[WEB-2709] chore: intake issue navigation improvement#5891
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily focus on updating the logic for handling issue updates across multiple components, specifically in Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
web/core/components/issues/description-input.tsx (3)
62-67: LGTM! Consider renaming the parameter for clarity.The changes to
handleDescriptionFormSubmitimprove flexibility by allowing different issue IDs to be passed. This is consistent with the overall changes in handling issue IDs.Consider renaming
_issueIdtoissueIdfor consistency, and update the prop name todefaultIssueIdto differentiate:async (formData: Partial<TIssue>, issueId: string) => { await issueOperations.update(workspaceSlug, projectId, issueId, { description_html: formData.description_html ?? "<p></p>", }); }, [workspaceSlug, projectId, issueOperations]
87-90: LGTM! Consider using a constant for the debounce delay.The introduction of
debouncedHandleDescriptionFormSubmitis a good optimization to prevent excessive API calls. The debounce mechanism and submission state tracking are well-implemented.Consider extracting the debounce delay into a named constant for better maintainability:
const DESCRIPTION_UPDATE_DEBOUNCE_MS = 1500; const debouncedHandleDescriptionFormSubmit = debounce(async (data: Partial<TIssue>, _issueId: string) => { await handleDescriptionFormSubmit(data, _issueId); setIsSubmitting("submitted"); }, DESCRIPTION_UPDATE_DEBOUNCE_MS);
93-97: LGTM! Consider renaming the parameter for consistency.The changes to
debouncedFormSavecorrectly implement the new approach to handling issue IDs. The use of an inline function effectively passes both form data and the issue ID to the debounced handler.For consistency with the earlier suggestion, consider renaming
_issueIdtoissueId:(_issueId: string) => handleSubmit((data) => { debouncedHandleDescriptionFormSubmit(data, issueId); })(), [debouncedHandleDescriptionFormSubmit, handleSubmit]web/core/components/inbox/content/issue-root.tsx (1)
Line range hint
70-93: Improve error handling and event tracking consistencyThe changes to the
updatemethod have both positive and negative aspects:
Adding
idto theupdateIssuecall is a good practice, ensuring consistency and preventing potential bugs.The addition of error handling is beneficial, but there's room for improvement:
- Consider using a more specific error message that includes details about the failed update.
- You might want to log the error for debugging purposes.
} catch (error) { console.error("Failed to update issue:", error); setToast({ title: "Issue update failed", type: TOAST_TYPE.ERROR, message: `Failed to update issue: ${error.message || "Unknown error"}`, });There's an inconsistency in the event tracking logic:
- The success state is set even when an error occurs, which is misleading.
- The error case doesn't include the data that failed to update in the event payload.
Consider adjusting the event tracking to accurately reflect the operation's outcome:
} catch (error) { // ... error handling code ... captureIssueEvent({ eventName: "Inbox issue update failed", payload: { state: "ERROR", element: "Inbox", error: error.message }, updates: { changed_property: Object.keys(data).join(","), change_details: Object.values(data).join(","), }, path: pathname, }); }These changes will improve the robustness and accuracy of the update process.
web/core/store/inbox/inbox-issue.store.ts (2)
154-159: Approve changes with a suggestion for improved error handling.The changes in the
updateIssuemethod look good. Usingissue.idinstead ofthis.issue.idis more appropriate and aligns with the method's parameter. However, to improve robustness, consider adding an error message or throwing an error whenissue.idis undefined or null.Consider modifying the condition as follows:
if (!issue.id) { console.error('Cannot update issue: issue.id is undefined or null'); return; }This will provide more context if the method fails to update due to a missing ID.
Address Inconsistent Usage of
issue.idin MethodsThe
updateIssuemethod usesissue.id, whileupdateProjectIssueusesthis.issue.id. For consistency and to avoid potential issues, consider standardizing the usage ofissue.idacross both methods.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
170-172: Consider updatingupdateProjectIssuefor consistency.While changes were made to the
updateIssuemethod to useissue.idinstead ofthis.issue.id, theupdateProjectIssuemethod still usesthis.issue.id. For consistency, consider reviewing this method and updating it if necessary.Please review if
updateProjectIssueshould be updated similarly toupdateIssue. If not, provide a comment explaining why the different behavior is intended.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for inconsistencies in issue ID usage across methods # Test: Search for issue ID usage in updateIssue and updateProjectIssue methods echo "Comparing issue ID usage in updateIssue and updateProjectIssue methods:" rg -A 10 'updateIssue.*=' web/core/store/inbox/inbox-issue.store.ts echo "---" rg -A 10 'updateProjectIssue.*=' web/core/store/inbox/inbox-issue.store.tsLength of output: 2162
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- web/core/components/inbox/content/issue-root.tsx (1 hunks)
- web/core/components/issues/description-input.tsx (3 hunks)
- web/core/store/inbox/inbox-issue.store.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
web/core/components/issues/description-input.tsx (2)
119-119: LGTM! Correct implementation of issue ID handling.The change to pass
issueIdtodebouncedFormSavein theonChangehandler ensures that the correct issue ID is used during the save operation. This is consistent with the overall improvements in issue ID handling throughout the component.
Line range hint
1-160: Overall, the changes improve flexibility and consistency in issue ID handling.The modifications to
IssueDescriptionInputcomponent enhance its flexibility by allowing different issue IDs to be passed and used consistently across various functions. The introduction of debouncing for form submissions is a good optimization to reduce unnecessary API calls.Key improvements:
- More flexible issue ID handling in
handleDescriptionFormSubmit.- Introduction of
debouncedHandleDescriptionFormSubmitfor optimized submissions.- Updated
debouncedFormSaveto work with the new issue ID approach.- Consistent use of issue ID in the
RichTextEditoronChangehandler.Consider implementing the minor suggestions for naming conventions and constant extraction to further improve code clarity and maintainability.
3 participants
Changes:
This PR introduces enhancements to the navigation for intake issue management.
Reference:
[WEB-2709]
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation