureMonitor, setInfrastructureMonitor] = useState({ url: "", name: "", notifications: [], interval: 0.25, cpu: false, usage_cpu: "", memory: false, usage_memory: "", disk: false, usage_disk: "", temperature: false, usage_temperature: "", secret: "", }); const handleCreateInfrastructureMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); let form = { url: `http${https ? "s" : ""}://` + infrastructureMonitor.url, name: infrastructureMonitor.name === "" ? infrastructureMonitor.url : infrastructureMonitor.name, interval: infrastructureMonitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, cpu: infrastructureMonitor.cpu, ...(infrastructureMonitor.cpu ? { usage_cpu: infrastructureMonitor.usage_cpu } : {}), memory: infrastructureMonitor.memory, ...(infrastructureMonitor.memory ? { usage_memory: infrastructureMonitor.usage_memory } : {}), disk: infrastructureMonitor.disk, ...(infrastructureMonitor.disk ? { usage_disk: infrastructureMonitor.usage_disk } : {}), temperature: infrastructureMonitor.temperature, ...(infrastructureMonitor.temperature ? { usage_temperature: infrastructureMonitor.usage_temperature } : {}), secret: infrastructureMonitor.secret, }; const { error } = infrastructureMonitorValidation.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 action = await dispatch( createInfrastructureMonitor({ authToken, monitor: form }) ); if (action.meta.requestStatus === "fulfilled") { createToast({ body: "Infrastructure monitor created successfully!" }); navigate("/infrastructure"); } else { createToast({ body: "Failed to create monitor." }); } }; const handleChange = (event, formName) => { const { value } = event.target; setInfrastructureMonitor({ ...infrastructureMonitor, [formName]: value, }); const { error } = infrastructureMonitorValidation.validate( { [formName]: value }, { abortEarly: false } ); setErrors((prev) => ({ ...prev, ...(error ? { [formName]: error.details[0].message } : { [formName]: undefined }), })); }; const handleCheckboxChange = (event, formName) => { const { checked } = event.target; setInfrastructureMonitor({ ...infrastructureMonitor, [formName]: checked, }); }; const handleBlur = (event) => { console.log("handleBlur", event); }; const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { const { value } = event.target; let notifications = [...infrastructureMonitor.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 }); } setInfrastructureMonitor((prev) => ({ ...prev, notifications, })); }; return ( <Box className="create-infrastructure-monitor"> <Breadcrumbs list={[ { name: "Infrastructure monitors", path: "/infrastructure" }, { name: "create", path: `/infrastructure/create` }, ]} /> <Stack direction="row" justifyContent="flex-end" > <LoadingButton variant="contained" color="primary" onClick={handleCreateInfrastructureMonitor} > Create Monitor </LoadingButton> </Stack> </Box> ); };
- Analysis:
- The
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent has been refactored to improve state management and event handling. - The component now uses more granular event handlers (
handleChange,handleCheckboxChange,handleBlur,handleNotifications) to handle state changes more efficiently. - The
handleCreateInfrastructureMonitorfunction has been simplified to handle form submission and validation.
- The
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
// No suggested improvements for this block.
- Submitted PR Code:
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code Structure:
- The
CustomThresholdcomponent has been refactored to be more reusable and self-contained. - The
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent has been refactored to improve state management and event handling.
- The
- Error Handling:
- The
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent now uses more granular event handlers to handle state changes more efficiently. - The
handleCreateInfrastructureMonitorfunction has been simplified to handle form submission and validation.
- The
- Performance Considerations:
- The removal of
onBlurmay impact performance, as it was used to avoid the performance hit ofonChange. - The addition of
HttpAdornmentandButtonGroupcomponents may introduce new dependencies.
- The removal of
3. Risk Assessment
3.1 Critical Issues
🔴 P0 (Must Fix):
- Issue: The removal of
onBlurmay impact performance, as it was used to avoid the performance hit ofonChange. - Impact:
- Technical implications: The removal of
onBlurmay lead to increased performance overhead due to the frequent triggering ofonChange. - Business consequences: The user experience may be affected due to potential performance lags.
- User experience effects: Users may experience slower form interactions.
- Technical implications: The removal of
- Resolution:
- Specific code changes: Re-evaluate the need for
onBlurand consider re-implementing it if performance issues are observed. - Configuration updates: Monitor performance metrics and adjust the event handling strategy if necessary.
- Testing requirements: Conduct performance testing to ensure that the removal of
onBlurdoes not significantly impact the user experience.
- Specific code changes: Re-evaluate the need for
3.2 Important Improvements
🟡 P1 (Should Fix):
- Issue: The addition of
HttpAdornmentandButtonGroupcomponents may introduce new dependencies. - Current Impact:
- Performance implications: The introduction of new components may introduce additional dependencies and potentially increase the bundle size.
- Maintenance overhead: The addition of new components may increase the maintenance overhead.
- Future scalability: The introduction of new dependencies may impact the scalability of the application.
- Suggested Solution:
- Implementation approach: Evaluate the necessity of the new components and consider alternative solutions if possible.
- Migration strategy: If the new components are necessary, ensure that they are properly documented and that their dependencies are managed.
- Testing considerations: Conduct thorough testing to ensure that the new components do not introduce any regressions or performance issues.
3.3 Minor Suggestions
🟢 P2 (Consider):
- Area: Code Documentation
- Improvement Opportunity:
- Code quality enhancement: Add more comments and documentation to the refactored code to improve maintainability.
- Best practice alignment: Ensure that the code follows best practices for documentation and commenting.
- Documentation updates: Update the documentation to reflect the changes made in this PR.
4. Requirements Analysis
4.1 Functional Coverage
- Requirements mapping:
- Implemented features:
- Refactored
CustomThresholdcomponent to be more reusable and self-contained. - Refactored
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent to improve state management and event handling.
- Refactored
- Missing elements:
- The removal of
onBlurmay impact performance, as it was used to avoid the performance hit ofonChange. - The addition of
HttpAdornmentandButtonGroupcomponents may introduce new dependencies.
- The removal of
- Edge cases handling:
- The refactored components should handle edge cases such as invalid URLs and missing fields.
- Implemented features:
- Business Logic:
- Use case coverage: The refactored components cover the use cases for creating and managing infrastructure monitors.
- Business rule implementation: The business rules for creating and managing infrastructure monitors are implemented in the refactored components.
- Data flow correctness: The data flow between the components and the backend is correct and follows the business logic.
4.2 Non-functional Aspects
- Performance metrics:
- The removal of
onBlurmay impact performance, as it was used to avoid the performance hit ofonChange. - The addition of
HttpAdornmentandButtonGroupcomponents may introduce new dependencies and potentially increase the bundle size.
- The removal of
- Security considerations:
- The refactored components should ensure that all input data is validated and sanitized to prevent security vulnerabilities.
- The use of
HttpAdornmentandButtonGroupcomponents should be evaluated for any potential security implications.
- Scalability factors:
- The refactored components should be scalable and maintainable to support future enhancements and changes.
- The introduction of new dependencies should be managed to ensure scalability.
- Maintainability aspects:
- The refactored components should be well-documented and follow best practices for maintainability.
- The addition of new components should be evaluated for maintainability and potential future overhead.
5. Testing Strategy
- Test Coverage:
- Unit test requirements:
- Test the refactored
CustomThresholdcomponent to ensure that it behaves as expected. - Test the refactored
CreateInfrastructureMonitorcomponent to ensure that it handles state changes and form submission correctly.
- Test the refactored
- Integration test scenarios:
- Test the integration between the refactored components and the backend to ensure that data flow is correct.
- Test the integration between the refactored components and other parts of the application to ensure that they work together seamlessly.
- Edge case validation:
- Test edge cases such as invalid URLs and missing fields to ensure that the refactored components handle them correctly.
- Unit test requirements:
- Quality Metrics:
- Current coverage:
- The current test coverage should be evaluated to ensure that all new and refactored code is adequately tested.
- Critical paths:
- Identify and test critical paths in the application to ensure that the refactored components do not introduce any regressions.
- Performance benchmarks:
- Conduct performance testing to ensure that the refactored components do not introduce any performance issues.
- Current coverage:
6. Final Assessment
6.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical Changes (P0):
- Re-evaluate the need for
onBlurand consider re-implementing it if performance issues are observed. - Monitor performance metrics and adjust the event handling strategy if necessary.
- Conduct performance testing to ensure that the removal of
onBlurdoes not significantly impact the user experience.
- Re-evaluate the need for
-
Important Improvements (P1):
- Evaluate the necessity of the new components and consider alternative solutions if possible.
- Ensure that the new components are properly documented and that their dependencies are managed.
- Conduct thorough testing to ensure that the new components do not introduce any regressions or performance issues.
-
Suggested Enhancements (P2):
- Add more comments and documentation to the refactored code to improve maintainability.
- Ensure that the code follows best practices for documentation and commenting.
- Update the documentation to reflect the changes made in this PR.
6.2 Overall Evaluation
- Technical assessment: The refactored components improve maintainability and reusability, but the removal of
onBlurmay impact performance. The addition of new components may introduce new dependencies. - Business impact: The refactored components align with the goal of simplifying the codebase and improving maintainability.
- Risk evaluation: The removal of
onBlurmay introduce performance risks, and the addition of new components may introduce maintenance overhead. - Implementation quality: The refactored components are well-structured and follow best practices for maintainability.
💡 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: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
Client/src/Components/Inputs/Checkbox/index.jsx (3)
9-46: Documentation looks solid, yo!The JSDoc documentation is comprehensive and well-structured. Props are clearly documented with types and descriptions.
Consider adding an example showing the disabled state:
// Example with disabled state <Checkbox id="feature-toggle" label="Enable Feature" isChecked={false} isDisabled={true} onChange={handleToggle} />
Line range hint
66-74: Yo, let's make this more accessible!The
aria-labelis currently hardcoded to "controlled checkbox". Consider using the provided label prop for better accessibility.inputProps={{ - "aria-label": "controlled checkbox", + "aria-label": label, id: id, }}
Line range hint
110-117: Yo dawg, let's add some default props!Consider adding default props for optional properties to make the component more robust.
+Checkbox.defaultProps = { + name: undefined, + size: 'medium', + value: undefined, + onChange: () => {}, + isDisabled: false, +};Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/CustomThreshold/index.jsx (1)
95-95: Simplify that boolean expression, fam!The ternary operator for the error boolean is unnecessary.
-error={errors[fieldId] ? true : false} +error={Boolean(errors[fieldId])}🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 95-95: 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)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx (3)
151-151: Yo, clean up that console.log before shipping!Remove debugging console.log statement from production code.
-console.log(form);
194-218: Let's make this notification handling more fire! 🔥The notification handling logic could be simplified using array methods.
const handleNotifications = (event, type) => { const { value } = event.target; - let notifications = [...infrastructureMonitor.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 = infrastructureMonitor.notifications.some( + n => n.type === type && n.address === value + ) + ? infrastructureMonitor.notifications.filter( + n => !(n.type === type && n.address === value) + ) + : [...infrastructureMonitor.notifications, notification]; setInfrastructureMonitor((prev) => ({ ...prev, notifications, })); };
283-283: DRY up that error handling, homie!Multiple instances of boolean conversion for error props. Consider creating a helper function.
+const hasError = (fieldName, errors) => Boolean(errors[fieldName]); + <TextInput // ... - error={errors["url"] ? true : false} + error={hasError("url", errors)} // ... />🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 283-283: 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)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
Client/src/Components/Inputs/Checkbox/index.jsx(4 hunks)Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/CustomThreshold/index.jsx(4 hunks)Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx(7 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/index.jsx
[error] 283-283: 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)
Client/src/Pages/Infrastructure/CreateMonitor/CustomThreshold/index.jsx
[error] 95-95: 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)
| const handleBlur = (event) => { | ||
| console.log("handleBlur", event); | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo, this handleBlur looking sus!
The function only logs to console. Either implement proper blur handling or remove it if unnecessary.
If validation on blur is needed, consider:
-const handleBlur = (event) => {
- console.log("handleBlur", event);
-};
+const handleBlur = (event) => {
+ const { name, value } = event.target;
+ const { error } = infrastructureMonitorValidation.validate(
+ { [name]: value },
+ { abortEarly: false }
+ );
+ setErrors((prev) => ({
+ ...prev,
+ ...(error ? { [name]: error.details[0].message } : { [name]: undefined }),
+ }));
+};Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| description: form.name, | ||
| teamId: user.teamId, | ||
| userId: user._id, | ||
| type: "hardware", | ||
| notifications: infrastructureMonitor.notifications, | ||
| thresholds, | ||
| }; | ||
| return form; | ||
|
|
||
| console.log(form); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Woops! Thanks for the catch
| onChange={handleChange} | ||
| error={errors["name"]} | ||
| /> | ||
| <TextInput | ||
| type="text" | ||
| id="secret" | ||
| name="secret" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why was the name here secret and not email?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This field is for the API secret for the Capture monitor I believe
| @@ -311,12 +341,11 @@ const CreateInfrastructureMonitor = () => { | |||
| (notification) => notification.type === "email" | |||
| )} | |||
| value={user?.email} | |||
| onChange={(e) => handleChange(e)} | |||
| onChange={(event) => handleNotifications(event, "email")} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are calling on change with the previous params?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are calling on change with the previous params?
Eventually we will have more notification types to deal with than just "email" so I added a type param to the handleNotification method signature:
const handleNotifications = (event, type) => {...}
This seemed like the easiest way of dealing with potentially different types of notifications 🤔 I'm open to alternatives as always though!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My bad, I misread the function call!
| const handleBlur = (event) => { | ||
| console.log("handleBlur", event); | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, if we are handling errors onChange, we can ditch onBlur
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either that or use onBlur exclusively and ditch onChange?
I'm not sure what best practice is here 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can go with onChange, that's what we are using mostly
Thanks for the review, changes made 👍 |
This PR refactors the Create Infrastrucutre Monitor page to reduce complexity.
handleChangemethod to match implementations in Monitors and PageSpeed create pagesCustomThresholdevent.target.nameinstead of passing an extraformItemNamevariable tohandleChangeonBlurfor the moment, I don't think we need bothonBlurandonChange? If I recall the discussion correctly the idea behind usingonBlurwas to avoid usingonChangeand the associated performance hit. If we want to useonBlurthen I assume the idea is to not useonChange?