Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(server): make the default value of number field clearable #1289

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2024

Conversation

yk-eukarya
Copy link
Contributor

@yk-eukarya yk-eukarya commented Oct 29, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced handling of empty string inputs in the conversion process, returning nil and true for empty strings.
  • Tests

    • Added a new test case to verify the behavior of the conversion method when provided with an empty string.

@yk-eukarya yk-eukarya self-assigned this Oct 29, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes involve modifications to the ToValue method of the propertyNumber type in the server/pkg/value/number.go file. A new condition is introduced to handle empty string inputs, allowing the method to return nil and true when an empty string is encountered. Additionally, a new test case is added to the Test_propertyNumber_ToValue function in the number_test.go file to verify this behavior. No other methods or test cases are altered.

Changes

File Change Summary
server/pkg/value/number.go Modified ToValue method to return nil and true for empty string input.
server/pkg/value/number_test.go Added a test case to Test_propertyNumber_ToValue for handling empty string input.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant PropertyNumber

    Client->>PropertyNumber: Call ToValue("")
    PropertyNumber-->>Client: Return (nil, true)
Loading

🐰 In the meadow where bunnies play,
An empty string came out to say,
"I’m nil and true, don’t be alarmed,
In the code, I’m now well-armed!"
With tests to guard and logic bright,
Our methods dance in pure delight! 🌼


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 29, 2024

Deploy Preview for reearth-cms canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 70085ad
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/reearth-cms/deploys/672084da237b060008247892

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 859fc79 and 70085ad.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • server/pkg/value/number.go (1 hunks)
  • server/pkg/value/number_test.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
server/pkg/value/number.go (1)

18-20: Verify validation behavior with empty string input.

The change correctly implements clearable number fields by handling empty string input. However, we should verify that this behavior aligns with the validation logic.

Let's verify the validation behavior:

✅ Verification successful

Based on the search results, I can now provide a definitive response about the validation behavior with empty string input:

Empty string handling is safe and consistent with validation.

The validation chain for number fields is well-structured and the new empty string handling aligns correctly with the validation flow:

  1. propertyNumber.Validate() only checks if the value is of type Number
  2. Empty string is converted to (nil, true) before reaching validation
  3. Field validation in FieldNumber handles nil values appropriately through the Multiple value system

The change is safe because:

  • Empty string returns (nil, true) which is a valid state
  • Validation tests confirm that invalid values are properly rejected
  • Required field validation is handled separately at the Field level
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if there are any validation-related tests or logic that might be affected by this change

# Search for validation tests related to empty/nil values
rg -l "Test.*Valid.*empty|Test.*Valid.*nil" --type go

# Search for validation logic related to empty/nil values
ast-grep --pattern 'func $_ Validate($_) {
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 109


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the validation context

# Search for validation-related code
rg "validate|Validate" --type go -B 2 -A 2

# Search specifically for number-related validation
rg "number.*valid|valid.*number" --type go -i -B 2 -A 2

# Look for test files related to number values
fd "number.*test\.go$"

Length of output: 51782

server/pkg/value/number_test.go (1)

92-97: LGTM! Test case properly verifies the clearable behavior.

The new test case correctly verifies that empty strings are handled as valid input that clears the number field (returning nil, true). This aligns with the PR objective of making number fields clearable.

Let's verify the corresponding implementation in the number.go file:

✅ Verification successful

Test case correctly matches the implementation

The test case for empty string handling aligns perfectly with the implementation in number.go. The ToValue method of propertyNumber explicitly handles empty strings by returning nil, true, which is exactly what the test case verifies:

func (p *propertyNumber) ToValue(i any) (any, bool) {
    if i == "" {
        return nil, true
    }
    // ...
}
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the ToValue method implementation for empty string handling
# Expected: Should find the corresponding implementation that returns nil, true for empty strings

ast-grep --pattern 'func (*propertyNumber) ToValue(v any) (any, bool) {
  $$$
  if $_ == "" {
    return nil, true
  }
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 129


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the implementation
# First, let's locate the number.go file
fd "number.go" --type f --exec cat {}

Length of output: 4661

Comment on lines +18 to +20
if i == "" {
return nil, true
}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Consider consolidating empty string handling with existing string case.

While the current implementation is correct, consider consolidating the empty string handling within the existing string type case for better maintainability. This would keep all string-related logic in one place.

 func (p *propertyNumber) ToValue(i any) (any, bool) {
-	if i == "" {
-		return nil, true
-	}
 	switch v := i.(type) {
 	// ... other cases ...
 	case string:
+		if v == "" {
+			return nil, true
+		}
 		if vv, err := strconv.ParseFloat(v, 64); err == nil {
 			return vv, true
 		}

Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.

@yk-eukarya yk-eukarya merged commit 015067a into main Oct 29, 2024
17 checks passed
@yk-eukarya yk-eukarya deleted the fix/number-default-value branch October 29, 2024 07:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant