Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: checkbox width bug #16467

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 18, 2024
Merged

fix: checkbox width bug #16467

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 18, 2024

Conversation

jonnigs
Copy link
Member

@jonnigs jonnigs commented Oct 18, 2024

What

Fix bug that makes width: 'half' render as 1/4

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • Formatting passes locally with my changes
  • I have rebased against main before asking for a review

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Improved the CheckboxFormField component for better performance and flexibility in rendering.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Removed the split prop from the CheckboxController, streamlining checkbox rendering.

@jonnigs jonnigs requested a review from a team as a code owner October 18, 2024 13:24
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the CheckboxFormField component by removing the FC type annotation from its export, allowing it to be exported as a standard function. The props continue to be defined using the Props interface, which includes a field property of type CheckboxField. Additionally, the split prop has been removed from the CheckboxController component, potentially impacting the checkbox's rendering width. The component's overall structure and logic remain unchanged.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
libs/application/ui-fields/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx Removed FC type annotation from the export of CheckboxFormField. Removed split prop from CheckboxController.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

automerge

Suggested reviewers

  • Toti91

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@jonnigs jonnigs added the automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass label Oct 18, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.73%. Comparing base (dda4b13) to head (bd2d84a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...ds/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16467      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   36.78%   36.73%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files        6833     6835       +2     
  Lines      141423   141276     -147     
  Branches    40278    40202      -76     
==========================================
- Hits        52016    51901     -115     
+ Misses      89407    89375      -32     
Flag Coverage Δ
api 3.37% <ø> (ø)
application-system-api 41.36% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
application-template-api-modules 27.86% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️
application-templates-parental-leave 29.96% <ø> (ø)
application-ui-shell 21.37% <50.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...ds/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx 5.26% <50.00%> (+0.26%) ⬆️

... and 30 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update dda4b13...bd2d84a. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
libs/application/ui-fields/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx (2)

23-28: Approve the removal of FC, but consider explicit return type

The removal of the FC type annotation aligns with modern React practices. However, to maintain strong typing, consider adding an explicit return type to the function.

Consider updating the function declaration as follows:

export const CheckboxFormField = ({
  error,
  showFieldName = false,
  field,
  application,
}: Props): JSX.Element => {
  // ... rest of the function
}

This change will ensure that the return type is explicitly defined, improving type safety and readability.


Add tests for CheckboxFormField to ensure proper rendering

The current test coverage includes CheckboxController, but there are no tests for CheckboxFormField. To verify that the removal of the split prop resolves the checkbox width issue without introducing new problems, please add comprehensive tests for CheckboxFormField.

  • Ensure that the checkbox renders with the correct width.
  • Verify that all functionalities of CheckboxFormField remain intact after removing the split prop.
🔗 Analysis chain

Line range hint 67-96: Verify checkbox width rendering and add tests

The removal of the split prop from CheckboxController appears to be related to the checkbox width bug mentioned in the PR objectives. While this change might resolve the issue, it's crucial to ensure that it doesn't introduce new problems.

Please verify that:

  1. The checkbox width now renders correctly as 'half' instead of one-quarter of the intended size.
  2. This change doesn't negatively impact other use cases of the CheckboxController.

To prevent future regressions, I recommend adding tests for this functionality. Would you like assistance in creating these tests?

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for existing tests related to CheckboxFormField and CheckboxController

# Test: Look for existing test files
echo "Searching for existing test files:"
fd -e test.tsx -e spec.tsx --exec echo {}

# Test: Search for mentions of CheckboxFormField in test files
echo "\nSearching for CheckboxFormField in test files:"
rg --type typescript "CheckboxFormField" -g "*test.tsx" -g "*spec.tsx"

# Test: Search for mentions of CheckboxController in test files
echo "\nSearching for CheckboxController in test files:"
rg --type typescript "CheckboxController" -g "*test.tsx" -g "*spec.tsx"

Length of output: 5765


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for mentions of CheckboxFormField and CheckboxController in test files without using --type

# Test: Search for mentions of CheckboxFormField in test files
echo "Searching for CheckboxFormField in test files:"
rg "CheckboxFormField" -g "*test.tsx" -g "*spec.tsx"

# Test: Search for mentions of CheckboxController in test files
echo "\nSearching for CheckboxController in test files:"
rg "CheckboxController" -g "*test.tsx" -g "*spec.tsx"

Length of output: 1253

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 99fbfdb and 322cc33.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • libs/application/ui-fields/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
libs/application/ui-fields/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx (1)

Pattern libs/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:

  • Reusability of components and hooks across different NextJS apps.
  • TypeScript usage for defining props and exporting types.
  • Effective tree-shaking and bundling practices."
🔇 Additional comments (1)
libs/application/ui-fields/src/lib/CheckboxFormField/CheckboxFormField.tsx (1)

Line range hint 1-96: Code adheres to provided guidelines

The CheckboxFormField component follows the coding guidelines for files in the libs directory:

  1. It appears to be reusable across different NextJS apps.
  2. TypeScript is used effectively for defining props and types.
  3. The code structure supports effective tree-shaking and bundling.

Great job on maintaining code quality and following the established guidelines!

@datadog-island-is
Copy link

datadog-island-is bot commented Oct 18, 2024

Datadog Report

All test runs da1f1ba 🔗

5 Total Test Services: 0 Failed, 5 Passed
🔻 Test Sessions change in coverage: 1 decreased (-0.01%), 1 increased (+0.01%), 29 no change

Test Services
Service Name Failed Known Flaky New Flaky Passed Skipped Total Time Code Coverage Change Test Service View
api 0 0 0 4 0 3.07s 1 no change Link
application-system-api 0 0 0 120 2 3m 34.28s 1 decreased (-0.01%) Link
application-template-api-modules 0 0 0 123 0 2m 19.5s 1 increased (+0.01%) Link
application-templates-parental-leave 0 0 0 162 0 18.01s 1 no change Link
application-ui-shell 0 0 0 74 0 29.98s 1 no change Link

🔻 Code Coverage Decreases vs Default Branch (1)

  • application-system-api - jest 37.01% (-0.01%) - Details

Copy link
Member

@Toti91 Toti91 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

NVM

Copy link
Member

@Toti91 Toti91 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot merged commit af0f4ca into main Oct 18, 2024
47 checks passed
@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot deleted the fix/app-sys-checkbox-width branch October 18, 2024 17:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants