🥅 server: group api errors by specific reason

[cruzdanilo]

---

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved API error grouping so related errors are grouped by specific reason
  • Normalized and standardized error message processing for more consistent responses
  • More robust error parsing and body handling to reduce misclassification of error events

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 6b00391

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
@exactly/server	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @cruzdanilo, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refines the server's API error handling mechanism to provide more granular and accurate error fingerprinting. By improving the parsing of error messages and their associated JSON bodies, the changes ensure that errors are grouped by their specific reasons, leading to better observability and debugging.

Highlights

• Improved Error Message Parsing: The error handling logic now correctly extracts the core error message by stripping an 'Error: ' prefix, leading to more accurate status and body parsing.
• Enhanced Error Body Extraction: Extracted error bodies are now trimmed of leading/trailing whitespace, ensuring cleaner data for fingerprinting.
• Prioritized Error Fingerprinting: The system now prioritizes using the 'message' field over the 'error' field from JSON bodies when generating error fingerprints, providing more specific categorization.

Changelog

• .changeset/lucky-wolves-balance.md
  • Added a new changeset file.
• server/index.ts
  • Modified error message extraction to remove 'Error: ' prefix.
  • Updated error body parsing to trim whitespace.
  • Adjusted the priority for extracting error reasons from JSON bodies, preferring 'message' over 'error'.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@cruzdanilo has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 13 minutes and 3 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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.

Walkthrough

Normalizes server error messages by stripping an "Error:" prefix, updates body extraction/validation to use the normalized message, and changes JSON payload parsing order when building error fingerprints to prefer code, then message, then error.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Changeset .changeset/lucky-wolves-balance.md	Adds a patch-level changeset entry for @exactly/server noting grouping API errors by specific reason.
Server error handling server/index.ts	Introduces error message normalization (strip "Error:"), parses status from normalized message, trims and validates body using the normalized message, and adjusts fingerprint JSON parsing priority to prefer json.code, then json.message (string), then json.error.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~22 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• 🥅 server: fingerprint api errors by response message #781: Directly overlaps changes to server/index.ts error-message parsing and JSON extraction ordering.
• 🥅 app: fingerprint api errors with status #787: Related modifications to API error fingerprinting and status/body extraction in server code.
• 🥅 server: fix bad session issue, fingerprint validator errors by code #732: Related work on fingerprinting validator/API errors by code and parsing JSON payload fields.

Suggested reviewers

• nfmelendez

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly summarizes the main change: implementing error grouping by specific reason in the server, which aligns with the code changes that normalize error messages and reorganize fingerprint construction logic.
Merge Conflict Detection	✅ Passed	✅ No merge conflicts detected when merging into main

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch catch

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request improves error grouping for Sentry by refining the fingerprint generation logic in the onError handler. The changes, such as stripping the "Error: " prefix and trimming the message body, are good improvements for robustness. I've suggested a further refactoring to use a regular expression for parsing the error message, which would make the logic even more robust and maintainable.

[sentry]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.05%. Comparing base (8280e78) to head (6b00391).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #786      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.83%   69.05%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files         207      207              
  Lines        7026     7026              
  Branches     2219     2219              
==========================================
+ Hits         4836     4852      +16     
+ Misses       2010     1996      -14     
+ Partials      180      178       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	69.02% <ø> (+16.41%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

server/index.ts (1)

286-303: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Reverse the priority of json.message and json.error fields to match the commit intent of grouping errors by specific reason.

The current priority (code → message → error) contradicts the commit message "group api errors by specific reason." Real API responses show that the error field contains the canonical, specific reason code (e.g., "NotFoundError"), while message contains a generic description (e.g., "Not Found"). Using message first would fragment similar errors under different fingerprints instead of grouping them. Swap to: code → error → message.