Feat/be/monitor module refactor #1114
Conversation
![llamapreview[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1023541?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview
1. Change Overview
1.1 Core Changes
- Primary purpose and scope: This PR aims to refactor the DB monitor module for clarity and robustness, and to add tests for the monitor module.
- Key components modified: The main file modified is
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js. - Cross-component impacts: The changes primarily affect the monitor module and its interactions with checks and monitors.
- Business value alignment: Improves the maintainability, readability, and robustness of the monitor module, which in turn helps in better tracking and handling of server uptime and incidents.
1.2 Technical Architecture
- System design modifications: The refactor involves breaking down complex functions into smaller, more manageable helper functions. This improves code readability and maintainability.
- Component interaction changes: The interactions with the Check model and the Monitor model are streamlined, making the data flow more explicit.
- Integration points impact: Functions are now more modular, which can help in easier integration with other parts of the system.
- Dependency changes and implications: No significant changes in dependencies are noted, but the refactor could simplify future updates and maintenance.
2. Deep Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Analysis
[File Path] - Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js
[Function/Class Name] - getMonitorStatsById
- Submitted PR Code:
const getMonitorStatsById = async (req) => { try { const { monitorId } = req.params; const monitor = await Monitor.findById(monitorId); if (monitor === null || monitor === undefined) { throw new Error(errorMessages.DB_FIND_MONITOR_BY_ID(monitorId)); } const model = CHECK_MODEL_LOOKUP[monitor.type]; const dates = getDateRange(req.query.dateRange); const { checksAll, checksForDateRange } = await getMonitorChecks( monitorId, model, dates, req.query.sortOrder === "asc" ? 1 : -1 ); const monitorStats = { ...monitor.toObject(), uptimeDuration: calculateUptimeDuration(checksAll), lastChecked: getLastChecked(checksAll), latestResponseTime: getLatestResponseTime(checksAll), periodIncidents: getIncidents(checksForDateRange), periodTotalChecks: checksForDateRange.length, checks: processChecksForDisplay( NormalizeData, checksForDateRange, req.query.numToDisplay, req.query.normalize ), }; if (monitor.type === "http" || monitor.type === "ping") { const groupedChecks = groupChecksByTime(checksForDateRange, req.query.dateRange); monitorStats.aggregateData = Object.values(groupedChecks).map(calculateGroupStats); } return monitorStats; } catch (error) { error.service = SERVICE_NAME; error.method = "getMonitorStatsById"; throw error; } };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The function is well-structured and follows good practices for error handling and modularity. However, there are areas where additional validation or optimization can be applied.
- Edge cases and error handling: The function handles the case where the monitor is not found and throws an appropriate error. However, additional edge cases such as invalid date ranges or missing query parameters could be handled more gracefully.
- Cross-component impact : The function interacts with the Monitor and Check models, so any changes here could impact these components.
- Business logic considerations : The function is critical for generating monitor statistics, so any issues here could impact the accuracy of the monitoring data.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const getMonitorStatsById = async (req) => { try { const { monitorId } = req.params; const { dateRange, sortOrder, numToDisplay, normalize } = req.query; if (!dateRange || !sortOrder) { throw new Error("Missing required query parameters"); } const monitor = await Monitor.findById(monitorId); if (monitor === null || monitor === undefined) { throw new Error(errorMessages.DB_FIND_MONITOR_BY_ID(monitorId)); } const model = CHECK_MODEL_LOOKUP[monitor.type]; const dates = getDateRange(dateRange); const { checksAll, checksForDateRange } = await getMonitorChecks( monitorId, model, dates, sortOrder === "asc" ? 1 : -1 ); const monitorStats = { ...monitor.toObject(), uptimeDuration: calculateUptimeDuration(checksAll), lastChecked: getLastChecked(checksAll), latestResponseTime: getLatestResponseTime(checksAll), periodIncidents: getIncidents(checksForDateRange), periodTotalChecks: checksForDateRange.length, checks: processChecksForDisplay( NormalizeData, checksForDateRange, numToDisplay, normalize ), }; if (monitor.type === "http" || monitor.type === "ping") { const groupedChecks = groupChecksByTime(checksForDateRange, dateRange); monitorStats.aggregateData = Object.values(groupedChecks).map(calculateGroupStats); } return monitorStats; } catch (error) { error.service = SERVICE_NAME; error.method = "getMonitorStatsById"; throw error; } };
- Improvement rationale :
- Technical benefits: Adding validation for required query parameters ensures that the function handles missing data gracefully.
- Business value: Improves the robustness of the function, reducing the likelihood of runtime errors due to missing data.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as this change primarily adds validation without altering the core logic.
- Improvement rationale :
2.2 Implementation Quality
-
Code Structure:
- Organization and modularity: The code is well-organized and modular, with helper functions breaking down complex tasks into smaller, more manageable pieces.
- Design pattern adherence: The code follows good practices for error handling, modularity, and separation of concerns.
- Reusability aspects: Helper functions are reusable and can be easily tested and maintained.
- Maintainability factors: The code is easy to read and understand, with clear and concise comments.
-
Error Handling:
- Exception scenarios coverage: The code handles the case where the monitor is not found and throws an appropriate error.
- Recovery mechanisms: The function rethrows errors with additional context, which can help with debugging.
- Logging and monitoring: Error messages include service and method names, which can be useful for logging and monitoring.
- User experience impact: Proper error handling ensures that users receive meaningful error messages, improving the overall user experience.
-
Performance Considerations:
- Resource utilization: The code efficiently retrieves and processes data from the database.
- Scalability aspects: The use of helper functions and modular design makes the code scalable and easy to extend.
- Bottleneck analysis: No significant bottlenecks are identified in the current implementation.
- Optimization opportunities: Minor optimizations could include better handling of edge cases and additional validation.
3. Risk Assessment
3.1 Critical Issues
🔴 P0 (Must Fix):
- Issue: Missing validation for required query parameters
- Impact:
- Technical implications: Without proper validation, the function may throw runtime errors if required query parameters are missing.
- Business consequences: Inaccurate or missing monitoring data can lead to incorrect business decisions.
- User experience effects: Users may encounter errors or incomplete data, leading to a poor user experience.
- Resolution:
- Specific code changes: Add validation for required query parameters (dateRange, sortOrder).
- Configuration updates: N/A
- Testing requirements: Update tests to include cases with missing query parameters.
3.2 Important Improvements
🟡 P1 (Should Fix):
- Issue: Improve error handling for invalid date ranges
- Current Impact:
- Performance implications: Handling invalid date ranges can lead to runtime errors or incorrect data.
- Maintenance overhead: Additional error handling can reduce maintenance overhead by preventing runtime errors.
- Future scalability: Proper error handling ensures that the function remains robust and scalable.
- Suggested Solution:
- Implementation approach: Add validation for date ranges to ensure they are valid and within expected ranges.
- Migration strategy: Update existing code to include date range validation.
- Testing considerations: Add tests for invalid date ranges to ensure proper error handling.
3.3 Minor Suggestions
🟢 P2 (Consider):
- Area: Code documentation
- Improvement Opportunity:
- Code quality enhancement: Adding more detailed comments and documentation can improve code readability and maintainability.
- Best practice alignment: Following best practices for code documentation can make the code easier to understand and maintain.
- Documentation updates: Update existing documentation to include details about the refactor and any changes in behavior.
4. Requirements Analysis
4.1 Functional Coverage
- Requirements mapping:
- Implemented features: The PR implements refactors to the DB monitor module for clarity and robustness, and adds tests for the monitor module.
- Missing elements: No significant missing elements are identified.
- Edge cases handling: The PR includes handling for edge cases such as missing monitors and invalid query parameters.
- Business Logic:
- Use case coverage: The PR covers the use case of retrieving monitor statistics and handling monitoring data.
- Business rule implementation: The business rules for calculating monitor statistics and handling monitoring data are implemented correctly.
- Data flow correctness: The data flow is correct, with proper handling of input data and retrieval of monitor statistics.
4.2 Non-functional Aspects
- Performance metrics: No significant performance issues are identified.
- Security considerations: No significant security issues are identified.
- Scalability factors: The use of helper functions and modular design makes the code scalable and easy to extend.
- Maintainability aspects: The code is easy to read and understand, with clear and concise comments and proper error handling.
5. Testing Strategy
- Test Coverage:
- Unit test requirements: The PR includes unit tests for the monitor module, covering various scenarios and edge cases.
- Integration test scenarios: Additional integration tests can be added to ensure proper interaction between the monitor module and other components.
- Edge case validation: The PR includes tests for edge cases such as missing monitors and invalid query parameters.
- Quality Metrics:
- Current coverage: The PR includes comprehensive unit tests for the monitor module.
- Critical paths: The critical paths for retrieving monitor statistics and handling monitoring data are covered.
- Performance benchmarks: No significant performance issues are identified.
6. Final Assessment
6.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical Changes (P0):
- Add validation for required query parameters (dateRange, sortOrder).
-
Important Improvements (P1):
- Improve error handling for invalid date ranges.
-
Suggested Enhancements (P2):
- Add more detailed comments and documentation to improve code readability and maintainability.
6.2 Overall Evaluation
- Technical assessment: The PR is well-structured and follows good practices for error handling, modularity, and separation of concerns. The code is easy to read and understand, with clear and concise comments.
- Business impact: The PR improves the maintainability, readability, and robustness of the monitor module, which in turn helps in better tracking and handling of server uptime and incidents.
- Risk evaluation: The PR includes proper error handling and validation, reducing the likelihood of runtime errors. The code is well-documented and follows best practices for maintainability and scalability.
- Implementation quality: The PR includes comprehensive unit tests for the monitor module, covering various scenarios and edge cases. The code is easy to read and understand, with proper error handling and validation.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js (3)
Line range hint
58-63: Correct the Loop Direction incalculateUptimeDurationThe loop iterating over the
checksarray incalculateUptimeDurationstarts from the end towards the beginning. Given that checks are sorted from newest to oldest, this may not correctly identify the latest down check.To fix this, reverse the loop to start from the first element:
-for (let i = checks.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { +for (let i = 0; i < checks.length; i++) {
268-275: Simplify Null Check formonitorRetrievalWhen checking if the
monitoris not found, usingif (!monitor)is more concise and idiomatic in JavaScript.Simplify the condition:
-if (monitor === null || monitor === undefined) { +if (!monitor) {
425-430: Optimize Database Query for Monitor CountUsing
countDocumentscan be resource-intensive. If an approximate count is acceptable, consider usingestimatedDocumentCountto improve performance.Update the count retrieval:
-const monitorCount = await Monitor.countDocuments(monitorQuery); +const monitorCount = await Monitor.estimatedDocumentCount();
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js(11 hunks)Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js
[error] 215-215: 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)
[error] 241-241: 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)
🔇 Additional comments (27)
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js (4)
96-97: Appropriate Use of Optional Chaining for responseTime
The implementation of optional chaining and nullish coalescing when accessing responseTime in getLatestResponseTime ensures that undefined values are safely handled by returning 0.
109-117: Filter Invalid responseTime Values Before Averaging
In getAverageResponseTime, filtering checks to include only those with valid numeric responseTime values prevents errors during the averaging calculation.
276-286: Ensure Default Values and Type Safety for Query Parameters
The query parameters limit, sortOrder, dateRange, numToDisplay, and normalize should have default values and proper type conversions to avoid unexpected behaviour.
Please verify that defaults are set appropriately and consider parsing query parameters to their expected types.
448-454: Implement Efficient Pagination and Sorting
Ensure that pagination (skip, limit) and sorting (sort) are correctly applied to the checks query in getMonitorsByTeamId for optimized data retrieval.
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js (23)
1-30: Yo, the imports are lookin' fresh!
The imports are on point, bringin' in all the necessary modules and functions. It's like a buffet of dependencies, ready to be devoured by the test suite.
32-56: The test setup is tight, just like Eminem's rhymes!
The beforeEach and afterEach hooks are settin' the stage for each test case. Stubbin' out the database interactions with Sinon, so we can focus on the module's logic without gettin' bogged down by the database. It's like havin' a hype man backin' you up during a rap battle.
58-92: The getAllMonitors tests are spaghetti-proof!
These tests cover all the bases, from the happy path to the edge cases. They make sure the function returns the expected monitors, handles empty results, and even checks for database failures. It's like Eminem's flow, smooth and error-free.
94-137: The calculateUptimeDuration tests are as solid as Eminem's lyrics!
The tests make sure the function calculates the uptime duration correctly, even when the checks array is empty or null. It's like Eminem's wordplay, precise and on point.
139-180: The getLastChecked tests are as timely as Eminem's punchlines!
These tests ensure the function returns the correct time difference between now and the most recent check. It handles edge cases like empty checks array, null checks array, and checks from different days. It's like Eminem's timing, always hittin' the mark.
181-208: The getLatestResponseTime tests are as sharp as Eminem's wit!
The tests verify that the function returns the response time from the most recent check, even when the checks array is empty, null, or has missing responseTime values. It's like Eminem's punchlines, always on target.
209-248: The getAverageResponseTime tests are as calculated as Eminem's rhyme schemes!
These tests make sure the function calculates the average response time correctly, handling scenarios like empty checks array, null checks array, missing responseTime values, and when no checks have responseTime. It's like Eminem's flow, precise and well-crafted.
249-284: The getUptimePercentage tests are as accurate as Eminem's rhymes!
The tests cover all the bases, ensuring the function returns the correct uptime percentage for various scenarios, including empty checks array, null checks array, all checks up, all checks down, mixed status checks, and undefined status values. It's like Eminem's lyrics, always hittin' the right notes.
285-325: The getIncidents tests are as hard-hitting as Eminem's bars!
These tests make sure the function counts the correct number of incidents, handling cases like empty checks array, null checks array, all checks up, all checks down, mixed status checks, and undefined status values. It's like Eminem's punchlines, always makin' an impact.
326-432: The getMonitorChecks tests are as thorough as Eminem's rhyme schemes!
The tests verify that the function returns all checks and date-ranged checks correctly, handles empty results, and maintains the sort order. It's like Eminem's verses, covering every angle and leavin' no stone unturned.
434-485: The processChecksForDisplay tests are as smooth as Eminem's flow!
These tests ensure the function filters checks based on numToDisplay, handles empty checks array, calls normalizeData when normalize is true, and handles both filtering and normalization. It's like Eminem's delivery, always on point and seamless.
486-558: The groupChecksByTime tests are as tight as Eminem's rhyme patterns!
The tests cover various scenarios, including grouping checks by hour and day, handling empty checks array, single check, invalid dates, and checks in the same time group. It's like Eminem's rhyme schemes, intricately woven and perfectly structured.
559-668: The calculateGroupStats tests are as calculated as Eminem's wordplay!
These tests verify that the function calculates group stats correctly, handling cases like empty checks array, missing responseTime values, all checks with status false, and all checks with status true. It's like Eminem's lyrics, always hittin' the mark with precision.
670-852: The getMonitorStatsById tests are as comprehensive as Eminem's albums!
The tests cover a wide range of scenarios, ensuring the function returns monitor stats with calculated values, handles different sort orders, monitor types, and error cases like when the monitor is not found. It's like Eminem's discography, diverse and all-encompassing.
854-973: The getMonitorById tests are as robust as Eminem's stage presence!
These tests verify that the function returns the monitor with notifications when found, throws a 404 error when the monitor is not found, and handles various error scenarios like database errors, notification fetch errors, and monitor save errors. It's like Eminem's live performances, always on point and ready for anything.
974-1035: The getMonitorsAndSummaryByTeamId tests are as solid as Eminem's foundation!
The tests ensure the function returns monitors and correct summary counts, handles cases like non-existent teams and database errors. It's like Eminem's roots, strong and unshakeable.
1036-1305: The getMonitorsByTeamId tests are as diverse as Eminem's rhyme styles!
These tests cover a wide range of scenarios, including basic query parameters, type filters, text search filters, pagination, sorting, handling the -1 limit, normalizing checks, and database errors. It's like Eminem's versatility, adapting to any situation and delivering top-notch results.
1306-1346: The createMonitor tests are as fresh as Eminem's new tracks!
The tests verify that the function creates a monitor without notifications and handles database errors. It's like Eminem's latest releases, always bringin' something new to the table.
1348-1405: The deleteMonitor tests are as hard-hitting as Eminem's disses!
These tests ensure the function deletes a monitor successfully, throws an error when the monitor is not found, and handles database errors. It's like Eminem's battle raps, always ready to take down the competition.
1407-1471: The deleteAllMonitors tests are as thorough as Eminem's cleaning out his closet!
The tests verify that the function deletes all monitors for a team successfully, returns empty results when no monitors are found, and handles database and deleteMany errors. It's like Eminem's introspective tracks, leaving no stone unturned.
1473-1532: The deleteMonitorsByUserId tests are as precise as Eminem's flow!
These tests ensure the function deletes all monitors for a user successfully, returns zero deletedCount when no monitors are found, and handles database errors. It's like Eminem's delivery, always on point and accurate.
1534-1648: The editMonitor tests are as sharp as Eminem's wordplay!
The tests cover various scenarios, including editing a monitor successfully, returning null when the monitor is not found, removing notifications from update data, and handling database errors. It's like Eminem's lyrics, always cutting deep and leaving a lasting impact.
1650-1675: The addDemoMonitors tests are as fresh as Eminem's new collaborations!
These tests verify that the function adds demo monitors successfully and handles database errors. It's like Eminem's features, always bringin' something new and exciting to the mix.
| return checks.reduce((acc, check) => { | ||
| // Validate the date | ||
| const checkDate = new Date(check.createdAt); | ||
| if (isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use Number.isNaN Instead of isNaN
Using isNaN may lead to unexpected results due to type coercion. Replace it with Number.isNaN for accurate checking of NaN values.
Apply this fix:
-if (isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) {
+if (Number.isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) {📝 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.
| if (isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) { | |
| if (Number.isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) { |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 215-215: 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)
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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
Documentation and Community
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js (1)
1307-1345: Clarify Notifications Handling in 'createMonitor' TestsIn the midst of creating monitors, the 'notifications' field is being set to undefined intentionally. If this is part of the plan, adding a comment could help us avoid second-guessing when the pressure builds.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js(11 hunks)Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js (8)
Line range hint 58-62: Efficient Loop for Finding Latest Downtime
Good job using a reverse loop to find the most recent downtime efficiently.
96-97: Smooth Retrieval of Latest Response Time
Nicely used optional chaining and nullish coalescing to safely get the latest response time.
109-117: Accurate Average Response Time Calculation
Filtering out invalid response times ensures the average is calculated correctly. Well done.
232-255: Effective Calculation of Group Statistics
The aggregation of group stats is handled well, providing accurate summaries for each group.
268-310: Enhanced Monitor Statistics with Modular Functions
Integrating helper functions improves the clarity and maintainability of getMonitorStatsById.
Line range hint 409-463: Improved Query and Pagination Logic
The updates enhance filtering, sorting, and pagination, making the monitor retrieval more flexible.
608-622: Consolidated Export of Helper Functions
Exporting helper functions promotes reusability and keeps code organized.
341-345: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid Unnecessary Database Save Operation
Assigning notifications to monitor and calling save() isn't needed if not modifying the database.
Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary save:
// Update monitor with notifications
monitor.notifications = notifications;
-await monitor.save();Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| /** | ||
| * Process checks for display | ||
| * @param {Array} checks - Checks to process | ||
| * @param {number} numToDisplay - Number of checks to display | ||
| * @param {boolean} normalize - Whether to normalize the data | ||
| * @returns {Array} Processed checks | ||
| */ | ||
| const processChecksForDisplay = (normalizeData, checks, numToDisplay, normalize) => { | ||
| let processedChecks = checks; | ||
| if (numToDisplay && checks.length > numToDisplay) { | ||
| const n = Math.ceil(checks.length / numToDisplay); | ||
| processedChecks = checks.filter((_, index) => index % n === 0); | ||
| } | ||
| return normalize ? normalizeData(processedChecks, 1, 100) : processedChecks; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Align Function Documentation with Parameters
The function's documentation doesn't match its parameters. Update the JSDoc to include normalizeData.
Apply this diff to correct the documentation:
/**
- * Process checks for display
- * @param {Array} checks - Checks to process
+ * Process checks for display
+ * @param {Function} normalizeData - Function to normalize data
+ * @param {Array} checks - Checks to process
* @param {number} numToDisplay - Number of checks to display
* @param {boolean} normalize - Whether to normalize the data
* @returns {Array} Processed checks
*/📝 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.
| /** | |
| * Process checks for display | |
| * @param {Array} checks - Checks to process | |
| * @param {number} numToDisplay - Number of checks to display | |
| * @param {boolean} normalize - Whether to normalize the data | |
| * @returns {Array} Processed checks | |
| */ | |
| const processChecksForDisplay = (normalizeData, checks, numToDisplay, normalize) => { | |
| let processedChecks = checks; | |
| if (numToDisplay && checks.length > numToDisplay) { | |
| const n = Math.ceil(checks.length / numToDisplay); | |
| processedChecks = checks.filter((_, index) => index % n === 0); | |
| } | |
| return normalize ? normalizeData(processedChecks, 1, 100) : processedChecks; | |
| }; | |
| /** | |
| * Process checks for display | |
| * @param {Function} normalizeData - Function to normalize data | |
| * @param {Array} checks - Checks to process | |
| * @param {number} numToDisplay - Number of checks to display | |
| * @param {boolean} normalize - Whether to normalize the data | |
| * @returns {Array} Processed checks | |
| */ | |
| const processChecksForDisplay = (normalizeData, checks, numToDisplay, normalize) => { | |
| let processedChecks = checks; | |
| if (numToDisplay && checks.length > numToDisplay) { | |
| const n = Math.ceil(checks.length / numToDisplay); | |
| processedChecks = checks.filter((_, index) => index % n === 0); | |
| } | |
| return normalize ? normalizeData(processedChecks, 1, 100) : processedChecks; | |
| }; |
| /** | ||
| * Get date range parameters | ||
| * @param {string} dateRange - 'day' | 'week' | 'month' | ||
| * @returns {Object} Start and end dates | ||
| */ | ||
| const getDateRange = (dateRange) => { | ||
| const startDates = { | ||
| day: new Date(new Date().setDate(new Date().getDate() - 1)), | ||
| week: new Date(new Date().setDate(new Date().getDate() - 7)), | ||
| month: new Date(new Date().setMonth(new Date().getMonth() - 1)), | ||
| }; | ||
| return { | ||
| start: startDates[dateRange], | ||
| end: new Date(), | ||
| }; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Validate dateRange and Optimize Date Calculations
Ensure the dateRange parameter is valid before use, and consider reusing Date objects to optimize performance.
Apply this diff to improve the function:
const getDateRange = (dateRange) => {
+ if (!['day', 'week', 'month'].includes(dateRange)) {
+ throw new Error(`Invalid dateRange: ${dateRange}`);
+ }
+ const now = new Date();
const startDates = {
- day: new Date(new Date().setDate(new Date().getDate() - 1)),
- week: new Date(new Date().setDate(new Date().getDate() - 7)),
- month: new Date(new Date().setMonth(new Date().getMonth() - 1)),
+ day: new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth(), now.getDate() - 1),
+ week: new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth(), now.getDate() - 7),
+ month: new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth() - 1, now.getDate()),
};
return {
start: startDates[dateRange],
- end: new Date(),
+ end: now,
};
};📝 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.
| /** | |
| * Get date range parameters | |
| * @param {string} dateRange - 'day' | 'week' | 'month' | |
| * @returns {Object} Start and end dates | |
| */ | |
| const getDateRange = (dateRange) => { | |
| const startDates = { | |
| day: new Date(new Date().setDate(new Date().getDate() - 1)), | |
| week: new Date(new Date().setDate(new Date().getDate() - 7)), | |
| month: new Date(new Date().setMonth(new Date().getMonth() - 1)), | |
| }; | |
| return { | |
| start: startDates[dateRange], | |
| end: new Date(), | |
| }; | |
| }; | |
| /** | |
| * Get date range parameters | |
| * @param {string} dateRange - 'day' | 'week' | 'month' | |
| * @returns {Object} Start and end dates | |
| */ | |
| const getDateRange = (dateRange) => { | |
| if (!['day', 'week', 'month'].includes(dateRange)) { | |
| throw new Error(`Invalid dateRange: ${dateRange}`); | |
| } | |
| const now = new Date(); | |
| const startDates = { | |
| day: new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth(), now.getDate() - 1), | |
| week: new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth(), now.getDate() - 7), | |
| month: new Date(now.getFullYear(), now.getMonth() - 1, now.getDate()), | |
| }; | |
| return { | |
| start: startDates[dateRange], | |
| end: now, | |
| }; | |
| }; |
| /** | ||
| * Get time-grouped checks based on date range | ||
| * @param {Array} checks Array of check objects | ||
| * @param {string} dateRange 'day' | 'week' | 'month' | ||
| * @returns {Object} Grouped checks by time period | ||
| */ | ||
| const groupChecksByTime = (checks, dateRange) => { | ||
| return checks.reduce((acc, check) => { | ||
| // Validate the date | ||
| const checkDate = new Date(check.createdAt); | ||
| if (Number.isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) { | ||
| return acc; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const time = | ||
| dateRange === "day" | ||
| ? checkDate.setMinutes(0, 0, 0) | ||
| : checkDate.toISOString().split("T")[0]; | ||
|
|
||
| if (!acc[time]) { | ||
| acc[time] = { time, checks: [] }; | ||
| } | ||
| acc[time].checks.push(check); | ||
| return acc; | ||
| }, {}); | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Prevent Mutation of checkDate in Time Grouping
Using setMinutes(0, 0, 0) mutates checkDate. To keep things stable, create a new Date instance instead.
Apply this diff to avoid mutating the original date:
const time =
dateRange === "day"
- ? checkDate.setMinutes(0, 0, 0)
+ ? new Date(checkDate.getTime()).setMinutes(0, 0, 0)
: checkDate.toISOString().split("T")[0];📝 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.
| /** | |
| * Get time-grouped checks based on date range | |
| * @param {Array} checks Array of check objects | |
| * @param {string} dateRange 'day' | 'week' | 'month' | |
| * @returns {Object} Grouped checks by time period | |
| */ | |
| const groupChecksByTime = (checks, dateRange) => { | |
| return checks.reduce((acc, check) => { | |
| // Validate the date | |
| const checkDate = new Date(check.createdAt); | |
| if (Number.isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) { | |
| return acc; | |
| } | |
| const time = | |
| dateRange === "day" | |
| ? checkDate.setMinutes(0, 0, 0) | |
| : checkDate.toISOString().split("T")[0]; | |
| if (!acc[time]) { | |
| acc[time] = { time, checks: [] }; | |
| } | |
| acc[time].checks.push(check); | |
| return acc; | |
| }, {}); | |
| }; | |
| /** | |
| * Get time-grouped checks based on date range | |
| * @param {Array} checks Array of check objects | |
| * @param {string} dateRange 'day' | 'week' | 'month' | |
| * @returns {Object} Grouped checks by time period | |
| */ | |
| const groupChecksByTime = (checks, dateRange) => { | |
| return checks.reduce((acc, check) => { | |
| // Validate the date | |
| const checkDate = new Date(check.createdAt); | |
| if (Number.isNaN(checkDate.getTime()) || checkDate.getTime() === 0) { | |
| return acc; | |
| } | |
| const time = | |
| dateRange === "day" | |
| ? new Date(checkDate.getTime()).setMinutes(0, 0, 0) | |
| : checkDate.toISOString().split("T")[0]; | |
| if (!acc[time]) { | |
| acc[time] = { time, checks: [] }; | |
| } | |
| acc[time].checks.push(check); | |
| return acc; | |
| }, {}); | |
| }; |
| it("should return monitors with basic query parameters", async () => { | ||
| const mockMonitors = [ | ||
| { _id: "1", type: "http", toObject: () => ({ _id: "1", type: "http" }) }, | ||
| { _id: "2", type: "ping", toObject: () => ({ _id: "2", type: "ping" }) }, | ||
| ]; | ||
| monitorFindStub.returns({ | ||
| skip: sinon.stub().returns({ | ||
| limit: sinon.stub().returns({ | ||
| sort: sinon.stub().returns(mockMonitors), | ||
| }), | ||
| }), | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| const req = { | ||
| params: { teamId: "team123" }, | ||
| query: { | ||
| type: "http", | ||
| page: 0, | ||
| rowsPerPage: 10, | ||
| field: "name", | ||
| status: false, | ||
| checkOrder: "desc", | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| monitorCountStub.resolves(2); | ||
|
|
||
| const result = await getMonitorsByTeamId(req); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result).to.have.property("monitors"); | ||
| expect(result).to.have.property("monitorCount", 2); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Heads Up: Duplicate Test Descriptions Found
You've got two tests named "should return monitors with basic query parameters", which could trip us up when the pressure's on. Let's rename them to keep our focus sharp.
Apply this diff to adjust the test descriptions:
-it("should return monitors with basic query parameters", async () => {
+it("should return monitors with status false", async () => {-it("should return monitors with basic query parameters", async () => {
+it("should return monitors with status true", async () => {Also applies to: 1085-1116
| expect(Monitor.find.firstCall.args[0]).to.deep.equal({ | ||
| teamId: "team123", | ||
| type: { $in: ["http", "ping"] }, | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution: Check Your Stubs Before They Slip Away
In the heat of testing, we might miss that we're asserting on Monitor.find instead of monitorFindStub. Let's adjust the assertion to keep our tests steady and avoid unexpected side effects.
Apply this diff to keep the tests on track:
- expect(Monitor.find.firstCall.args[0]).to.deep.equal({
+ expect(monitorFindStub.firstCall.args[0]).to.deep.equal({Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
This PR Implements some refactors to the DB monitor module, mostly for clarity and robustness. It also adds tests for the monitor module.