Ensure correct emails are sent for project status changes related to vouching #1853
Conversation
…decentralized verification
WalkthroughThe changes in Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/server/adminJs/tabs/projectsTab.ts (2)
1313-1313: Consistent naming of action 'revokeGivbacksEligible'In line 1313, the action name
revokeGivbacksEligiblemay be better named asrevokeGivbacksEligibilityto match the function name and improve clarity.
300-300: Clarify message terminology for better user understandingIn line 300, the message uses "vouched" and "unvouched". Consider using more standard terms like "approved" and "unapproved" or "vouched" and "unvouched for" to enhance clarity for the end-users.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- src/server/adminJs/tabs/projectsTab.ts (7 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/server/adminJs/tabs/projectsTab.ts (1)
193-195: Ensure 'projectIds' is defined before proceedingIn lines 193-195,
projectIdscould be undefined or an empty array ifrequest.query.recordIdsis undefined or empty. Consider adding a check to ensureprojectIdscontains valid IDs before proceeding with the update operation.
| records: records.map(record => { | ||
| record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin); | ||
| }), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix mapping function to return values in 'records.map'
In lines 231-233, the mapping function does not return any values, resulting in an array of undefined elements. To fix this, ensure that the callback returns the result of record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin);.
Apply this diff to correct the issue:
records: records.map(record => {
- record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin);
+ return record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin);
}),Alternatively, simplify the code:
- records: records.map(record => {
- record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin);
- }),
+ records: records.map(record => record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin)),📝 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.
| records: records.map(record => { | |
| record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin); | |
| }), | |
| records: records.map(record => record.toJSON(context.currentAdmin)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/server/adminJs/tabs/projectsTab.test.ts (3)
456-469: Add Assertions to Validate Givbacks Eligibility RevocationAfter calling
revokeGivbacksEligibility, consider adding assertions to confirm that the project's Givbacks eligibility has been properly revoked. This enhances the test by verifying the expected outcome.
543-545: Use Strict Equality Checks for AssertionsFor clearer intent and to avoid potential type coercion issues, consider using
assert.strictEqualinstead ofassert.isTruewhen comparing values:assert.strictEqual( updatedProject!.verificationStatus, project.verificationStatus, );
456-469: Provide Comments Explaining the Test LogicAdding comments to explain why
revokeGivbacksEligibilityis called afterverifyProjectswould improve code readability and maintainability. It helps other developers understand the test's purpose.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- package.json (1 hunks)
- src/server/adminJs/tabs/projectsTab.test.ts (4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
package.json (1)
138-138: LGTM: New test script for projects tabThe addition of the "test:projectsTab" script is consistent with the project's testing structure and naming conventions. It appropriately sets the test environment and uses the project's standard test runner (mocha). This new test likely covers the AdminJS interface for managing project statuses, which aligns with the PR's objective of ensuring correct emails for project status changes.
src/server/adminJs/tabs/projectsTab.test.ts (2)
38-38: Ensure Proper Testing ofrevokeGivbacksEligibilityFunctionThe function
revokeGivbacksEligibilityis now imported. Verify that all necessary test cases are added to cover this function's behavior thoroughly.
456-469: Confirm Necessity of Sequential Calls toverifyProjectsandrevokeGivbacksEligibilityIn the test case, after calling
verifyProjectswithfalse, you immediately callrevokeGivbacksEligibility. Ensure that calling both functions in sequence is required and that their combined effect is intentional and correct.
| assert.isTrue( | ||
| updatedProject!.verificationStatus === project.verificationStatus, | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assertion May Not Reflect Updated Verification Status
The assertion checks if the updated project's verificationStatus remains the same as before:
assert.isTrue(
updatedProject!.verificationStatus === project.verificationStatus,
);Since the project's verification status might change after calling verifyProjects, consider verifying against the expected new status to ensure the test accurately reflects the intended behavior.
| PROJECT_VERIFICATION_STATUSES.DRAFT, | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential Mismatch in Verification Form Status After Verification
You assert that the updatedVerificationForm status is DRAFT after verifying the project:
assert.equal(
updatedVerificationForm!.status,
PROJECT_VERIFICATION_STATUSES.DRAFT,
);However, after verification, shouldn't the status be VERIFIED? Confirm that DRAFT is the intended status in this context.
| PROJECT_VERIFICATION_STATUSES.VERIFIED, | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Verification Form Status Should Reflect Unverification
In the test case where a project is unverified, the assertion is:
assert.equal(
updatedVerificationForm!.status,
PROJECT_VERIFICATION_STATUSES.VERIFIED,
);Since the project is unverified, the verification form status might need to be updated to DRAFT or another appropriate status to reflect this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
src/services/cronJobs/checkProjectVerificationStatus.test.ts (5)
Line range hint
26-43: LGTM! Consider updating the test description.The changes from
verifiedtoisGivbackEligibleare consistent with the PR objective. This modification likely reflects a shift in the project's eligibility criteria from verification to GIVback eligibility.Consider updating the test description to reflect this change:
- it('should send a warning when project update is more than 45 days old', async () => { + it('should send a warning when GIVback eligible project update is more than 45 days old', async () => {This would make the test description more accurate and aligned with the new criteria being tested.
Line range hint
45-64: LGTM! Consider updating the test description for consistency.The changes from
verifiedtoisGivbackEligibleare consistent with the previous test case and align with the PR objective.For consistency with the previous test case, consider updating the test description:
- it('should send a last chance warning when project update is more than 90 days old', async () => { + it('should send a last chance warning when GIVback eligible project update is more than 90 days old', async () => {This would maintain consistency across test descriptions and accurately reflect the new criteria being tested.
Line range hint
65-86: LGTM! Consider clarifying the test description.The changes from
verifiedtoisGivbackEligibleare consistent with the previous test cases and align with the PR objective.To improve clarity and consistency, consider updating the test description to reflect the GIVback eligibility criteria:
- it('should change project verificationStatus to upForRevoking after last chance time frame expired', async () => { + it('should change GIVback eligible project verificationStatus to upForRevoking after last chance time frame expired', async () => {This update would make the test description more accurate and consistent with the new criteria being tested.
Line range hint
87-103: LGTM! Consider enhancing the test description for clarity.The changes from
verifiedtoisGivbackEligibleare consistent with the previous test cases and align with the PR objective.To improve clarity and consistency, consider updating the test description to reflect both the GIVback eligibility criteria and the imported project status:
- it('should not check updates for imported projects', async () => { + it('should not check updates for GIVback eligible imported projects', async () => {This update would make the test description more accurate and comprehensive, reflecting both the new eligibility criteria and the specific case of imported projects being tested.
Line range hint
104-231: Review and update or remove commented-out test cases.There are several commented-out test cases at the end of the file that have not been updated to reflect the changes from
verifiedtoisGivbackEligible. These may be outdated or no longer relevant due to the changes in eligibility criteria.Consider reviewing these commented-out test cases and either:
- Update them to align with the new
isGivbackEligiblecriteria if they are still relevant.- Remove them if they are no longer applicable to reduce code clutter and potential confusion.
Keeping the test suite clean and up-to-date will improve maintainability and clarity for future developers working on this code.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/repositories/projectRepository.ts (1 hunks)
- src/services/cronJobs/checkProjectVerificationStatus.test.ts (8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/services/cronJobs/checkProjectVerificationStatus.test.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-231: Overall, the changes look good with some minor improvements suggested.The modifications from
verifiedtoisGivbackEligibleare consistent across all active test cases and align well with the PR objective of ensuring correct emails for project status changes related to vouching.Here's a summary of the suggested improvements:
- Update test descriptions in all active test cases to reflect the new GIVback eligibility criteria for improved clarity and consistency.
- Review and update or remove the commented-out test cases at the end of the file to ensure all tests are current and relevant.
These changes will enhance the overall quality and maintainability of the test suite.
| @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ export const projectsWithoutUpdateAfterTimeFrame = async ( | |||
| 'project.title', | |||
| ]) | |||
| .where('project.isImported = false') | |||
| .andWhere('project.verified = true') | |||
| .andWhere('project.isGivbackEligible = true') | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Potential Issue Detected with Project Eligibility Filtering
The replacement of project.verified = true with project.isGivbackEligible = true drastically reduces the number of eligible projects from multiple instances to just one. This significant change may inadvertently exclude many projects that were previously considered verified, potentially impacting email notifications and other dependent functionalities.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM. Verify the impact on project selection.
The change from project.verified = true to project.isGivbackEligible = true aligns with the PR objective of ensuring correct emails for project status changes related to vouching. This modification shifts the focus from verified projects to Givback eligible projects, which is likely the intended behavior.
To ensure this change doesn't unexpectedly alter the set of projects being processed, please run the following verification:
This script will help us understand the potential impact of this change on the number of projects being processed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Compare the number of projects affected by this change
# Check the number of verified projects
echo "Number of verified projects:"
rg --type typescript 'project\.verified\s*=\s*true' -c
# Check the number of Givback eligible projects
echo "Number of Givback eligible projects:"
rg --type typescript 'project\.isGivbackEligible\s*=\s*true' -c
# Check for any other usages of isGivbackEligible
echo "Other usages of isGivbackEligible:"
rg --type typescript 'isGivbackEligible' -C 2
Length of output: 502
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Compare the number of projects affected by this change
# Check the number of verified projects
echo "Number of verified projects:"
rg 'project\.verified\s*=\s*true' -c -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx"
# Check the number of Givback eligible projects
echo "Number of Givback eligible projects:"
rg 'project\.isGivbackEligible\s*=\s*true' -c -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx"
# Check for any other usages of isGivbackEligible
echo "Other usages of isGivbackEligible:"
rg 'isGivbackEligible' -C 2 -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx"
Length of output: 70881
RamRamez
deleted the
Ensure-correct-emails-are-sent-for-project-status-changes-related-to-decentralized-verification
branch
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests