20 creating popup js code #374
Conversation
- Added secure endpoint to serve popupRenderer.js script with API ID validation - Implemented middleware for API ID and client ID validation - Adjusted main index file to include new script route - Updated client-side HTML/JavaScript snippet for secure script fetching
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across the backend and frontend components of the application. Key updates include modifications to the Dockerfiles to upgrade the Node.js base image and adjust package installations. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 24
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
frontend/Dockerfile (3)
Line range hint
6-6: Knees weak, dependencies heavy! Don't delete package-lock.json! 🍝Removing package-lock.json defeats the purpose of dependency locking and can lead to inconsistent builds. You're making me nervous with these sweaty palms moves!
-RUN rm -rf package-lock.json && npm install +RUN npm ci
Line range hint
7-7: Separate formik install making me lose myself! 🍝Installing formik separately after npm install is redundant. Add it to package.json dependencies instead.
-RUN npm install formikAdd to package.json instead:
{ "dependencies": { "formik": "^2.x.x" } }
Line range hint
1-15: There's optimization on the surface, but the image ain't ready! 🍝Consider these improvements to optimize your Dockerfile:
- Use the alpine variant to reduce image size
- Add a .dockerignore file to exclude unnecessary files
- Consider multi-stage builds to reduce final image size
Here's a more optimized version:
-FROM node:22 +FROM node:20-alpine AS builder + +WORKDIR /app +COPY package*.json ./ +RUN npm ci +COPY . . +ENV NODE_OPTIONS="--max-old-space-size=4096" +RUN npm run build + +FROM node:20-alpine +WORKDIR /app +COPY --from=builder /app/dist ./dist +COPY package*.json ./ +RUN npm ci --production + +EXPOSE 4173 +CMD ["npm", "run", "preview"]Also, create a .dockerignore file:
node_modules npm-debug.log Dockerfile .dockerignore .git .gitignore README.mdbackend/src/controllers/onboard/tourData.controller.js (2)
13-13: There's vomit on his sweater already: Missing documentation! 🍝Add JSDoc documentation to make the API more maintainable.
Here's what you could add:
+/** + * Retrieves tour data for a specific user + * @param {import('express').Request} req - Express request object + * @param {import('express').Response} res - Express response object + * @returns {Promise<void>} + */ const getTourData = async (req, res) => { // ... existing code ... };
3-11: Lose yourself in better architecture! 🎤Consider implementing these architectural improvements:
- Create a centralized error handling middleware
- Standardize API response structure
- Add proper error logging
Consider creating a middleware structure like this:
// errorHandler.middleware.js const errorHandler = (err, req, res, next) => { logger.error(err); res.status(err.status || 500).json({ status: 'error', message: err.message, ...(process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development' && { stack: err.stack }) }); }; // responseHandler.middleware.js const successResponse = (data) => ({ status: 'success', data });This will make your error handling more consistent across the application.
backend/.env (1)
Yo, we've got a code security situation that's heavier than mom's spaghetti! 🍝
- The
.envfile is tracked in git and contains raw credentials - that's a major security risk, eh!- No validation for required environment variables on startup - the app just yolos into execution
- Database credentials are sitting in plain sight like vomit on a sweater
Action items:
- Remove
.envfrom git tracking immediately and update git history:git filter-branch --force --index-filter 'git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch backend/.env' HEAD- Add
.envto.gitignore- Add environment variable validation in
index.jsbefore database connection:const requiredEnvVars = [ 'DEV_DB_USERNAME', 'DEV_DB_PASSWORD', 'DEV_DB_NAME', 'DEV_DB_HOST', 'DEV_DB_PORT', 'JWT_SECRET' ]; for (const envVar of requiredEnvVars) { if (!process.env[envVar]) { throw new Error(`Missing required environment variable: ${envVar}`); } }- Consider using a secrets management service for production credentials
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-20: These credentials making my knees weak! 💦Consider using a secrets management service for production credentials. Also, recommend adding validation for required environment variables on application startup.
Let me check if the .env file is tracked in git and look for any environment variable validation patterns in the codebase. This will help us determine if there are any immediate security concerns and if proper validation is in place.
I'm nervous about that .env being tracked in git! Let's dig deeper into how the configuration is handled and check the git history of this file to see how long it's been exposed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if .env is in .gitignore if ! grep -q "^\.env$" .gitignore 2>/dev/null; then echo "Warning: .env file might not be ignored in git" fiLength of output: 133
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if .env file is tracked in git history git ls-files | grep -q "\.env$" && echo "Warning: .env file is tracked in git" # Check for any validation of environment variables in the codebase rg -l "process\.env\." --type js --type ts # Look for environment variable validation patterns ast-grep --pattern 'if (!process.env.$_) { throw new Error($_) }' ast-grep --pattern 'const $_ = process.env.$_ ?? $_'Length of output: 508
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the content of config.js to see how env vars are handled cat backend/config/config.js # Check if there's any validation in index.js cat backend/index.js # Check git history for .env file git log --oneline -- backend/.envLength of output: 3463
backend/src/routes/onboard.routes.js (1)
10-13: These commented routes got me losing myself! 📝Either implement the commented routes or remove them. Keeping commented code can lead to confusion.
- // router.get("/banner", onboardControllers.bannerData.getBannerData); - // router.get("/tour", onboardControllers.tourData.getTourData); - // router.get("/hint", onboardControllers.hintData.getHintData);backend/index.js (1)
19-20: Yo! What's the deal with this commented code? 🍝The commented import for
scriptRoutessuggests incomplete work. Either implement it or remove it to keep the codebase clean.jsAgent/popup.js (1)
63-63: Vomit on his sweater already! Improve callback handling! 🍝The callback handling can be improved using optional chaining as suggested by static analysis.
- cb && cb(); + cb?.();🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 63-63: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
jsAgent/main.js (1)
31-31: Make your callbacks feel at home with optional chainingYou can simplify your callback invocations by using optional chaining. It makes the code cleaner and more readable.
Apply this diff:
- cb && cb(); + cb?.();Also applies to: 43-43, 48-48, 52-52, 153-153
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 31-31: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
.DS_Storeis excluded by!**/.DS_Storebackend/package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (22)
backend/.env(1 hunks)backend/Dockerfile(1 hunks)backend/index.js(2 hunks)backend/package.json(1 hunks)backend/public/scripts/popupRender.js(1 hunks)backend/public/snippets/popupSnippet.html(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/onboard/bannerData.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/onboard/index.js(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/onboard/popupData.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/controllers/onboard/tourData.controller.js(1 hunks)backend/src/middleware/onboard.middleware.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/guide.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/routes/onboard.routes.js(1 hunks)backend/src/service/popup.service.js(1 hunks)frontend/Dockerfile(1 hunks)frontend/src/scenes/settings/CodeTab/CodeTab.jsx(1 hunks)jsAgent/banner.js(1 hunks)jsAgent/links.js(1 hunks)jsAgent/main.js(1 hunks)jsAgent/popup.js(1 hunks)jsAgent/popupRender.js(1 hunks)jsAgent/tour.js(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- jsAgent/banner.js
- backend/src/controllers/onboard/index.js
- backend/Dockerfile
- jsAgent/tour.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
jsAgent/popup.js
[error] 63-63: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
jsAgent/main.js
[error] 31-31: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 43-43: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 48-48: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 52-52: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 70-70: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 153-153: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
frontend/Dockerfile (1)
1-1:
Yo dawg, Node.js 22 ain't even dropped yet! 🍝
Node.js 22 is still in development and not released. This will cause your builds to fail faster than mom's spaghetti falling out of your pockets.
-FROM node:22
+FROM node:20backend/.env (1)
8-8: Localhost switch got me nervous, but my code keeps on forgetting! 🏠
Changing to localhost might affect containerized deployments. Ensure this change is intentional and won't break Docker compose setups.
✅ Verification successful
Yo, the localhost change is actually legit! 🍝
The DB service in docker-compose.yml is properly configured to handle the localhost connection. The backend service depends on 'db' and they're in the same Docker network, so the containers can communicate. The database host being 'localhost' in .env won't break anything since it's used within the containerized environment.
- The 'db' service exposes PostgreSQL on port 5432
- Backend service has proper dependency setup with
depends_on: - db - Environment variables are correctly passed through to containers
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if Docker compose file exists and uses the same DB host
if [ -f docker-compose.yml ]; then
grep -A 5 "database:" docker-compose.yml
fi
Length of output: 72
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for any docker-compose files in the repository
fd -t f "docker-compose" -x echo "Found: {}"
# Check for any environment configuration in docker files
fd -t f "docker.*" -x grep -l "DB_HOST" {} \;
# Check for any database connection configurations
rg -l "DB_HOST|database.*host" --type-add 'config:*.{yml,yaml,env,conf}' -tconfig
# Let's also check for any documentation about database setup
fd "README" -t f -x cat {} \; | grep -i -A 5 -B 5 "database\|docker"
Length of output: 282
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's see what's in that docker-compose.yml file
cat docker-compose.yml
# And check the actual content of the environment variables
cat .env | grep -i "DB_"
# Look for any database connection setup in the codebase
rg "createConnection|mongoose.connect" -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 2399
backend/src/routes/onboard.routes.js (1)
7-8: Middleware stacking like mom's spaghetti layers! 🍝
Consider adding documentation about the middleware order importance and what each middleware does. Also, verify that generateClientId should always run after validateApiId.
✅ Verification successful
Yo, the middleware's got documentation, but it's looking kinda light! 🍝
The middleware functions already have basic comments explaining their purpose:
validateApiId: Validates API ID from query paramsgenerateClientId: Generates client ID for each session
The order is logically correct since:
validateApiIdneeds to check the API ID first for securitygenerateClientIdcan safely create a session ID after validation
But yo, we should beef up those comments with more details about:
- Expected query parameters
- Error responses
- Session handling specifics
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for middleware documentation
ast-grep --pattern 'function validateApiId($_) {
$$$
}'
ast-grep --pattern 'function generateClientId($_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 122
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for these middleware functions in the entire codebase
rg -A 5 "validateApiId|generateClientId" --type js
# Also check for any documentation comments above these functions
rg -B 3 "validateApiId|generateClientId" --type js
# Let's also check if there are any files that might contain middleware documentation
fd -e js -e md | grep -i "middleware\|docs"
Length of output: 3865
backend/src/routes/guide.routes.js (1)
6-6:
Heads up! The method for /get_guides_by_url changed from GET to POST
Changing the HTTP method from GET to POST may impact clients consuming this endpoint. Ensure all clients are updated to use POST when calling this route.
Run the following script to verify if there are any instances of clients using GET requests to /get_guides_by_url:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search more thoroughly to ensure we don't miss any client-side calls. The previous search was too specific to axios.get() calls, and we should look for other HTTP client patterns too.
I noticed a reference to the endpoint in jsAgent/main.js, so let's examine how it's actually being used to ensure we catch any potential GET requests.
Good news! The endpoint change is already properly handled
After examining the codebase, I can confirm that the client in jsAgent/main.js is already using POST method with the correct headers:
const requestOptions = {
method: "POST",
headers: myHeaders,
body: JSON.stringify({
userId,
url: location.origin,
}),
redirect: "follow",
};No instances of GET requests to this endpoint were found in the codebase. The change from GET to POST is properly implemented on both server and client sides.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search the codebase for GET requests to '/get_guides_by_url'
rg 'axios\.get\(.*/get_guides_by_url.*\)'
Length of output: 43
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for any HTTP requests to '/get_guides_by_url'
rg -i "get_guides_by_url" -A 3 -B 3
# Also search for fetch API calls
rg "fetch.*get_guides_by_url"
# Search for any HTTP client usage patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'get_guides_by_url'
Length of output: 1466
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check how this endpoint is being called in the jsAgent
cat jsAgent/main.js
Length of output: 5472
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| const tourService = require('../service/tour.service'); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo! The import path needs fixing, dawg! 🍝
The service import path doesn't match the project structure. From the onboard directory, you need to go up an extra level.
Here's the fix:
-const tourService = require('../service/tour.service');
+const tourService = require('../../service/tour.service');📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const tourService = require('../service/tour.service'); | |
| const tourService = require('../../service/tour.service'); |
| const getTourData = async (req, res) => { | ||
| try { | ||
| const { userId } = req.body; | ||
| const tourData = await tourService.getTourData(userId); | ||
| res.status(200).json(tourData); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.status(500).json({ error: error.message }); | ||
| } | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mom's spaghetti moment: GET requests shouldn't use request body! 🍝
Using req.body for GET requests is problematic as some clients and middlewares might not parse the body for GET requests. Consider using query parameters or URL parameters instead.
Here's a better implementation:
-const getTourData = async (req, res) => {
+const getTourData = async (req, res) => {
try {
- const { userId } = req.body;
+ const { userId } = req.query;
const tourData = await tourService.getTourData(userId);
res.status(200).json(tourData);
} catch (error) {
- res.status(500).json({ error: error.message });
+ res.status(500).json({
+ status: 'error',
+ message: 'Failed to fetch tour data',
+ error: error.message
+ });
}
};📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const getTourData = async (req, res) => { | |
| try { | |
| const { userId } = req.body; | |
| const tourData = await tourService.getTourData(userId); | |
| res.status(200).json(tourData); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| res.status(500).json({ error: error.message }); | |
| } | |
| }; | |
| const getTourData = async (req, res) => { | |
| try { | |
| const { userId } = req.query; | |
| const tourData = await tourService.getTourData(userId); | |
| res.status(200).json(tourData); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| res.status(500).json({ | |
| status: 'error', | |
| message: 'Failed to fetch tour data', | |
| error: error.message | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| }; |
|
|
||
| const getTourData = async (req, res) => { | ||
| try { | ||
| const { userId } = req.body; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Knees weak, arms heavy: Missing input validation! 🍝
There's no validation for the userId parameter. This could lead to server errors or security issues.
Add validation before processing:
+ if (!userId) {
+ return res.status(400).json({
+ status: 'error',
+ message: 'userId is required'
+ });
+ }
+ if (typeof userId !== 'string' && typeof userId !== 'number') {
+ return res.status(400).json({
+ status: 'error',
+ message: 'Invalid userId format'
+ });
+ }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const { userId } = req.body; | |
| const { userId } = req.body; | |
| if (!userId) { | |
| return res.status(400).json({ | |
| status: 'error', | |
| message: 'userId is required' | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| if (typeof userId !== 'string' && typeof userId !== 'number') { | |
| return res.status(400).json({ | |
| status: 'error', | |
| message: 'Invalid userId format' | |
| }); | |
| } |
| const bannerData = await bannerService.getBannerData(userId); | ||
| res.status(200).json(bannerData); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| res.status(500).json({ error: error.message }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Careful with them error messages, they're spicier than mom's spaghetti! 🍝
The current error handling might expose sensitive information. Consider using a standardized error response format.
- res.status(500).json({ error: error.message });
+ res.status(500).json({ error: 'An error occurred while fetching banner data' });
+ console.error('Banner data error:', error);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| res.status(500).json({ error: error.message }); | |
| res.status(500).json({ error: 'An error occurred while fetching banner data' }); | |
| console.error('Banner data error:', error); |
| const bannerService = require("../service/banner.service.js"); | ||
| const getBannerData = async (req, res) => { | ||
| try { | ||
| const { userId } = req.body; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yo dawg, we need to validate that userId before we wreck ourselves! 🔍
Add input validation to ensure userId is present and in the correct format before proceeding.
- const { userId } = req.body;
+ const { userId } = req.body;
+ if (!userId || typeof userId !== 'string') {
+ return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Invalid or missing userId' });
+ }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const { userId } = req.body; | |
| const { userId } = req.body; | |
| if (!userId || typeof userId !== 'string') { | |
| return res.status(400).json({ error: 'Invalid or missing userId' }); | |
| } |
| bw.util.bindLive(`#${btnId}`, 'click', function(){ | ||
| if(btnEvent == 'no action'){ | ||
| bw.popup.hideModal(); | ||
| } | ||
| else if(btnEvent == 'open url'){ | ||
| location.href = btnlink; | ||
| } | ||
| else if(btnEvent == 'open url in a new tab'){ | ||
| window.open(btnlink); | ||
| } | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Palms are sweaty! Security risk in URL handling! 🔥
The URL handling in button click events could lead to potential security issues. Add URL validation to prevent malicious redirects.
else if(btnEvent == 'open url'){
+ const url = new URL(btnlink);
+ if (['http:', 'https:'].includes(url.protocol)) {
location.href = btnlink;
+ } else {
+ console.error('Invalid URL protocol');
+ }
}
else if(btnEvent == 'open url in a new tab'){
+ const url = new URL(btnlink);
+ if (['http:', 'https:'].includes(url.protocol)) {
window.open(btnlink);
+ } else {
+ console.error('Invalid URL protocol');
+ }
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| bw.util.bindLive(`#${btnId}`, 'click', function(){ | |
| if(btnEvent == 'no action'){ | |
| bw.popup.hideModal(); | |
| } | |
| else if(btnEvent == 'open url'){ | |
| location.href = btnlink; | |
| } | |
| else if(btnEvent == 'open url in a new tab'){ | |
| window.open(btnlink); | |
| } | |
| }); | |
| bw.util.bindLive(`#${btnId}`, 'click', function(){ | |
| if(btnEvent == 'no action'){ | |
| bw.popup.hideModal(); | |
| } | |
| else if(btnEvent == 'open url'){ | |
| const url = new URL(btnlink); | |
| if (['http:', 'https:'].includes(url.protocol)) { | |
| location.href = btnlink; | |
| } else { | |
| console.error('Invalid URL protocol'); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| else if(btnEvent == 'open url in a new tab'){ | |
| const url = new URL(btnlink); | |
| if (['http:', 'https:'].includes(url.protocol)) { | |
| window.open(btnlink); | |
| } else { | |
| console.error('Invalid URL protocol'); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| }); |
| s.type="text/javascript"; | ||
| s.async=false; | ||
| s.onerror=()=>{console.log("onboard not loaded");}; | ||
| s.src = 'http://localhost:8082/main.js=${apiKey}'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't let your apiKey slip through the cracks!
In line 74, the s.src is set to 'http://localhost:8082/main.js=${apiKey}', but variables inside single quotes won't expand. Use backticks for template literals or concatenate the string properly.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- s.src = 'http://localhost:8082/main.js=${apiKey}';
+ s.src = `http://localhost:8082/main.js?apiKey=${apiKey}`;📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| s.src = 'http://localhost:8082/main.js=${apiKey}'; | |
| s.src = `http://localhost:8082/main.js?apiKey=${apiKey}`; |
| s.async=false; | ||
| s.onerror=()=>{console.log("onboard not loaded");}; | ||
| s.src = 'http://localhost:8082/main.js=${apiKey}'; | ||
| (document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0] || document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]).appendChild(script); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops! Variable script hasn't joined the party.
In line 75, you're appending an undefined variable script. You probably meant to use s, which you created earlier.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- (document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0] || document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]).appendChild(script);
+ (document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0] || document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]).appendChild(s);Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| if (qs) { | ||
| var el = e.target || e.srcElement, | ||
| index = -1; | ||
| while (el && (index = Array.prototype.indexOf.call(qs, el)) === -1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Let's untangle the assignment from the condition for better clarity
Assigning within a condition can make the code harder to follow. Separating the assignment improves readability.
Here's a possible refactor:
- while (el && (index = Array.prototype.indexOf.call(qs, el)) === -1)
- el = el.parentElement;
+ while (el && index === -1) {
+ index = Array.prototype.indexOf.call(qs, el);
+ if (index === -1) el = el.parentElement;
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 70-70: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.
(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
| res.status(500).json({ error: error.message }); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Let's keep our errors under wraps
Returning detailed error messages to the client can reveal sensitive information. Send a generic error message instead and log the error internally.
Apply this diff:
- res.status(500).json({ error: error.message });
+ console.error(error);
+ res.status(500).json({ error: 'Internal server error' });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| res.status(500).json({ error: error.message }); | |
| } | |
| console.error(error); | |
| res.status(500).json({ error: 'Internal server error' }); | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
jsAgent/popup.js (1)
1-117: Nervous, but on the surface looks calm and ready! Architecture improvements needed! 🎯Consider these architectural improvements:
- Use event delegation instead of binding individual events
- Add ARIA attributes for accessibility
- Implement proper cleanup in a destroy method
- Add resize handling for responsive behavior
Would you like me to provide a detailed implementation for any of these improvements?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 65-65: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
jsAgent/popup.js(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
jsAgent/popup.js
[error] 65-65: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
jsAgent/popup.js (2)
45-46: Arms are heavy! Global state access needs error handling! 🤢
83-93: Palms are sweaty! Security risk in URL handling! 🔥
| overlay.insertAdjacentHTML('afterbegin', temp_html); | ||
| cb && cb(); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Knees weak! Callback handling needs improvement! 🍜
The callback execution needs proper error handling and optional chaining.
- overlay.insertAdjacentHTML('afterbegin', temp_html);
- cb && cb();
+ try {
+ overlay?.insertAdjacentHTML('afterbegin', temp_html);
+ cb?.();
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error('Failed to initialize popup:', error);
+ }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| overlay.insertAdjacentHTML('afterbegin', temp_html); | |
| cb && cb(); | |
| }, | |
| try { | |
| overlay?.insertAdjacentHTML('afterbegin', temp_html); | |
| cb?.(); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('Failed to initialize popup:', error); | |
| } | |
| }, |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 65-65: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
| (async function () { | ||
| bw.popup.init(); | ||
| })(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's vomit on his sweater already! Add error handling! 🤮
The initialization needs proper error handling to prevent silent failures.
(async function () {
+ try {
bw.popup.init();
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error('Failed to initialize popup:', error);
+ }
})();📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| (async function () { | |
| bw.popup.init(); | |
| })(); | |
| (async function () { | |
| try { | |
| bw.popup.init(); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('Failed to initialize popup:', error); | |
| } | |
| })(); |
| showModal: function () { | ||
| document.getElementById('bw-overlay').style.display = 'block'; | ||
| }, | ||
| hideModal: function(){ | ||
| document.getElementById('bw-overlay').style.display = 'none'; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mom's spaghetti! Element existence checking needed! 🍝
The show/hide modal functions need to check if elements exist before accessing them.
showModal: function () {
- document.getElementById('bw-overlay').style.display = 'block';
+ const overlay = document.getElementById('bw-overlay');
+ if (overlay) {
+ overlay.style.display = 'block';
+ } else {
+ console.error('Overlay element not found');
+ }
},
hideModal: function(){
- document.getElementById('bw-overlay').style.display = 'none';
+ const overlay = document.getElementById('bw-overlay');
+ if (overlay) {
+ overlay.style.display = 'none';
+ } else {
+ console.error('Overlay element not found');
+ }
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| showModal: function () { | |
| document.getElementById('bw-overlay').style.display = 'block'; | |
| }, | |
| hideModal: function(){ | |
| document.getElementById('bw-overlay').style.display = 'none'; | |
| } | |
| showModal: function () { | |
| const overlay = document.getElementById('bw-overlay'); | |
| if (overlay) { | |
| overlay.style.display = 'block'; | |
| } else { | |
| console.error('Overlay element not found'); | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| hideModal: function(){ | |
| const overlay = document.getElementById('bw-overlay'); | |
| if (overlay) { | |
| overlay.style.display = 'none'; | |
| } else { | |
| console.error('Overlay element not found'); | |
| } | |
| } |
| const popupDefaultOptions = { | ||
| padding: 20, | ||
| overlayOpacity:"0", | ||
| overlayBlur:0, | ||
| closeButtonAction: "no action", | ||
| popupSize: "small", | ||
| url: "https://", | ||
| actionButtonText: "Take me to subscription page", | ||
| headerBackgroundColor: "#F8F9F8", | ||
| headerColor: "#101828", | ||
| textColor: "#344054", | ||
| buttonBackgroundColor: "#7F56D9", | ||
| buttonTextColor: "#FFFFFF", | ||
| header: "default", | ||
| content: "" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo! These default options need some validation, dawg! 🍝
The configuration object needs type validation and URL sanitization. Also, consider moving colors to a theme configuration.
const popupDefaultOptions = {
+ // Add validation function
+ validate: function() {
+ if (!this.url.match(/^https?:\/\//)) {
+ throw new Error('Invalid URL protocol');
+ }
+ // Add more validation as needed
+ },
padding: 20,
overlayOpacity:"0",
overlayBlur:0,
closeButtonAction: "no action",
popupSize: "small",
- url: "https://",
+ url: "https://example.com", // Use a valid default URL
actionButtonText: "Take me to subscription page",
- headerBackgroundColor: "#F8F9F8",
- headerColor: "#101828",
- textColor: "#344054",
- buttonBackgroundColor: "#7F56D9",
- buttonTextColor: "#FFFFFF",
+ // Move colors to theme configuration
+ theme: {
+ headerBackground: "#F8F9F8",
+ headerText: "#101828",
+ text: "#344054",
+ buttonBackground: "#7F56D9",
+ buttonText: "#FFFFFF",
+ },
header: "default",
content: ""
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
🛑 Comments failed to post (47)
backend/src/test/unit/services/helperLink.test.js (1)
108-121: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
There's vomit on his sweater already! We need more error cases!
Add tests for:
- Database connection errors
- Invalid ID formats
- Cascade deletion verification (if links should be deleted too)
backend/src/test/unit/services/email.test.js (2)
57-70:
⚠️ Potential issueKnees weak, arms heavy - we're missing error handling! 💪
The test doesn't verify:
- Email template loading failures
- SMTP server errors
- HTML template compilation errors
Add error handling tests:
it("sendSignupEmail - should handle SMTP errors gracefully", async () => { process.env.EMAIL_ENABLE = "true"; transporterMock.rejects(new Error("SMTP Error")); await expect( service.sendSignupEmail(user().build().email, user().build().name) ).to.be.rejectedWith("SMTP Error"); });
18-24: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo dawg, we need to handle that environment with more care! 🛠️
The current environment backup/restore mechanism using JSON stringify/parse might miss non-enumerable properties and could lead to memory leaks.
Here's a better way to handle it:
- envOrig = JSON.stringify(process.env); + envOrig = { ...process.env }; - process.env = JSON.parse(envOrig); + process.env = envOrig;📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.before(() => { envOrig = { ...process.env }; }); after(() => { process.env = envOrig; });backend/src/test/e2e/mocks.test.mjs (4)
76-97: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
His palms are sweaty: We're missing error cases!
The test suite needs more coverage:
- Add error scenario tests:
- Server errors (500)
- Rate limiting
- Add edge cases:
- Large response payloads
- Malformed responses
Would you like me to help generate these additional test cases?
98-123: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Knees weak: Need more validation tests!
The POST endpoint tests are missing crucial scenarios:
- Invalid userId formats
- Missing userId in request body
- Request body validation errors
it("should return 400 when userId is missing", async () => { const res = await chai.request .execute(app) .post("/api/mock/onboard") .send({}); expect(res).to.have.status(400); }); it("should return 400 when userId is invalid", async () => { const res = await chai.request .execute(app) .post("/api/mock/onboard") .send({ userId: "" }); expect(res).to.have.status(400); });
15-22: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Mom's spaghetti alert: Error handling needs beefing up!
The error handling is looking weak in the knees. Consider:
- Log the full stack trace for better debugging
- Add an
afterhook to clean up database connectionsbefore(async () => { try { await waitOn(dbReadyOptions); } catch (err) { - console.error("Database not ready in time:", err); + console.error("Database not ready in time:", err.stack); throw err; } }); +after(async () => { + // TODO: Add cleanup logic +});Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
23-75: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Vomit on his sweater already: Let's clean up these tests!
The test cases need some cleanup:
- Extract popup data to fixtures to avoid duplication
- Add missing test cases:
- Empty key parameter
- Special characters in key
- Validate response headers (Content-Type: application/json)
+const popupFixtures = { + A: [{ /* popup A data */ }], + B: [{ /* popup B data */ }] +}; it("should return 200 and a list with one popup when key is A", async () => { const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/mock/popup?key=A"); expect(res).to.have.status(200); + expect(res).to.have.header('content-type', 'application/json'); - expect(res.body).to.be.deep.equal([...]); + expect(res.body).to.be.deep.equal(popupFixtures.A); });Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/test/unit/controllers/popup.test.js (1)
174-186:
⚠️ Potential issueUse 404 Status Code When Popup Not Found in Deletion
Mom's spaghetti—don't miss your chance to get the status codes right. In the
deletePopupcontroller, when the popup is not found, it's returning a 400 error. To accurately represent the situation, use a 404 status code to indicate that the resource was not found.Apply this diff to correct the status code in your test:
- expect(status).to.be.equal(400); + expect(status).to.be.equal(404);And ensure the controller method returns a 404 status code when the popup doesn't exist.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.it("should return 400 if popup is not found", async () => { req.params = { id: "123" }; serviceMock.deletePopup = sinon .stub(popupService, "deletePopup") .resolves(null); await popupController.deletePopup(req, res); const status = res.status.getCall(0).args[0]; const body = res.json.getCall(0).args[0]; expect(status).to.be.equal(404); expect(body).to.be.deep.equal({ errors: [{ msg: "Popup with the specified id does not exist" }], }); });backend/src/test/e2e/link.test.mjs (6)
23-24:
⚠️ Potential issueCheck usage of
chai.request.execute()The method
chai.request.execute(app)doesn't align with the typical Chai HTTP syntax. Usually, requests are initiated withchai.request(app). Let's adjust to ensure the tests execute correctly.Apply this diff to replace
execute(app)with(app):- await chai.request.execute(app) + await chai.request(app)Also applies to: 52-54, 70-71, 82-83, 94-95, 106-107, 118-119, 130-131, 142-143, 159-160, 176-177, 210-212, 228-229, 244-245, 286-287, 310-312, 328-329, 343-344, 360-362, 404-406, 422-423, 437-438, 449-450, 461-462, 473-474, 485-486, 508-510, 531-532, 553-554, 591-593, 608-609, 623-624
279-283:
⚠️ Potential issueDon't lose yourself: Incorrect HTTP method and endpoint in test
You're testing "GET /api/link/all_links" without a token, but the request is making a
POSTto/api/link/add_link. Let's seize the opportunity to set it right.Apply this diff:
- const res = await chai.request.execute(app).post("/api/link/add_link"); + const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/link/all_links");📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/link/all_links"); expect(res).to.have.status(401); const body = res.body; expect(body).to.be.deep.equal({ error: "No token provided" }); });
321-325:
⚠️ Potential issueStay on beat: Incorrect HTTP method and endpoint in test
The test for "GET /api/link/get_link/:id" without a token is using a
POSTrequest to/api/link/add_link. Let's adjust the flow to match the intended test.Apply this diff:
- const res = await chai.request.execute(app).post("/api/link/add_link"); + const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/link/get_link/1");📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/link/get_link/1"); expect(res).to.have.status(401); const body = res.body; expect(body).to.be.deep.equal({ error: "No token provided" }); });
221-225:
⚠️ Potential issueCaught in the moment: Incorrect HTTP method and endpoint in test
In this test for "GET /api/link/get_links" without a token, the request is incorrectly using
POSTto/api/link/add_link. Let's keep the rhythm steady by correcting the method and endpoint.Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- const res = await chai.request.execute(app).post("/api/link/add_link"); + const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/link/get_links");📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = await chai.request.execute(app).get("/api/link/get_links"); expect(res).to.have.status(401); const body = res.body; expect(body).to.be.deep.equal({ error: "No token provided" }); });
601-605:
⚠️ Potential issueKeep the momentum: Incorrect HTTP method and endpoint in test
When testing "DELETE /api/link/delete_link/:id" without a token, the code uses a
POSTrequest to/api/link/add_link. Let's correct the path to success.Apply this diff:
- const res = await chai.request.execute(app).post("/api/link/add_link"); + const res = await chai.request.execute(app).delete("/api/link/delete_link/1");📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = await chai.request.execute(app).delete("/api/link/delete_link/1"); expect(res).to.have.status(401); const body = res.body; expect(body).to.be.deep.equal({ error: "No token provided" }); });
415-419:
⚠️ Potential issueHold steady: Incorrect HTTP method and endpoint in test
In the test for "PUT /api/link/edit_link/:id" without a token, the request is incorrectly set to
POST/api/link/add_link. Let's make sure we're hitting the right notes.Apply this diff:
- const res = await chai.request.execute(app).post("/api/link/add_link"); + const res = await chai.request.execute(app).put("/api/link/edit_link/1");📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const res = await chai.request.execute(app).put("/api/link/edit_link/1"); expect(res).to.have.status(401); const body = res.body; expect(body).to.be.deep.equal({ error: "No token provided" }); });backend/src/test/unit/services/team.test.js (2)
179-184:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure roles aren't shaky
In the
updateUserRoletest, you're updating the user's role to"member", but the assertion checks forrole: "2". This inconsistency could cause confusion and inaccurate test results. Let's align the role values to keep everything steady.Suggested fix:
expect(params[0]).to.deep.equal({ - role: "2", + role: "member", });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.expect(params[0]).to.deep.equal({ role: "member", }); expect(params[1]).to.deep.equal({ where: { id: 1 }, });
87-94:
⚠️ Potential issueDon't let the team update slip away
The 'where' condition in
Team.updateis currently empty, which could lead to updating all teams instead of the intended one. To avoid unintended consequences, ensure you're specifying the correct team in the 'where' clause.Here's a suggested fix:
expect(params[1]).to.deep.equal({ - where: {}, + where: { id: teamId }, // Replace with the appropriate team ID });Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/test/unit/controllers/auth.test.js (1)
317-317:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity concern: Hardcoded JSON Web Token
Including a hardcoded JWT on line 317 makes the code vulnerable and might cause us some serious headaches. It's best to use a mock token or generate it securely within the test environment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
317-317: Uncovered a JSON Web Token, which may lead to unauthorized access to web applications and sensitive user data.
(jwt)
backend/src/test/e2e/banner.test.mjs (1)
24-24:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid modifying
process.env.NODE_ENVwithin testsChanging
process.env.NODE_ENVduring tests might lead to unexpected problems that we don't want to face. It's safer to set environment variables outside the test suites or use specific configurations for testing.Also applies to: 50-50, 182-182, 207-207, 279-279, 305-305
backend/src/test/e2e/helperLink.test.mjs (1)
130-131:
⚠️ Potential issueDon't lose yourself by altering
process.env.NODE_ENVwithin testsChanging
process.env.NODE_ENVduring tests can lead to unexpected side effects and muddle your test environment. Instead, consider using configuration files or mocking to simulate different environments without changing the actual environment variable.Also applies to: 249-250, 308-309, 374-375, 480-481, 578-579
backend/src/test/e2e/popup.test.mjs (3)
68-68:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid changing
process.env.NODE_ENVwithin tests to prevent side effects.Modifying
process.env.NODE_ENVinside your tests can make your environment unstable, causing your tests to become shaky. Consider using configuration files or dependency injection to manage environment variables without altering the global state.Also applies to: 264-264, 363-363
21-35:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure proper cleanup of database connections in
setupTestDatabase.The
afterhook insetupTestDatabaseattempts to release a connection but may not close all active connections, leaving resources hanging like arms are heavy. Ensure all connections are properly closed after tests to prevent potential leaks.
50-54: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Handle errors in user registration gracefully.
In the
beforeEachhooks, if user registration fails, it could cause your tests to vomit errors all over the place. Add error handling to manage failed registrations and keep your test flow steady.Also applies to: 246-250, 345-349
backend/Dockerfile (1)
9-9:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid deleting
package-lock.jsonto ensure consistent builds.Removing
package-lock.jsoncan lead to unpredictable dependency versions, causing your build to feel unsteady. Keep the lock file to lock in your dependencies and maintain reliable, repeatable builds.backend/src/controllers/invite.controller.js (1)
41-41: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Re-evaluate exporting
inviteServicefrom the controller.Exporting
inviteServicedirectly from the controller can blur the separation of concerns, making your application architecture heavier than needed. Consider exporting services from dedicated modules to keep your codebase clean and maintainable.backend/src/test/mocks/hint.mock.js (1)
5-17: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
These default values need some validation sauce! 🍝
The color values and actions could use some validation to prevent invalid states from sneaking in like unwanted garlic in a dessert pasta.
Consider adding validation and constants:
+ const VALID_ACTIONS = ['open url in a new tab', 'close', 'next']; + const isValidHexColor = (color) => /^#[0-9A-F]{6}$/i.test(color); class HintBuilder { constructor(id) { this.hint = { id, - action: "open url in a new tab", + action: VALID_ACTIONS[0], // ... other properties }; + // Validate colors + if (!isValidHexColor(this.hint.headerBackgroundColor)) { + throw new Error('Invalid header background color format'); + } // Add similar validation for other colors } }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/service/email.service.js (1)
21-26:
⚠️ Potential issueKnees weak: Avoid sync operations in Node.js! 🚫
Using synchronous file operations can block the event loop. Consider using async file reading instead.
const readHTMLFile = (filePath) => { return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { - try { - const file = fs.readFileSync(filePath, { encoding: "utf-8" }); - resolve(file); - } catch (err) { - reject(new Error(`Failed to read template file ${filePath}: ${err.message}`)); - } + fs.readFile(filePath, { encoding: "utf-8" }, (err, file) => { + if (err) { + reject(new Error(`Failed to read template file ${filePath}: ${err.message}`)); + return; + } + resolve(file); + }); }); };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.fs.readFile(filePath, { encoding: "utf-8" }, (err, file) => { if (err) { reject(new Error(`Failed to read template file ${filePath}: ${err.message}`)); return; } resolve(file); });backend/src/test/mocks/tour.mock.js (1)
2-10: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
There's vomit on his sweater: Move these constants outside the class! 🤢
These arrays should be static constants or moved outside the class to avoid recreating them for each instance.
+const TRIGGERING_FREQUENCIES = [ + "just once", + "once in every session", + "once every day", + "once every week", + "once every month", + "always", +]; + +const PAGE_TARGETING = ["equals to", "is different from"]; + class TourBuilder { - triggeringFrequency = [ - "just once", - "once in every session", - "once every day", - "once every week", - "once every month", - "always", - ]; - pageTargeting = ["equals to", "is different from"]; constructor(id) { this.tour = { id: id, title: `title ${id}`, description: "description", statusActive: true, - pageTargeting: this.pageTargeting[0], + pageTargeting: PAGE_TARGETING[0], theme: "default theme", - triggeringFrequency: this.triggeringFrequency[0], + triggeringFrequency: TRIGGERING_FREQUENCIES[0], createdBy: 1, }; }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const TRIGGERING_FREQUENCIES = [ "just once", "once in every session", "once every day", "once every week", "once every month", "always", ]; const PAGE_TARGETING = ["equals to", "is different from"]; class TourBuilder { constructor(id) { this.tour = { id: id, title: `title ${id}`, description: "description", statusActive: true, pageTargeting: PAGE_TARGETING[0], theme: "default theme", triggeringFrequency: TRIGGERING_FREQUENCIES[0], createdBy: 1, }; }backend/src/server.js (3)
59-62:
⚠️ Potential issueThat error handler's spitting out too much info! 🤫
This generic error handler is vomiting stack traces to the client. Let's clean it up:
app.use((err, req, res, next) => { - console.error(err.stack); + const isDev = process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development'; + console.error(`${err.name}: ${err.message}\n${err.stack}`); + res.status(err.status || 500).json({ + error: isDev ? err.message : 'Internal Server Error', + ...(isDev && { stack: err.stack }) + }); - res.status(500).json({ message: 'Internal Server Error' }); });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.app.use((err, req, res, next) => { const isDev = process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development'; console.error(`${err.name}: ${err.message}\n${err.stack}`); res.status(err.status || 500).json({ error: isDev ? err.message : 'Internal Server Error', ...(isDev && { stack: err.stack }) }); });
28-32:
⚠️ Potential issueYo dawg, we need to tighten up that CORS config! 🔒
The current CORS setup is wide open like mom's spaghetti. Consider restricting it to specific origins:
-app.use(cors()); +app.use(cors({ + origin: process.env.ALLOWED_ORIGINS?.split(',') || 'http://localhost:3000', + methods: ['GET', 'POST', 'PUT', 'DELETE'], + credentials: true +}));Also, that commented-out fileSizeValidator is making me nervous! Either implement it or remove it - don't leave it hanging!
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
46-57: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
These routes need some versioning love! 🎵
All these routes are straight-up raw like uncooked spaghetti. Let's version them for better maintainability:
-app.use('/api/auth', authRoutes); +app.use('/api/v1/auth', authRoutes);Apply this pattern to all routes to prevent breaking changes in the future.
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/test/mocks/user.mock.js (2)
3-12:
⚠️ Potential issueYo, these roles are more mixed up than a rap battle! 🎤
There's inconsistency in the role type:
validUserhasrole: 1UserBuilderhasrole: "admin"Let's keep it consistent with an enum:
+const UserRole = { + ADMIN: 1, + USER: 2 +}; const validUser = { // ... - role: 1, + role: UserRole.ADMIN, // ... }; class UserBuilder { constructor() { this.user = { // ... - role: "admin", + role: UserRole.ADMIN, // ... }; } }Also applies to: 67-79
97-104: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
These password validation patterns are weaker than my knees! 💪
Let's strengthen the password validation:
invalidPasswordChar() { - this.user.password = "password"; + this.user.password = "weakpassword"; return this; } invalidPasswordLength() { - this.user.password = "p@sswo"; + this.user.password = "p@s"; // Too short return this; } +invalidPasswordComplexity() { + this.user.password = "password123"; // Missing special chars + return this; +}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.invalidPasswordChar() { this.user.password = "weakpassword"; return this; } invalidPasswordLength() { this.user.password = "p@s"; // Too short return this; } invalidPasswordComplexity() { this.user.password = "password123"; // Missing special chars return this; }backend/src/test/mocks/helperLink.mock.js (1)
90-103: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
These color validations are making me lose myself! 🎵
Let's add proper hex color validation:
+const isValidHexColor = (color) => /^#([A-Fa-f0-9]{6}|[A-Fa-f0-9]{3})$/.test(color); invalidHeaderBackgroundColor() { - this.helperLink.headerBackgroundColor = "color"; + this.helperLink.headerBackgroundColor = "not-a-hex-color"; + if (!isValidHexColor(this.helperLink.headerBackgroundColor)) { + throw new Error('Invalid hex color format'); + } return this; }Apply similar validation to
linkFontColorandiconColormethods.Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/test/unit/controllers/invite.test.js (1)
24-38: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Mom's spaghetti time - we need more validation tests! 🍜
The success case looks good, but we're missing validation tests for invalid inputs.
Add these test cases:
it("sendTeamInvite - should return 400 for invalid email", async () => { req.user = { id: 1 }; req.body = { invitedEmail: "not-an-email", role: "admin" }; await controller.sendTeamInvite(req, res); expect(res.status.args[0][0]).to.be.equal(400); }); it("sendTeamInvite - should return 400 for invalid role", async () => { req.user = { id: 1 }; req.body = { invitedEmail: "[email protected]", role: "superadmin" }; await controller.sendTeamInvite(req, res); expect(res.status.args[0][0]).to.be.equal(400); });.github/workflows/node.js.yml (2)
23-23:
⚠️ Potential issueKnees weak, arms heavy - that Node version tho! 😰
Using Node.js 22.x might be too bleeding edge for production. Consider using LTS version 20.x for better stability.
- node-version: [22.x] + node-version: [20.x]Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
100-100: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Vomit on his sweater already - let's make that Docker command more robust! 🤢
The Docker compose command could use some improvements for better reliability.
- run: docker compose up --build -d + run: | + docker compose down --remove-orphans + docker compose up --build -d + docker compose ps📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.run: | docker compose down --remove-orphans docker compose up --build -d docker compose psbackend/src/test/unit/services/invite.test.js (1)
21-21: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
He's nervous, but on the surface the tests look calm and ready! 💪
The
beforeEachhook should clean up the mock objects.- beforeEach(sinon.restore); + beforeEach(() => { + sinon.restore(); + Object.keys(UserMock).forEach(key => delete UserMock[key]); + Object.keys(InviteMock).forEach(key => delete InviteMock[key]); + });Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/service/team.service.js (1)
18-20: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo dawg, we need better error logging here!
The error message is too generic and doesn't include the original error details, making it harder to debug issues in production.
Here's a better way to handle it:
- await transaction.rollback(); - throw new Error("Failed to create team"); + await transaction.rollback(); + throw new Error(`Failed to create team: ${err.message}`);Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/test/mocks/banner.mock.js (1)
7-8: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Knees weak: URL validation missing!
The URL property accepts any string without validation. This could lead to invalid test scenarios.
Add a method to validate URLs:
+ isValidUrl(url) { + try { + new URL(url); + return true; + } catch { + return false; + } + }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
backend/src/controllers/team.controller.js (1)
133-133:
⚠️ Potential issueMom's spaghetti: Exposing service instance directly!
Exporting the service instance directly could lead to unintended modifications of the service state from other modules.
Consider exporting only the controller methods:
- module.exports = { setOrganisation, getTeamDetails, updateTeamDetails, removeMember, changeRole, getTeamCount, teamService }; + module.exports = { setOrganisation, getTeamDetails, updateTeamDetails, removeMember, changeRole, getTeamCount };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.module.exports = { setOrganisation, getTeamDetails, updateTeamDetails, removeMember, changeRole, getTeamCount };backend/src/controllers/link.controller.js (3)
22-27:
⚠️ Potential issueYo, heads up! There's a race condition lurking in the shadows! 🏃♂️
The order validation could lead to race conditions when multiple links are created simultaneously. Consider using a transaction to ensure order consistency.
// Example transaction usage const transaction = await db.sequelize.transaction(); try { const allLinks = await linkService.getLinksByHelperId(helperId, { transaction }); // ... validation and creation logic ... await transaction.commit(); } catch (error) { await transaction.rollback(); throw error; }🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 23-23: isNaN is unsafe. It attempts a type coercion. Use Number.isNaN instead.
See the MDN documentation for more details.
Unsafe fix: Use Number.isNaN instead.(lint/suspicious/noGlobalIsNan)
23-23:
⚠️ Potential issueYo, these isNaN checks are sketchy! Let's make them bulletproof! 💪
Replace unsafe
isNaN()withNumber.isNaN()for more reliable number validation.- if (order && (isNaN(order) || order > allLinks.length + 1 || order < 0)) { + if (order && (Number.isNaN(Number(order)) || order > allLinks.length + 1 || order < 0)) {Also applies to: 81-81, 98-98, 139-139
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 23-23: isNaN is unsafe. It attempts a type coercion. Use Number.isNaN instead.
See the MDN documentation for more details.
Unsafe fix: Use Number.isNaN instead.(lint/suspicious/noGlobalIsNan)
34-34:
⚠️ Potential issueYo, we need some validation for this target param! 🎯
The
targetparameter is being used without validation. Add type checking to ensure it's a boolean value.+ if (target !== undefined && typeof target !== 'boolean') { + return res.status(400).json({ + errors: [{ msg: "target must be a boolean value" }], + }); + }Also applies to: 109-109
backend/src/controllers/helperLink.controller.js (1)
26-26:
⚠️ Potential issueYo! Replace global isNaN with Number.isNaN for safer type checking.
The global
isNaNfunction attempts type coercion which can lead to unexpected results. UseNumber.isNaNinstead.- if ((order && isNaN(order)) || order < 1) { + if ((order && Number.isNaN(Number(order))) || order < 1) { - if (isNaN(id) || id.trim() === "") { + if (Number.isNaN(Number(id)) || id.trim() === "") {Also applies to: 119-119
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 26-26: isNaN is unsafe. It attempts a type coercion. Use Number.isNaN instead.
See the MDN documentation for more details.
Unsafe fix: Use Number.isNaN instead.(lint/suspicious/noGlobalIsNan)
backend/src/test/unit/controllers/user.test.js (1)
77-99:
⚠️ Potential issueFix inconsistent test assertions in updateUserDetails
The test mocks a user with name "Jane" but asserts against different values in the response. This could lead to flaky tests.
Apply this fix:
expect(res.json.args[0][0]).to.be.deep.equal({ updated: true, user: { - name: "Jane", - surname: "Doe", + name: mocks.validUser.name, + surname: mocks.validUser.surname, }, });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.it("updateUserDetails - if everything goes right, should return the updated user without the password", async () => { const users = sinon .stub(userService, "updateUser") .resolves(mocks.validUser); req.user = mocks.validUser; req.body = { name: "Joana", surname: "D'ark", }; await controller.updateUserDetails(req, res); expect(users.args[0]).to.be.deep.equal([ 1, { name: "Joana", surname: "D'ark" }, ]); expect(res.status.args[0][0]).to.be.equal(200); expect(res.json.args[0][0]).to.be.deep.equal({ updated: true, user: { name: mocks.validUser.name, surname: mocks.validUser.surname, }, }); });backend/src/test/unit/services/user.test.js (1)
56-84: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add SQL injection tests for search parameters
Consider adding test cases to verify that the search functionality properly escapes special characters to prevent SQL injection.
backend/src/test/unit/controllers/team.test.js (1)
225-252:
⚠️ Potential issueEnhance role management test coverage
The role change tests should include:
- Invalid role values
- Self-role change attempts
- Last admin role change prevention
adding jsAgent structure and popup implementation