just fixing list cohorts #4034
just fixing list cohorts #4034
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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 (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## staging #4034 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 11.73% 11.73%
========================================
Files 114 114
Lines 15331 15331
Branches 319 319
========================================
Hits 1799 1799
Misses 13532 13532
|
|
Device registry changes in this PR available for preview here |
![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 (2)
src/device-registry/models/Cohort.js (2)
228-229: Validate 'skip' and 'limit' Parameters to Prevent Potential ErrorsParsing
skipandlimitusingparseIntensures they are integers. However, consider validating the parsed values to handle cases where the parameters might not be convertible to numbers, preventing unintended behavior.Apply this diff to add input validation:
- .skip(skip ? parseInt(skip) : 0) - .limit(limit ? parseInt(limit) : 1000) + .skip(Number.isInteger(parseInt(skip)) ? parseInt(skip) : 0) + .limit(Number.isInteger(parseInt(limit)) ? parseInt(limit) : 1000)
259-263: Simplify Nested Property Access Using Optional ChainingTo enhance readability and handle cases where
device.siteordevice.site[0]might be undefined, consider using optional chaining when accessing nested properties.Apply this diff to use optional chaining:
- site: device.site && - device.site[0] && { - _id: device.site[0]._id, - name: device.site[0].name, - }, + site: device.site?.[0] && { + _id: device.site[0]._id, + name: device.site[0].name, + },🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 259-260: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/device-registry/models/Cohort.js(3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/device-registry/models/Cohort.js
[error] 209-209: Do not add then to an object.
(lint/suspicious/noThenProperty)
[error] 259-260: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/device-registry/models/Cohort.js (1)
226-226:
Potential Issue with Using $first for Aggregating 'devices'
Changing the aggregation function to use $first for the devices field may result in only the first device being included for each cohort, rather than aggregating all associated devices. This could lead to incomplete data when listing cohorts.
Consider using $push or $addToSet to aggregate all devices associated with each cohort.
Apply this diff to adjust the aggregation:
- devices: { $first: "$devices" },
+ devices: { $push: "$devices" },To verify the impact of this change, you can run the following script:
Description
just fixing list cohorts
Changes Made
Testing
Affected Services
Endpoints Ready for Testing
API Documentation Updated?
Additional Notes
just fixing list cohorts
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation