fix: update getUidFilter to return 0 instead of undefined for All context #15098
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request updates the function Changes
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 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 (
|
github-actions
bot
added
area/dashboard
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
frontend/dashboard/utils/filterUtils/filterUtils.test.ts (1)
4-41: Consider adding a test comment to explain the reasoning behind the change.While the test changes are correct, adding a comment explaining why
0is used instead ofundefinedwould help future developers understand the rationale behind this change (to prevent the 400 undefined error mentioned in the PR description).describe('getUidFilter', () => { + // Returns 0 instead of undefined for All context to prevent 400 undefined errors when querying the backend it('should return number zero when selectedContext is All', () => {
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
frontend/dashboard/utils/filterUtils/filterUtils.test.ts(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: Build environment and run e2e test
- GitHub Check: CodeQL
- GitHub Check: Testing
🔇 Additional comments (3)
frontend/dashboard/utils/filterUtils/filterUtils.test.ts (3)
5-5: Test description correctly updated to reflect new behavior.The test description has been appropriately updated to match the new implementation where
getUidFilterreturns0instead ofundefinedwhen theselectedContextisAll. This change aligns with the PR objectives to fix the 400 undefined error.
12-12: Assertion correctly changed to match updated implementation.The assertion has been updated to expect
0instead ofundefined, which correctly verifies the new behavior of thegetUidFilterfunction. This change is consistent with the PR objective of returning0instead ofundefinedfor theAllcontext.
1-41:✅ Verification successful
Verify integration with the updated implementation file.
The test changes look good, but ensure they align with the corresponding implementation changes in
filterUtils.ts. The PR mentions changing the return type to removeundefinedand making the function return0instead ofundefinedfor theAllcontext.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of getUidFilter in filterUtils.ts fd --type f filterUtils.ts --exec cat {} \; | grep -A 20 "export const getUidFilter"Length of output: 506
Integration Verified – Tests align perfectly with the updated implementation.
- The test for
SelectedContextType.Allnow correctly expects a return value of0, matching the new implementation.- The tests for
Selfand custom contexts return the expecteduserIdand organization ID respectively.- All changes in behavior per the PR (removing
undefinedfor the All context) have been effectively integrated.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #15098 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.87% 95.87%
=======================================
Files 1992 1992
Lines 25881 25881
Branches 2921 2921
=======================================
Hits 24814 24814
Misses 801 801
Partials 266 266 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Description
To fix the 400 undefined error in the Dashboard, a solution proposed is to change the
returnto0;instead for having it asundefined;. The backend when proposed with0;instead ofundefined;gives an return which then is correct.Related Issue(s)
Verification
Summary by CodeRabbit
0to exclude specific user identifiers for a streamlined search experience.