fix(server): make the default value of number field clearable #1289
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve modifications to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant PropertyNumber
Client->>PropertyNumber: Call ToValue("")
PropertyNumber-->>Client: Return (nil, true)
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 (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for reearth-cms canceled.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 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:
propertyNumber.Validate()only checks if the value is of typeNumber- Empty string is converted to
(nil, true)before reaching validation - Field validation in
FieldNumberhandles 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
| if i == "" { | ||
| return nil, true | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ 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.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
nilandtruefor empty strings.Tests