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: only validate required input fields #320

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 16, 2024
Merged

Conversation

petterip
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes involve updates to the JavaScript logic in the settingsBase.html file, specifically focusing on the form validation process. The isFormValid method has been refined to target only required password and text fields, improving the selection of fields for validation. Additionally, the visibility handling for validation messages has been adjusted to ensure that only relevant fields are validated. The overall structure of the Alpine.js component remains unchanged, with no modifications to event handling or error handling during save operations.

Changes

File Change Summary
views/settings/settingsBase.html Updated isFormValid method to refine required fields selection; adjusted validation message visibility handling.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant SettingsComponent
    participant ValidationLogic

    User->>SettingsComponent: Fill form
    SettingsComponent->>ValidationLogic: Check isFormValid()
    ValidationLogic->>SettingsComponent: Validate required fields
    SettingsComponent->>User: Show validation messages for relevant fields
Loading

🐇 "In the fields where bunnies play,
A form now checks in a better way.
Only the required fields it sees,
With messages clear as a gentle breeze.
Hooray for code, so neat and bright,
Making our forms a 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
Contributor

@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: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
views/settings/settingsBase.html (2)

88-90: Consider performance and accessibility improvements.

While the implementation is functionally correct, consider these improvements:

  1. Avoid unnecessary array creation
  2. Add ARIA attributes for better accessibility
-        const visibleFieldsValid = Array.from(requiredFields)
-            .filter(element => element.offsetParent !== null)
-            .every(element => element.checkValidity());
+        // Avoid unnecessary array creation
+        let visibleFieldsValid = true;
+        for (const element of requiredFields) {
+            if (element.offsetParent !== null) {
+                if (!element.checkValidity()) {
+                    visibleFieldsValid = false;
+                    break;
+                }
+            }
+        }

Also consider adding this attribute to your form fields for better accessibility:

aria-required="true"

Line range hint 93-99: Consider enhancing validation message feedback.

The current implementation uses native form validation messages. Consider providing more descriptive custom validation messages to improve user experience.

             requiredFields.forEach(input => {
                 if (input.offsetParent === null) return;
 
                 input.checkValidity();
-                if (!input.validity.valid)
-                    // Trigger validation message
-                    input.dispatchEvent(new Event('blur'));
+                if (!input.validity.valid) {
+                    // Provide custom validation message based on validation state
+                    const message = input.validity.valueMissing
+                        ? `${input.name || 'Field'} is required`
+                        : input.validationMessage;
+                    input.setCustomValidity(message);
+                    input.dispatchEvent(new Event('blur'));
+                }
             });
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ce17437 and 081ea7c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • views/settings/settingsBase.html (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
views/settings/settingsBase.html (1)

86-90: LGTM! Verify handling of dynamically shown/hidden fields.

The selector changes correctly target only required fields, and the visibility check using offsetParent is a good approach. The implementation aligns well with the PR objective.

Let's verify the handling of dynamically shown/hidden required fields:

✅ Verification successful

The search results show extensive use of x-show directives in the codebase, particularly in settings pages, to handle dynamic visibility of UI elements based on form state, tooltips, and configuration options. The original review comment was concerned about verifying the handling of dynamically shown/hidden required fields.

Let me search for the actual form validation logic to verify this:


The search results show the form validation logic in settingsBase.html that correctly handles visibility of required fields:

  1. The selector specifically targets required fields: input[type='password'][required], input[type='text'][required]
  2. The validation checks visibility using offsetParent !== null before validating
  3. Only visible required fields are validated using checkValidity()
  4. The validation messages are only triggered for visible invalid fields

This implementation aligns with best practices for handling dynamically shown/hidden required fields by:

  • Only validating fields that are currently visible in the DOM
  • Using native HTML5 validation API
  • Properly handling validation state and messages based on visibility

LGTM! The form validation correctly handles dynamically shown/hidden required fields.

The code ensures that:

  1. Hidden required fields don't block form submission
  2. Only visible required fields are validated
  3. Validation messages are only shown for visible fields
  4. The validation state updates properly when fields are shown/hidden
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any dynamic show/hide logic that might affect required fields
rg -g '*.{html,js}' -A 3 'x-show|v-show|\bstyle.display' 

Length of output: 241087


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for form validation logic and required field handling
rg -g '*.{html,js}' -A 5 'isFormValid|checkValidity|required'

Length of output: 92816

@tphakala tphakala merged commit f7b378a into tphakala:main Nov 16, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants