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(input-otp): form validation hook missing behavior prop #4417

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 22, 2024

Conversation

Peterl561
Copy link
Contributor

@Peterl561 Peterl561 commented Dec 21, 2024

Closes #

📝 Description

  • validationBehavior wasn't being passed properly to useFormValidation hook in use-input-otp
  • this prevented the useLayoutEffect in useFormValidation from executing validationState.updateValidation

⛳️ Current behavior (updates)

before.1.mp4

🚀 New behavior

after.1.mp4

💣 Is this a breaking change (Yes/No):

No

📝 Additional Information

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Addressed an issue with the isRequired property not displaying errors for the InputOtp component when using native validation.
  • Tests

    • Introduced a new test suite for validation of the InputOtp component, ensuring correct behavior of required fields and error handling.
  • Chores

    • Updated the validation logic in the useInputOtp function to improve how validation behavior is applied.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Dec 21, 2024

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 4f0f474

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages
Name Type
@nextui-org/input-otp Patch
@nextui-org/react Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

Copy link

vercel bot commented Dec 21, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
nextui-docs-v2 ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Dec 21, 2024 0:11am
nextui-storybook-v2 ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Dec 21, 2024 0:11am

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 21, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a patch for the @nextui-org/input-otp package, focusing on improving the validation behavior of the input component. The changes address an issue where the isRequired property did not correctly display an error when the validationBehavior was set to native. A new test suite has been added to verify the validation logic, and the useInputOtp function has been modified to ensure proper validation handling.

Changes

File Change Summary
.changeset/nasty-dolls-tease.md Patch applied to @nextui-org/input-otp package
packages/components/input-otp/__tests__/input-otp.test.tsx Added new validation test suite with a test case for isRequired and validationBehavior=native
packages/components/input-otp/src/use-input-otp.ts Modified useInputOtp function to explicitly include validationBehavior when calling useFormValidation

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant Form
    participant InputOTP
    participant Validation

    User->>Form: Submit form
    Form->>InputOTP: Check validation
    InputOTP->>Validation: Validate input
    alt Input is invalid
        Validation-->>InputOTP: Return error
        InputOTP-->>Form: Display error
        Form-->>User: Show validation message
    else Input is valid
        Validation-->>InputOTP: Validation passes
        InputOTP-->>Form: Confirm valid input
    end
Loading

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

👀 Status: In Review, 📋 Scope : Docs

Suggested reviewers

  • wingkwong
  • jrgarciadev

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.


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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @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.

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

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.changeset/nasty-dolls-tease.md (1)

1-5: Consider enhancing the changelog message

The current message could be more descriptive. Consider expanding it to:

-fixed isRequired not showing error when validationBehavior=native is not explicitly set
+fixed isRequired validation not triggering error states when validationBehavior=native was not explicitly set. This ensures proper form validation behavior for required OTP inputs regardless of how the validationBehavior is configured.
packages/components/input-otp/__tests__/input-otp.test.tsx (1)

189-226: LGTM! Good test coverage for the fix

The test suite effectively verifies the fix by checking:

  • Required attribute propagation
  • Error state on invalid submission
  • Error state clearing on reset

Consider adding these test cases to improve coverage:

it("should work with implicit validationBehavior", async () => {
  const {getByTestId} = render(
    <Form>
      <InputOtp isRequired data-testid="base" length={4} />
      <button data-testid="submit" type="submit" />
    </Form>
  );
  // ... similar validation checks
});

it("should show correct error message for required field", async () => {
  const {getByTestId} = render(
    <Form validationBehavior="native">
      <InputOtp 
        isRequired 
        data-testid="base" 
        length={4}
        errorMessage="This field is required" 
      />
      <button data-testid="submit" type="submit" />
    </Form>
  );
  // ... verify error message content
});
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5494fa2 and 4f0f474.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • .changeset/nasty-dolls-tease.md (1 hunks)
  • packages/components/input-otp/__tests__/input-otp.test.tsx (2 hunks)
  • packages/components/input-otp/src/use-input-otp.ts (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/components/input-otp/src/use-input-otp.ts (1)

161-161: LGTM! Correct fix for validation behavior propagation

The change ensures that validationBehavior is explicitly passed to useFormValidation, fixing the issue where required validation wasn't working correctly.

@wingkwong wingkwong added this to the v2.6.9 milestone Dec 21, 2024
Copy link
Member

@jrgarciadev jrgarciadev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! @Peterl561

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants