Conversation
…er address is same
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to three files across different packages, focusing on enhancing address validation and transaction type display. The changes involve adding a new validation check for identical payer and payee addresses in the invoice form, updating the transaction type component to conditionally display both "IN" and "OUT" types, and implementing improved error handling for the payer address input. Changes
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
shared/components/tx-type.svelte (1)
8-17: Consider accessibility improvements for overlapping textThe overlapping transaction types might be difficult to read for users with visual impairments.
Consider:
- Adding sufficient color contrast
- Including ARIA labels
- Using a more accessible layout pattern
{#if showBoth} <div class="tx-group"> - <div class="tx in overlap">IN</div> - <div class="tx out overlap">OUT</div> + <div class="tx in overlap" role="status" aria-label="Incoming transaction">IN</div> + <div class="tx out overlap" role="status" aria-label="Outgoing transaction">OUT</div> </div> {:else} - <div class="tx" class:out={isOut} class:in={!isOut}> + <div class="tx" class:out={isOut} class:in={!isOut} role="status" aria-label={isOut ? "Outgoing transaction" : "Incoming transaction"}> {type} </div> {/if}packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (1)
724-724: Add comment explaining the showBoth logicThe condition for showing both transaction types would benefit from a clarifying comment.
<TxType type={signer === request.payer?.value ? "OUT" : "IN"} + {/* Show both IN/OUT when payer and payee are the same address */} showBoth={request.payer?.value === request.payee?.value} />
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte(3 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(1 hunks)shared/components/tx-type.svelte(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
shared/components/tx-type.svelte (2)
3-3: LGTM: Clean prop declaration
The new boolean prop is properly typed and has a sensible default value.
46-57: Verify the overlapping text remains readable
The absolute positioning of overlapping elements needs careful testing across different viewport sizes.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the usage context to better understand the potential impact.
Let me check how the TxType component is used in the context to better understand the overlapping scenario.
Based on the analysis of both the TxType component and its usage in view-requests.svelte, I can now provide a final response:
The overlapping text implementation is safe and readable
The overlapping text concern can be marked as verified because:
- The TxType component uses fixed widths (120px) and specific offsets (-14px, 14px) for the overlapping elements
- The component is used in a table cell with sufficient padding (1.5rem left/right) as seen in view-requests.svelte
- The text itself is styled with contrasting background colors and appropriate font size (12px) and weight (600) for readability
- The overlapping only occurs in a specific case (showBoth=true) which is only triggered when payer and payee are the same address
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential responsive design issues in other components using tx-type
rg -l "TxType" | xargs rg -l "showBoth"
Length of output: 93
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation in view-requests.svelte to understand how TxType is used
cat packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte
Length of output: 31370
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of TxType component
cat shared/components/tx-type.svelte
Length of output: 965
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
338-340: LGTM: Clear error message for identical addresses
The error message clearly communicates the validation failure to users.
…247-request-invoicing---handle-inout-for-requests-payeepayer-prevent-create-request-form-from-such-creating-request-s
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (3)
62-67: Add validation for empty addressesThe address comparison logic is correct, but it should handle cases where either address is empty to prevent unnecessary validation errors during form initialization.
Consider this improvement:
const checkSameAddress = () => { + if (!formData.payerAddress || !formData.payeeAddress) { + return false; + } return ( formData.payerAddress.toLowerCase() === formData.payeeAddress.toLowerCase() ); };
351-353: Consider improving error message readabilityWhile the implementation is correct, the nested ternary operator could be simplified for better readability.
Consider this more readable approach:
-error={validationErrors.clientAddress - ? "Please enter a valid Ethereum address" - : validationErrors.sameAddress - ? "Payer address cannot be the same as recipient address" - : ""} +error={ + validationErrors.clientAddress + ? "Please enter a valid Ethereum address" + : validationErrors.sameAddress + ? "Payer address cannot be the same as recipient address" + : "" +}
71-71: Consider adding real-time validationCurrently, the same address validation only triggers on blur events. Consider adding real-time validation by moving the checks to a reactive statement or adding an input event handler for better user experience.
Example approach:
$: if (formData.payerAddress && formData.payeeAddress) { validationErrors.sameAddress = checkSameAddress(); }Also applies to: 76-76
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte(3 hunks)packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
46-46: LGTM: Validation state addition
The sameAddress validation flag is appropriately added to the validation errors object.
packages/invoice-dashboard/src/lib/view-requests.svelte (2)
724-724: LGTM: Transaction type display enhancement
The addition of the showBoth prop to handle cases where payer and payee addresses are identical improves the UI clarity.
724-724: Verify transaction creation validation
While the UI correctly handles displaying transactions with identical payer/payee addresses, according to the PR objectives, such transactions should be prevented at creation time. Ensure that proper validation is implemented in the request creation flow.
|
Can we make the IN/OUT indicator have diagonal stripes like the Partially Paid indicator? |
|
Can we make the IN/OUT the same height as the Status indicator? |
|
@MantisClone Changes:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
71-71: Consider optimizing duplicate validation callsThe same address validation is triggered twice when both fields are filled, which could be optimized.
Consider consolidating the validation:
const checkPayeeAddress = () => { validationErrors.payeeAddress = !checkAddress(formData.payeeAddress); - validationErrors.sameAddress = checkSameAddress(); }; const checkClientAddress = () => { validationErrors.clientAddress = !checkAddress(formData.payerAddress); validationErrors.sameAddress = checkSameAddress(); };This way, the same address validation only runs when the payer address is updated, which is sufficient since both addresses are needed for the comparison anyway.
Also applies to: 76-76
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte(3 hunks)shared/components/tx-type.svelte(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- shared/components/tx-type.svelte
🔇 Additional comments (2)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (2)
46-46: LGTM: Validation state properly initialized
The sameAddress validation property is correctly integrated into the existing validation state management structure.
351-353: LGTM: Clear error messaging
The error handling implementation provides clear feedback to users when they attempt to use identical addresses, with proper message prioritization.
|
Can you please update the screenshots in the PR description 🙏 |
|
@MantisClone the screenshots are updated |
…247-request-invoicing---handle-inout-for-requests-payeepayer-prevent-create-request-form-from-such-creating-request-s
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (1)
62-67: LGTM! Address validation is robust and handles edge cases.The function correctly implements case-insensitive comparison with null safety.
Consider simplifying the function for better readability:
const checkSameAddress = () => { - return ( - formData.payerAddress?.toLowerCase() === - formData.payeeAddress?.toLowerCase() - ); + return formData.payerAddress?.toLowerCase() === formData.payeeAddress?.toLowerCase(); };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/create-invoice-form/src/lib/invoice/form.svelte (3)
46-46: LGTM! Validation state addition follows existing pattern.
71-71: LGTM! Consistent validation integration.
The same address validation is correctly integrated into both address check functions.
Also applies to: 76-76
351-353: Consider updating terminology for consistency.
Based on previous discussions, consider using "Recipient" instead of "Payee" in the error message for consistency with the UI terminology.
- ? "Payer address cannot be the same as Payee address"
+ ? "Payer address cannot be the same as Recipient address"…uests-payeepayer-prevent-create-request-form-from-such-creating-request-s
sstefdev
deleted the
247-request-invoicing---handle-inout-for-requests-payeepayer-prevent-create-request-form-from-such-creating-request-s
branch
3 participants
Problem
In the Invoice Dashboard, distinguishing between incoming and outgoing transactions is challenging without clear indicators. Additionally, allowing the creation of requests where the payee and payer addresses are identical can lead to logical errors and potential misuse.
Changes Made
New tx type
New error
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation