New Components - storeganise #13783
New Components - storeganise #13783
Conversation
michelle0927
added
the
ai-assisted
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThe changes to 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![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, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (1)
10-22: LGTM, but consider adding error handling.The code changes are approved. However, consider adding error handling for failed requests to improve the robustness of the method.
You can add a try-catch block to handle errors and throw a more descriptive error message. For example:
try { return axios($, { ...otherOpts, url: `${this._baseUrl()}${path}`, headers: { Authorization: `ApiKey ${this.$auth.api_key}`, }, }); } catch (err) { throw new Error(`Request to Storeganise API failed: ${err.message}`); }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
Files selected for processing (6)
- components/storeganise/package.json (2 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/common/base.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created/new-invoice-created.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-unit-rental-created/new-unit-rental-created.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-user-created/new-user-created.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (19)
components/storeganise/package.json (2)
3-3: LGTM!The version increment from
0.0.1to0.1.0follows the semantic versioning format and indicates a potential enhancement or new feature set.
15-16: LGTM!The addition of the
dependenciesfield and the@pipedream/platformpackage with a version constraint of^3.0.1is approved. This change suggests an expansion of functionality that may leverage features or capabilities provided by the@pipedream/platformpackage, while ensuring compatibility with future updates.components/storeganise/sources/new-user-created/new-user-created.mjs (4)
1-2: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
3-10: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
11-15: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
16-22: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created/new-invoice-created.mjs (3)
3-10: LGTM!The component configuration looks good and follows the expected structure for a Pipedream source component.
13-15: LGTM!The
getResourceFnmethod implementation looks correct and should fetch the list of invoices from the Storeganise API.
16-22: LGTM!The
generateMetamethod implementation looks correct and should generate the expected metadata for each invoice event.components/storeganise/sources/new-unit-rental-created/new-unit-rental-created.mjs (2)
3-10: LGTM!The component configuration follows the best practices for creating a new source component in Pipedream.
11-23: LGTM!The component methods are implemented correctly:
- The
getResourceFnmethod correctly returns the method for listing unit rentals from the Storeganise API.- The
generateMetamethod correctly generates the metadata for the emitted event, including a uniqueid, a descriptivesummary, and a timestampts.components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (4)
7-8: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
24-28: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
30-34: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
36-40: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
components/storeganise/sources/common/base.mjs (4)
1-3: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
4-22: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
23-42: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
43-43: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (10)
- components/storeganise/actions/add-invoice-payment/add-invoice-payment.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/actions/mark-invoice-paid/mark-invoice-paid.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/common/base.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created/new-invoice-created.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created/test-event.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-unit-rental-created/new-unit-rental-created.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-unit-rental-created/test-event.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-user-created/new-user-created.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-user-created/test-event.mjs (1 hunks)
- components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- components/storeganise/sources/new-unit-rental-created/new-unit-rental-created.mjs
- components/storeganise/sources/new-user-created/new-user-created.mjs
Additional comments not posted (28)
components/storeganise/actions/mark-invoice-paid/mark-invoice-paid.mjs (4)
1-2: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
3-17: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
18-28: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
29-29: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created/new-invoice-created.mjs (4)
1-2: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
4-11: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
12-32: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
34-34: Verify the sample emit module.Ensure that the sample emit module defined in the file
test-event.mjsis correctly implemented.Run the following script to verify the sample emit module:
Verification successful
Sample emit module is correctly implemented.
The
test-event.mjsfile contains a well-structured sample data object that can be used for testing purposes. The data includes comprehensive invoice details, making it suitable for simulating real-world scenarios. No issues were found with the implementation.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the sample emit module is correctly implemented. # Test: Search for the sample emit module. Expect: The module to be defined in the file `test-event.mjs`. fd test-event.mjs components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created --exec catLength of output: 2327
components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (6)
1-1: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
2-2: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
8-21: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
24-26: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
59-64: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Also applies to: 65-70, 71-75
41-49: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
Also applies to: 50-58
components/storeganise/sources/common/base.mjs (7)
1-2: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
5-14: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
16-18: Verify the hardcoded value and the usage of theprocessEventmethod.Please ensure that:
- The hardcoded value of 25 is intentional and serves a specific purpose.
- The
processEventmethod is defined correctly and handles the passed value appropriately.
21-26: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
27-29: Verify the usage of thegetParamsmethod.The
getParamsmethod returns an empty object. Please ensure that this is intentional and the method is used correctly in the rest of the code.
30-35: Verify the implementation of thegetResourceFnandgenerateMetamethods.The
getResourceFnandgenerateMetamethods are placeholders that throw errors. Please ensure that these methods are implemented correctly in the derived classes.
75-77: LGTM!The code changes are approved.
components/storeganise/sources/new-invoice-created/test-event.mjs (1)
1-105: LGTM!The test event object provides a comprehensive and realistic representation of a new invoice event. It includes all the relevant details required for testing and validating the behavior of the
new-invoice-createdsource component. The object structure and property names follow a consistent and intuitive naming convention. The test event data covers various scenarios, such as prorated rent, deposits, and additional charges.components/storeganise/sources/new-unit-rental-created/test-event.mjs (1)
1-139: LGTM!The test event object for the new unit rental source component looks good. It contains relevant properties and nested objects that provide comprehensive information about the unit rental event. The structure and naming conventions are consistent and appropriate.
The test event object can be effectively used to simulate and test the behavior of the new unit rental source component.
components/storeganise/sources/new-user-created/test-event.mjs (5)
1-29: The top-level properties of the user object look good!The properties provide relevant information about the user such as ID, name, email, account status, etc.
30-146: The user's settings object looks good!The settings object is large but well-structured, grouping related configuration properties together. It provides detailed information about the user's account settings.
149-2540: The sites array and site objects are structured properly but contain a lot of detail.The site objects are quite large and complex, including details like hours of operation, unit types, products, and more, with translations. While the data looks realistic, consider:
Is it necessary to include such detailed site information in the new user created event? Doing so could make the event very large. Verify if some of these details could be excluded or fetched separately as needed.
2542-2545: The tax settings look good!The 20% tax rate seems like a realistic value.
2546-2555: The termsUrl and wurdLanguages properties look good!The terms URL links to the expected terms of service page, and the language code mappings are correct.
components/storeganise/actions/add-invoice-payment/add-invoice-payment.mjs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
Files selected for processing (1)
- components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (6)
components/storeganise/storeganise.app.mjs (6)
8-21: LGTM!The
invoiceIdproperty definition looks good. The asynchronousoptionsmethod correctly retrieves invoice IDs from the Storeganise API, improving user experience through dynamic invoice selection.
24-26: LGTM!The
_baseUrlmethod correctly constructs the base URL for the Storeganise API using the authenticated user's subdomain.
27-40: LGTM!The
_makeRequestmethod looks good and improves code modularity by consolidating the logic for making HTTP requests to the Storeganise API. It correctly extracts relevant parameters from the options object, constructs the request URL using the_baseUrlmethod, and includes necessary headers such as the authorization header with the API key from the authenticated user.
59-64: LGTM!The
listInvoicesmethod looks good and provides a convenient way to fetch a list of invoices from the Storeganise API by utilizing the_makeRequestmethod.
65-70: LGTM!The
listUsersmethod looks good and provides a convenient way to fetch a list of users from the Storeganise API by utilizing the_makeRequestmethod.
71-75: LGTM!The
listUnitRentalsmethod looks good and provides a convenient way to fetch a list of unit rentals from the Storeganise API by utilizing the_makeRequestmethod.
Resolves #13771.
Note to QA: @vunguyenhung Needs to be tested with an API Key that has an "Admin" role.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation