Feat/lit protocol #191
Feat/lit protocol #191
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@rodrigopavezi has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 3 minutes and 2 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several enhancements to the invoice creation process across multiple components. Key modifications include the addition of encryption support in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
shared/types/index.ts (1)
20-20: Add documentation for the encryption flag.The
isEncryptedproperty looks good, but consider adding JSDoc comments to explain its purpose, security implications, and relationship with the encryption feature.+ /** + * Indicates whether the invoice data should be encrypted. + * When true, sensitive data will be encrypted using the recipient's public key. + */ isEncrypted?: boolean;shared/components/input.svelte (3)
23-24: Consider consistent label pattern across input typesThe label pattern differs between checkbox and text inputs. Consider using a consistent approach for better maintainability.
42-53: Enhance accessibility and event handlingA few suggestions to improve this section:
- Add aria attributes for better accessibility
- Consider using
onChangeinstead ofonClickfor checkbox state changesConsider applying these improvements:
<label for={id} class="input-label"> <input {id} type="checkbox" checked={checked} {disabled} + aria-checked={checked} + role="checkbox" class={`checkbox-input ${className} ${error ? "input-error" : ""}`} - on:click={handleCheckbox} + on:change={handleCheckbox} /> {label} </label>
142-145: Enhance checkbox stylingConsider these improvements to the checkbox styling:
- Extract the accent color to a CSS variable for consistency
- Add hover and focus states for better UX
- Add specific disabled state styling
Consider applying these style improvements:
.input-wrapper .checkbox-input { appearance: auto; - accent-color: #0BB489; + accent-color: var(--primary-color, #0BB489); + cursor: pointer; } + +.input-wrapper .checkbox-input:hover { + opacity: 0.8; +} + +.input-wrapper .checkbox-input:focus { + outline: 2px solid var(--primary-color-light, rgba(11, 180, 137, 0.2)); + outline-offset: 2px; +} + +.input-wrapper .checkbox-input:disabled { + cursor: not-allowed; + opacity: 0.5; +}packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte (2)
88-89: Consider adding optional chaining in generateDetailParagraphsWhile the optional chaining for accessing
contentDataproperties is good, thegenerateDetailParagraphsfunction might still throw errors when accessing nested properties likeinfo?.address?.["country-name"].Consider updating the function to use optional chaining throughout:
const generateDetailParagraphs = (info: any) => { return [ - { label: "First Name", value: info?.firstName }, - { label: "Last Name", value: info?.lastName }, - { label: "Company Name", value: info?.businessName }, - { label: "Tax Registration", value: info?.taxRegistration }, - { label: "Country", value: info?.address?.["country-name"] }, - { label: "City", value: info?.address?.locality }, - { label: "Region", value: info?.address?.region }, - { label: "Postal Code", value: info?.address?.["postal-code"] }, - { label: "Street Address", value: info?.address?.["street-address"] }, - { label: "Email", value: info?.email }, + { label: "First Name", value: info?.firstName ?? undefined }, + { label: "Last Name", value: info?.lastName ?? undefined }, + { label: "Company Name", value: info?.businessName ?? undefined }, + { label: "Tax Registration", value: info?.taxRegistration ?? undefined }, + { label: "Country", value: info?.address?.["country-name"] ?? undefined }, + { label: "City", value: info?.address?.locality ?? undefined }, + { label: "Region", value: info?.address?.region ?? undefined }, + { label: "Postal Code", value: info?.address?.["postal-code"] ?? undefined }, + { label: "Street Address", value: info?.address?.["street-address"] ?? undefined }, + { label: "Email", value: info?.email ?? undefined }, ].filter((detail) => detail.value); };
Line range hint
1-724: Address TODOs and type safety issuesThe file contains several issues that should be addressed:
- FIXME comment about using a non-deprecated function for currency management
- FIXME comment about adding rounding functionality
- Multiple @ts-expect-error annotations in the calculateItemTotal calls
Would you like me to help address any of these issues? I can:
- Research and suggest modern alternatives to the deprecated currency management function
- Implement a proper rounding function
- Help fix the type issues to remove the @ts-expect-error annotations
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
376-382: Enhance encryption checkbox UX for better security awarenessThe encryption toggle needs better visibility and user guidance:
- Consider moving it to a more prominent location (e.g., near the top of the form)
- Add help text explaining encryption's implications
- Add visual security indicators
Consider this enhanced implementation:
+<div class="encryption-section"> <Input type="checkbox" id="isEncrypted" - label="Encrypt invoice" + label="🔒 Encrypt Invoice Contents" bind:checked={formData.isEncrypted} + helpText="When enabled, invoice details will be encrypted and only accessible to you and the recipient" /> +</div>Also consider adding CSS styles to make it stand out:
.encryption-section { background-color: #f8f9fa; border: 1px solid #e9ecef; border-radius: 6px; padding: 12px; margin-bottom: 20px; }packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (3)
533-533: LGTM! Consider applying similar null checks consistently.The addition of optional chaining for accessing
request?.contentData?.invoiceNumberis a good defensive programming practice that prevents potential runtime errors when these properties are undefined.For consistency, consider applying similar null checks throughout the component where deep object properties are accessed. Here are some examples that could benefit from the same treatment:
- request.contentData.creationDate + request?.contentData?.creationDate - request.contentData.paymentTerms.dueDate + request?.contentData?.paymentTerms?.dueDate - request.payee.value + request?.payee?.value - request.payer.value + request?.payer?.value
Line range hint
92-106: Enhance error handling with user-friendly messages.The error handling in
getRequestsonly logs to console, which isn't helpful for users when requests fail to load.Consider adding user feedback using the toast system that's already imported:
try { const requestsData = await requestNetwork?.fromIdentity({ type: Types.Identity.TYPE.ETHEREUM_ADDRESS, value: account?.address, }); requests = requestsData ?.map((request) => request.getData()) .sort((a, b) => b.timestamp - a.timestamp); } catch (error) { console.error("Failed to fetch requests:", error); + toast.error("Failed to load requests", { + description: "Please try again later", + action: { + label: "Retry", + onClick: () => getRequests() + } + }); }
Line range hint
146-166: Optimize expensive computations.The
processedRequestscomputation runs on every render, performing expensive operations like BigInt conversions and currency formatting.Consider memoizing the results or moving the computation to a derived store:
-$: processedRequests = paginatedRequests?.map( +const processRequest = (request) => { + const currencyInfo = getCurrencyFromManager( + request.currencyInfo, + currencyManager + ); + return { + ...request, + formattedAmount: formatUnits( + BigInt(request.expectedAmount), + currencyInfo?.decimals ?? 18 + ), + currencySymbol: currencyInfo!.symbol, + }; +}; + +let memoizedProcessedRequests = new Map(); + +$: processedRequests = paginatedRequests?.map( (request ): Types.IRequestDataWithEvents & { formattedAmount: string; currencySymbol: string; - } => { - const currencyInfo = getCurrencyFromManager( - request.currencyInfo, - currencyManager - ); - return { - ...request, - formattedAmount: formatUnits( - BigInt(request.expectedAmount), - currencyInfo?.decimals ?? 18 - ), - currencySymbol: currencyInfo!.symbol, - }; - } + } => { + const cached = memoizedProcessedRequests.get(request.requestId); + if (cached) return cached; + const processed = processRequest(request); + memoizedProcessedRequests.set(request.requestId, processed); + return processed; + } );packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte (1)
177-179: Avoid relying on exact error message strings for error handlingUsing exact error message strings for control flow can be fragile, as the message might change or be localized. Consider using error codes or creating custom error classes to handle errors more reliably.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte(2 hunks)packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte(3 hunks)packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/utils/resetForm.ts(1 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte(2 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(1 hunks)shared/components/input.svelte(4 hunks)shared/types/index.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
shared/types/index.ts (1)
20-20: Verify proper initialization of encryption flag.
Since this flag controls sensitive data encryption, we should verify it's properly initialized to prevent accidental exposure of unencrypted data.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the initialization and usage of the encryption flag by checking the form component and related files.
Let me check one more thing about the initialization and encryption handling in the form component.
Encryption flag is properly initialized and handled
The verification shows that:
isEncryptedis explicitly initialized tofalseingetInitialFormData()- The flag is properly handled in form submission with appropriate encryption logic
- All property accesses are safe and intentional
- The encryption state properly controls whether to create an encrypted or unencrypted request
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for proper initialization of isEncrypted flag
# Expected: Should always be explicitly set, not undefined
# Check form initialization
echo "Checking form initialization..."
rg -A 5 "getInitialFormData|initialFormData"
# Check usage in form submission
echo "Checking form submission handling..."
rg -A 10 "submitForm.*isEncrypted|createRequest.*isEncrypted"
# Check for direct property access without optional chaining
echo "Checking for safe property access..."
rg "formData\.isEncrypted[^?]"
Length of output: 3496
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the form component implementation
echo "Checking form component implementation..."
rg -A 10 "isEncrypted.*checkbox|encryption.*checkbox"
# Check if there are any default values set for isEncrypted
echo "Checking default values..."
ast-grep --pattern 'isEncrypted: $_'
# Check for any encryption-related validation or error handling
echo "Checking validation..."
rg -A 5 "validate.*encrypt|check.*encrypt"
# Check the request preparation logic
echo "Checking request preparation..."
rg -A 10 "prepareRequestParams"
Length of output: 3864
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the resetForm implementation for initial values
echo "Checking resetForm implementation..."
cat packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/utils/resetForm.ts
# Check the form component's encryption handling
echo "Checking form encryption handling..."
rg -A 20 "formData\.isEncrypted" packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte
Length of output: 2366
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/utils/resetForm.ts (2)
56-56: LGTM! Well-structured addition of encryption support.
The isEncrypted flag is appropriately placed at the root level of the form data with a safe default value of false, making encryption opt-in.
56-56: Verify integration with encryption-related components.
Let's verify that the components using this flag are properly handling the encryption functionality.
✅ Verification successful
Encryption integration is properly implemented and handled
The verification shows that the isEncrypted flag is well-integrated within the codebase:
- It's properly typed in the shared types (
shared/types/index.ts) - The encryption toggle is implemented in the form component (
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte) - The encryption logic is handled in the form submission (
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte) - The default state of
falseinresetForm.tsaligns with the implementation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for components and handlers that interact with the isEncrypted flag
# Look for form submission handling
echo "Checking form submission handlers..."
rg -A 5 "submitForm|handleSubmit" --type svelte
# Look for encryption checkbox or toggle
echo "Checking encryption UI controls..."
rg -A 3 "isEncrypted" --type svelte
# Look for Lit Protocol integration
echo "Checking Lit Protocol integration..."
rg -A 5 "lit-protocol|LitProtocol" --type typescript --type javascript
Length of output: 500
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach without file type restrictions
# Look for form submission handling
echo "Checking form submission handlers..."
rg -A 5 "submitForm|handleSubmit"
# Look for encryption UI controls and related code
echo "Checking encryption controls..."
rg -A 3 "isEncrypted"
# Look for Lit Protocol integration
echo "Checking Lit Protocol integration..."
rg -A 5 "lit-protocol|LitProtocol"
# Check for any encryption-related functions or components
echo "Checking encryption-related code..."
rg -A 5 "encrypt|encryption"
Length of output: 5176
shared/components/input.svelte (1)
9-9: LGTM: Props are well-typed and follow consistent patterns
The new props checked and handleCheckbox are properly typed and follow the same patterns as existing props in the component.
Also applies to: 12-12
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte (1)
402-408: LGTM: Safe property access with consistent fallback
The optional chaining for accessing the note property is correctly implemented with a consistent fallback value.
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
376-382: Verify encryption integration with Lit Protocol
Please ensure proper integration with Lit Protocol's encryption functionality:
- Verify key handling
- Confirm error handling for encryption failures
- Test encryption/decryption flow
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (1)
Line range hint 540-558: Review address handling security.
The component displays and allows copying of wallet addresses. While the formatAddress function helps with display, ensure proper validation and sanitization.
Let's verify the address handling implementation:
Consider adding address validation and sanitization:
+const isValidAddress = (address: string): boolean => {
+ return /^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$/.test(address);
+};
+const sanitizeAddress = (address: string): string => {
+ return address.toLowerCase();
+};
<td>
<div class="address">
<span>
- {formatAddress(request.payee?.value ?? "")}
+ {isValidAddress(request.payee?.value)
+ ? formatAddress(sanitizeAddress(request.payee.value))
+ : "Invalid Address"}
</span>
- <Copy textToCopy={request.payee?.value} />
+ <Copy textToCopy={isValidAddress(request.payee?.value)
+ ? sanitizeAddress(request.payee.value)
+ : ""} />
</div>
</td>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte (1)
Line range hint
221-227: Enhance error handling and user feedbackWhile the typo fix is good, consider improving the error handling:
- Provide more user-friendly error messages
- Add structured error logging for debugging
Consider this enhancement:
- if (error.message.includes("Transaction confirmation not received")) { + console.error('Invoice creation failed:', { + error: error.message, + requestParams: requestCreateParameters, + stack: error.stack + }); + + if (error.message.includes("Transaction confirmation not received")) { isTimeout = true; removeAllStatuses(); } else { addToStatus(APP_STATUS.ERROR_OCCURRED); - console.error("Failed to create request:", error); + // Show user-friendly error message + const errorMessage = error.message.includes("insufficient funds") + ? "Insufficient funds to create invoice. Please check your wallet balance." + : "Failed to create invoice. Please try again or contact support."; + addToStatus(errorMessage); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte(2 hunks)packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/utils/resetForm.ts(1 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/utils/resetForm.ts
- packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte (1)
Learnt from: rodrigopavezi
PR: RequestNetwork/web-components#191
File: packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte:143-170
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T12:50:29.101Z
Learning: In the `web-components` project, when using the `requestNetwork` SDK, the public method `createEncryptedRequest` is not exported; instead, the private method `_createEncryptedRequest` must be used to create encrypted requests.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte (2)
26-26: LGTM: Import statement is correctly placed
The import of EncryptionTypes is properly organized with other type imports and is necessary for the encryption implementation.
187-214:
Critical: Implementation doesn't match PR objectives and has security concerns
Several issues need to be addressed:
- The implementation uses KMS method instead of Lit Protocol as specified in PR objectives (#146).
- Using wallet addresses directly as encryption keys (
requestInfo.payee?.valueandrequestInfo.payer?.value) might not be secure. - Missing validation for encryption keys.
- No specific error handling for encryption failures.
Consider implementing the following changes:
if(formData.isEncrypted) {
+ // Validate encryption requirements
+ if (!requestCreateParameters.requestInfo.payee?.value || !requestCreateParameters.requestInfo.payer?.value) {
+ throw new Error('Both payee and payer addresses are required for encryption');
+ }
+
+ // Initialize Lit Protocol
+ const litNodeClient = new LitJsSdk.LitNodeClient();
+ await litNodeClient.connect();
+
const payeeEncryptionPublicKey = {
- key: requestCreateParameters.requestInfo.payee?.value!,
- method: EncryptionTypes.METHOD.KMS,
+ key: await generateLitProtocolKey(litNodeClient, requestCreateParameters.requestInfo.payee.value),
+ method: EncryptionTypes.METHOD.LIT_PROTOCOL,
};
const payerEncryptionPublicKey = {
- key: requestCreateParameters.requestInfo.payer?.value!,
- method: EncryptionTypes.METHOD.KMS,
+ key: await generateLitProtocolKey(litNodeClient, requestCreateParameters.requestInfo.payer.value),
+ method: EncryptionTypes.METHOD.LIT_PROTOCOL,
};
+ try {
request = await requestNetwork._createEncryptedRequest(
{
requestInfo: requestCreateParameters.requestInfo,
signer: requestCreateParameters.signer,
paymentNetwork: requestCreateParameters.paymentNetwork,
contentData: requestCreateParameters.contentData,
},
[payeeEncryptionPublicKey, payerEncryptionPublicKey],
);
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error('Encryption failed:', error);
+ throw new Error('Failed to encrypt invoice data');
+ }Let's verify the Lit Protocol integration requirements:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
457-462: Consider adding a tooltip or help text for the encryption option.Since this handles sensitive information like tax IDs and addresses, users should understand when to use encryption and its implications.
<Input type="checkbox" id="isEncrypted" label="Encrypt invoice" + tooltip="Encrypts sensitive invoice data using Lit Protocol. Only the sender and recipient can view the complete details." bind:checked={formData.isEncrypted} />
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte(1 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
shared/components/input.svelte (2)
42-53: Consider using change event instead of click for checkboxWhile the implementation is generally good, consider these improvements:
- Use
on:changeinstead ofon:clickfor better semantic meaning and to capture all ways a checkbox can be toggled (click, keyboard, etc.)- The label wrapper already provides click functionality, so the explicit label text could be simplified
<label for={id} class="input-label"> <input {id} type="checkbox" bind:checked={checked} {disabled} class={`checkbox-input ${className} ${error ? "input-error" : ""}`} - on:click={handleCheckbox} + on:change={handleCheckbox} /> - {label} + <span>{label}</span> </label>
142-145: Consider adding fallback styles for accent-colorWhile
accent-colorhas good browser support, consider adding fallback styles for older browsers:.input-wrapper .checkbox-input { appearance: auto; + /* Fallback for browsers that don't support accent-color */ + border-color: #0BB489; + background-color: white; + &:checked { + background-color: #0BB489; + } accent-color: #0BB489; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
shared/components/input.svelte(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
shared/components/input.svelte (2)
9-9: LGTM: Props are well-defined and properly typed
The new checked and handleCheckbox props are correctly implemented with appropriate types and defaults, following the component's existing patterns.
Also applies to: 12-12
Line range hint 1-24: Verify integration with invoice encryption feature
The checkbox implementation supports the PR's encryption feature. Let's verify its integration:
✅ Verification successful
Input component correctly integrated with encryption feature
The verification confirms proper integration:
- The input component is used in
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelteas a checkbox for encryption - It's correctly bound to
formData.isEncryptedstate - The encryption state is properly handled in form submission logic
- The type definition in
shared/types/index.tsincludesisEncryptedfield
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of this input component with checkbox type
# and verify it's properly integrated with encryption logic
# Look for checkbox usage in invoice form
rg -l "input.svelte.*checkbox.*isEncrypted"
# Check for proper encryption handling
ast-grep --pattern 'isEncrypted.*\{.*\$\$\$.*\}'
Length of output: 96
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to find any references to the input component
# and encryption-related functionality
# Find all Svelte files that import the input component
rg -l "import.*input\.svelte" --type svelte
# Search for any encryption-related checkbox implementations
rg "checkbox.*encrypt" --type svelte -B 2 -A 2
# Look for any encryption state management
rg "isEncrypted|encryption" --type svelte -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 241
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try without file type filtering since Svelte isn't recognized
# Find all files that import the input component
rg -l "import.*input\.svelte"
# Search for any encryption-related checkbox implementations
rg "checkbox.*encrypt" -B 2 -A 2
# Look for any encryption state management
rg "isEncrypted|encryption" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 1866
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (2)
391-401: Consider optimizing reactive statements to prevent unnecessary API calls.The current implementation might trigger unnecessary API calls when the slider value changes. Consider debouncing the getRequests() call or adding a condition to check if the decryption state actually changed.
-$: sliderValue, getRequests(); +let previousSliderValue = sliderValue; +$: if (sliderValue !== previousSliderValue) { + previousSliderValue = sliderValue; + getRequests(); +} -$: { - if(sliderValue === 'on') { - switchOnDecryption(true); - } else { - switchOnDecryption(false); - } -} +$: switchOnDecryption(sliderValue === 'on');
431-447: Improve UI structure and styling.The current implementation has some structural issues:
- Duplicate "search-wrapper" class names
- Inline styles that could be moved to the style block
-<div class="search-wrapper"> - <div class="search-wrapper" style="gap: 10px;"> +<div class="search-container"> + <div class="search-controls"> <Input placeholder="Search..." width="w-[300px]" handleInput={handleSearchChange} > <div slot="icon"> <Search /> </div> </Input> - <div class="width: fit-content;"> + <div class="switch-container"> <Switch bind:value={sliderValue} label="Show encrypted requests" fontSize={14} design="slider" /> </div> </div>Add to the style block:
.search-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; } .search-controls { display: flex; gap: 10px; } .switch-container { width: fit-content; }shared/components/switch.svelte (8)
29-30: Remove unusedslugifyfunctionThe
slugifyfunction defined on lines 29-30 is not used anywhere in the component. Keeping unused code can lead to confusion and maintainability issues.Apply this diff to remove the unused function:
-const slugify = (str = "") => - str.toLowerCase().replace(/ /g, "-").replace(/\./g, "");
65-65: Addnameattribute to radio inputs for better accessibilityIn the 'multi' design option, the radio inputs lack a
nameattribute on line 65. Whilebind:grouphandles grouping in Svelte, adding anameattribute improves accessibility and ensures that radios are properly grouped in the DOM.Apply this diff to add the
nameattribute:<input type="radio" id={`${option}-${uniqueID}`} value={option} bind:group={value}> + name={`switch-${uniqueID}`}>
94-96: Duplicate CSS selectors for.s--inner button:focusThe
.s--inner button:focusselector is defined twice with different styles:First definition (lines 94-96):
.s--inner button:focus { outline: #0bb489 solid 1px; }Second definition (lines 242-245):
.s--inner button:focus { box-shadow: 0 0px 8px #0bb489; border-radius: 0.1em; }Combine these styles to avoid conflicts and ensure a consistent focus state:
.s--inner button:focus { outline: #0bb489 solid 1px; box-shadow: 0 0px 8px #0bb489; border-radius: 0.1em; }Remove one of the duplicated selectors to clean up the codebase.
Also applies to: 242-245
134-136: Duplicate CSS selectors for.s--slider button:focusThe
.s--slider button:focusselector is also defined twice:First definition (lines 134-136):
.s--slider button:focus { box-shadow: 0 0px 0px 1px #0bb489; }Second definition (lines 256-259):
.s--slider button:focus { box-shadow: 0 0px 8px #0bb489; border-radius: 1.5em; }Consolidate these styles for consistency:
.s--slider button:focus { box-shadow: 0 0px 8px #0bb489; border-radius: 1.5em; }Ensure that the
box-shadowvalues are set as intended.Also applies to: 256-259
19-27: Ensure correct toggling logic inhandleClickfunctionThe
handleClickfunction on lines 19-27 toggles thecheckedstate based on thearia-checkedattribute, which is a string. While the current implementation works, consider simplifying the logic for readability:Apply this diff to streamline the toggling logic:
-function handleClick(event){ - const target = event.target - - const state = target.getAttribute('aria-checked') - - checked = state === 'true' ? false : true - - value = checked === true ? 'on' : 'off' -} +function handleClick() { + checked = !checked; + value = checked ? 'on' : 'off'; +}This approach eliminates unnecessary variable assignments and makes the toggling action clearer.
75-262: Consider splitting styles into separate files for maintainabilityThe styles for the component are extensive and cover multiple design variations. For better organization and maintainability, consider splitting the CSS into separate files or using scoped styles.
Organize styles by design option:
- Create separate style files for 'inner', 'slider', and 'multi' designs.
- Import them as needed in the component.
Alternatively, use Svelte's scoped styles to limit the impact of styles to the component.
This approach improves readability and makes future updates easier to manage.
1-32: Add documentation comments for better code clarityThe script block lacks documentation comments explaining the purpose of variables and functions. Adding brief comments enhances code readability and helps other developers understand the component's functionality.
For example:
// Determines if the switch is in the 'on' or 'off' state based on the initial value. let checked = value === 'on'; // Generates a unique ID for accessibility attributes. const uniqueID = /* ... */;Consider adding comments above key sections of the code.
75-262: Use CSS variables for theme customizationThe component uses hardcoded colors like
#0bb489for focus and background styles. Consider using CSS variables to allow for theming and easier color management.Define CSS variables at the beginning of your style block:
:root { --switch-focus-color: #0bb489; --switch-background-color: #fff; }Replace hardcoded colors with variables:
.s--inner button:focus { outline: var(--switch-focus-color) solid 1px; }This makes it easier to update colors and supports theming across your application.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(6 hunks)shared/components/switch.svelte(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (2)
10-10: LGTM: Props and imports are well-structured!
The new Switch component import and decryption-related props are properly typed and initialized.
Also applies to: 53-56
712-714: LGTM: Improved loading state handling!
The loading state handling is now more precise, showing the DashboardSkeleton component only when actually loading.
shared/components/switch.svelte (1)
14-14: Synchronize checked and value properties
On line 14, checked is initialized based on value. Ensure that any external changes to value also update checked, and vice versa. You might need to use $: reactive statements to keep them in sync.
Run the following script to check for reactive declarations:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (3)
53-54: Consider improving type safety for the switchOnDecryption propThe type definition could be more precise by removing the
undefinedunion type since it's not actually optional according to usage.-export let switchOnDecryption: (option: boolean) => void | undefined; +export let switchOnDecryption: (option: boolean) => void;
391-401: Optimize reactive statements for decryption controlThe current implementation has two separate reactive statements that could be consolidated for better efficiency and readability.
-$: sliderValue, getRequests(); - -$: { - if(sliderValue === 'on') { - switchOnDecryption(true); - } else { - switchOnDecryption(false); - } -} +$: { + const isOn = sliderValue === 'on'; + switchOnDecryption(isOn); + getRequests(); +}
433-446: Simplify nested search wrapper structureThe search wrapper has redundant nesting that can be simplified.
-<div class="search-wrapper" style="gap: 10px;"> +<div style="display: flex; gap: 10px; align-items: center;"> <Input placeholder="Search..." width="w-[300px]" handleInput={handleSearchChange} > <div slot="icon"> <Search /> </div> </Input> - <div class="width: fit-content;"> + <div style="width: fit-content;"> <Switch bind:value={sliderValue} label="Show encrypted requests" fontSize={14} design="slider" /> </div> </div>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte(2 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(6 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/dashboard/invoice-view.svelte
🔇 Additional comments (2)
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (2)
712-714: LGTM: Loading state handling
The loading state handling is implemented correctly, showing the skeleton loader only when the loading state is true.
Line range hint 1-1000: Verify encryption integration with the Request Network client
The encryption feature looks well-implemented, but we should verify that the Request Network client properly handles the encrypted requests when the decryption is switched on/off.
✅ Verification successful
Encryption integration is properly implemented
The encryption feature is correctly integrated across the codebase:
- The
view-requests.sveltecomponent properly handles encryption state throughisDecryptionSwitchedOnprop andswitchOnDecryptioncallback - The create invoice form supports encryption through
_createEncryptedRequestmethod with proper KMS encryption keys - The implementation follows Request Network's encryption types and methods
- The UI provides clear user control through a labeled switch component
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for encryption-related code in the Request Network client integration
# Look for encryption-related methods in the Request Network client usage
rg -A 5 "requestNetwork\?\..*encrypt"
# Look for any encryption-related types or interfaces
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $_ {
$$$
encrypt$_?: $_
$$$
}'
Length of output: 108
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for encryption-related code
# Search for any encryption-related terms in the codebase
rg -i "encrypt" --type ts --type svelte
# Look for Request Network client configuration and usage
rg -A 5 "requestNetwork\." --type ts --type svelte
# Search for any decryption-related props or state
ast-grep --pattern 'let isDecryption$_: boolean'
# Check for switch/toggle handlers related to encryption
ast-grep --pattern 'function $_(option: boolean) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 267
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching without file type restrictions since .svelte may not be recognized
# Search for any encryption-related terms
rg -i "encrypt"
# Look for Request Network client configuration and usage
rg -A 5 "requestNetwork\."
# Search for isDecryptionSwitchedOn prop usage
rg "isDecryptionSwitchedOn"
# Search for switchOnDecryption function usage
rg "switchOnDecryption"
Length of output: 3712
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
shared/components/switch.svelte (2)
29-30: Remove unused slugify functionThe slugify function is defined but never used in the component.
Consider removing this unused function to improve code maintainability.
8-12: Consider enhancing component type safety and flexibilityThe component could benefit from several architectural improvements:
- Add TypeScript support for better type safety
- Document props with JSDoc comments
- Add custom events for better integration
Example implementation:
/** * @typedef {'inner' | 'slider' | 'multi'} SwitchDesign */ /** * @typedef {Object} SwitchProps * @property {string} label - The label for the switch * @property {SwitchDesign} [design='inner'] - The switch design variant * @property {string[]} [options=[]] - Options for multi design variant * @property {number} [fontSize=16] - Font size in pixels * @property {'on' | 'off'} [value='off'] - Current switch value */ /** @type {SwitchProps} */ export let label; export let design = 'inner'; export let options = []; export let fontSize = 16; export let value = 'off'; // Custom events import { createEventDispatcher } from 'svelte'; const dispatch = createEventDispatcher(); function handleChange() { dispatch('change', { value }); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
shared/components/switch.svelte(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
shared/components/switch.svelte (1)
82-86: Conflicting CSS rules for [role='switch'][aria-checked] selectors
As noted in the previous review, there are conflicting CSS rules for the same selectors. This needs to be resolved to ensure consistent behavior.
Also applies to: 235-240
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
shared/components/switch.svelte (1)
77-81: Consider consolidating duplicate CSS selectors.There are duplicate selectors for
[role='switch'][aria-checked]with conflictingdisplayproperties.Consider consolidating these styles:
-[role='switch'][aria-checked='true'] :first-child, -[role='switch'][aria-checked='false'] :last-child { - display: none; - color: #fff; -} -[role='switch'][aria-checked='true'] :first-child, -[role='switch'][aria-checked='false'] :last-child { - border-radius: 0.25em; - background: #0bb489; - display: inline-block; -} +[role='switch'][aria-checked='true'] :first-child, +[role='switch'][aria-checked='false'] :last-child { + color: #fff; + border-radius: 0.25em; + background: #0bb489; + display: inline-block; +}Also applies to: 230-235
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (1)
57-57: Consider using a more direct reactive statement.The current implementation uses two reactive statements for handling encryption state. This could be simplified.
Consider consolidating the reactive statements:
-let sliderValueForDecryption = isDecryptionEnabled ? "on" : "off"; - -$: sliderValueForDecryption, getRequests(); - -$: { - if(sliderValueForDecryption === 'on') { - enableDecryption(true); - } else { - enableDecryption(false); - } -} +let sliderValueForDecryption = isDecryptionEnabled ? "on" : "off"; + +$: { + const isEnabled = sliderValueForDecryption === 'on'; + enableDecryption(isEnabled); + getRequests(); +}Also applies to: 394-402
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
packages/create-invoice-form/package.json(1 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/package.json(1 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(6 hunks)packages/payment-widget/package.json(1 hunks)shared/components/switch.svelte(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
shared/components/switch.svelte (3)
8-12: LGTM: Props are well-defined with appropriate defaults.
The component exports necessary props with sensible defaults, making it flexible and reusable.
19-22: LGTM: Event handler follows Svelte's reactivity patterns.
The handleClick function properly updates both the checked state and value prop using Svelte's reactivity.
33-39: LGTM: Accessible markup with proper ARIA attributes.
The component implements proper accessibility patterns:
- Uses appropriate ARIA roles (
switch,radiogroup) - Includes proper labeling with
aria-labelledby - Maintains state with
aria-checked
Also applies to: 45-49, 53-64
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (3)
54-55: LGTM: Well-typed props for encryption functionality.
The props are properly typed and follow a clear naming convention:
isDecryptionEnabled: boolean flagenableDecryption: callback function
434-447: LGTM: Well-structured UI integration for encryption toggle.
The Switch component is properly integrated into the search wrapper with appropriate styling and layout.
605-605: LGTM: Improved loading state handling.
The loading state is properly handled with the DashboardSkeleton component, providing better user feedback.
Also applies to: 713-715
packages/payment-widget/package.json (1)
59-61: Consider Lit Protocol integration for payment processing
Since the invoicing template will support encryption via Lit Protocol, the payment widget might need decryption capabilities to process encrypted invoice data.
Let's verify if the payment processor handles encrypted data:
packages/invoice-dashboard/package.json (1)
40-42: Verify version consistency across packages
The dependency updates are coordinated across packages, but let's verify there are no version conflicts:
Also applies to: 59-61, 36-37
✅ Verification successful
All package versions are consistent across the monorepo
The verification shows that:
@requestnetwork/request-client.jsis consistently at version0.51.0across all packages@requestnetwork/payment-processoris consistently at version0.49.0where used- No version conflicts or inconsistencies were found
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for version consistency across all package.json files
echo "Checking @requestnetwork/request-client.js versions:"
fd -t f "package.json" | xargs grep "@requestnetwork/request-client.js"
echo -e "\nChecking @requestnetwork/payment-processor versions:"
fd -t f "package.json" | xargs grep "@requestnetwork/payment-processor"
echo -e "\nChecking for any Lit Protocol related dependencies:"
fd -t f "package.json" | xargs grep "lit-protocol"
Length of output: 994
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/create-invoice-form.svelte
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Gentle reminder that screenshots make it a lot easier to review 🙏 |
Co-authored-by: MantisClone <david.huntmateo@request.network>
rodrigopavezi
dismissed
aimensahnoun’s stale review
It was also reviewed by @MantisClone
Fixes #146
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Improvements
isEncryptedproperty.