[Fix] Issues in the Approval Request Screen for the Employee #8731
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on improving error handling and property access in two TypeScript components: Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
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 (5)
packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/table-components/employee-with-links/employee-with-links.component.ts (2)
33-35: Good addition of null check, but consider clearing the employees array.While the null check is a good defensive programming practice, the method should clear the
this.employeesarray before processing new groups to prevent potential data accumulation from multiple calls.initializeGrouping(): void { if (!this.value) { return; } + this.employees = [];
Line range hint
33-56: Consider improving type safety and simplifying the grouping logic.The current implementation could benefit from:
- Type safety for the
valueproperty- A more straightforward grouping algorithm using array methods
Consider refactoring to:
@Input() value: IEmployee[] = []; initializeGrouping(): void { if (!this.value?.length) { return; } this.employees = []; // Group employees into arrays of size 3 for (let i = 0; i < this.value.length; i += 3) { this.employees.push(this.value.slice(i, i + 3)); } }packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/approvals/approvals-mutation.component.ts (3)
140-146: Consider extracting form initialization values to a separate method.While the form initialization is now safer with optional chaining, the repeated pattern of
??operators suggests this could be extracted into a helper method for better maintainability.private getInitialFormValue<T>(key: keyof IRequestApproval, defaultValue: T): T { return this.requestApproval?.[key] ?? defaultValue; } // Usage in form initialization: this.form = this.fb.group({ name: [this.getInitialFormValue('name', ''), Validators.required], // ... other fields });
151-156: Consider using an enum-based switch statement.The switch statement could be more type-safe by using the enum directly instead of string literals.
switch (this.requestApproval?.approvalPolicy?.approvalType) { case ApprovalPolicyTypesStringEnum.TIME_OFF: case ApprovalPolicyTypesStringEnum.EQUIPMENT_SHARING: this.form.get('approvalPolicyId').disable(); break; default: // Consider handling default case break; }
148-148: Consider adding a type guard for participant selection.The participant selection logic could benefit from type safety.
type ParticipantType = 'teams' | 'employees'; participants: ParticipantType = 'employees'; // Then in the initialization: this.participants = (this.requestApproval?.teamApprovals?.length ?? 0) > 0 ? 'teams' : 'employees';
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/approvals/approvals-mutation.component.ts(2 hunks)packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/table-components/employee-with-links/employee-with-links.component.ts(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
- GitHub Check: build
- GitHub Check: test
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/approvals/approvals-mutation.component.ts (1)
65-66: Good use of optional chaining and nullish coalescing.The safe property access using
?.and??operators effectively prevents runtime errors when handling potentially undefined properties.
packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/approvals/approvals-mutation.component.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 8f28602.
☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at |
PR
Please note: we will close your PR without comment if you do not check the boxes above and provide ALL requested information.
Summary by CodeRabbit