019 nov 10 input value validation for the project #234
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several enhancements across multiple components in the application. Key changes include the addition of validation functions for form inputs, the refactoring of components to improve type safety and error handling, and the introduction of new interfaces for structured prop management. Components such as 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: 17
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (26)
Clients/src/application/validations/selectValidation.ts (2)
1-13: Consider enhancing type safety and encapsulation.While the function is well-documented, we can improve it further:
+interface ValidationFeedback { + accepted: boolean; + message: string; +} -function feedback(accepted: boolean, message: string) { +function feedback(accepted: boolean, message: string): ValidationFeedback { return { accepted, message, }; }Also, consider marking this as an internal helper by prefixing with an underscore since it's only used within this module.
15-21: Complete the JSDoc documentation.The JSDoc is missing the
@param titleparameter description./** * Select field validation * + * @param title - The display name of the field being validated. * @param value - The value to be validated. * @returns An object with `accepted` set to `true` if the value passes all validations, * otherwise an object with `accepted` set to `false` and a `message` indicating the reason. */Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/index.tsx (1)
10-12: Consider adding JSDoc documentation for the interface.The interface is well-defined but could benefit from documentation explaining its purpose and the closePopup function's expected behavior.
+/** + * Props for the AddNewRiskForm component + * @property closePopup - Function to close the form popup + */ interface AddNewRiskFormProps { closePopup: () => void }Clients/src/application/validations/stringValidation.ts (2)
Line range hint
1-108: Enhance user-facing error messages for better UX.Since this validation is used in user-facing forms ("Create new project" and "Add a new risk" popups), consider making the error messages more user-friendly:
- For required fields:
- return feedbackToString(false, `${title} is required.`); + return feedbackToString(false, `Please enter ${title.toLowerCase()}.`);
- For length constraints:
- `${title} can't be shorter than ${minLength} characters.` + `${title} must be at least ${minLength} characters long.`
- For special characters, list the allowed characters:
- `${title} must contain at least one special character.` + `${title} must contain at least one special character (!@#$%^&*()_+-=[]{};:'"\\|,.<>/?).`
- For email validation:
- return feedbackToString(false, `Invalid ${title}.`); + return feedbackToString(false, `Please enter a valid email address.`);
Line range hint
1-108: Consider a more flexible validation architecture.The current implementation could be enhanced for better maintainability and reusability:
- Extract validation rules into separate functions:
type ValidationRule = (value: string) => { valid: boolean; message: string }; const createLengthRule = (min: number, max: number): ValidationRule => (value) => ({ valid: value.length >= min && value.length <= max, message: `Must be between ${min} and ${max} characters` }); const createPatternRule = (pattern: RegExp, message: string): ValidationRule => (value) => ({ valid: pattern.test(value), message });
- Make validation configurable:
interface ValidationConfig { rules: ValidationRule[]; stopOnFirst?: boolean; } function validate(value: string, config: ValidationConfig) { const errors = config.rules .map(rule => rule(value)) .filter(result => !result.valid); return { valid: errors.length === 0, errors: errors.map(e => e.message) }; }This approach would:
- Make it easier to add/remove validation rules
- Allow for custom validation rules
- Support collecting multiple validation errors
- Make testing individual rules easier
Clients/src/presentation/pages/ProjectView/RisksView/index.tsx (1)
78-78: Enhance accessibility for the popup trigger.The popup trigger button should have proper ARIA labels and role attributes for better accessibility.
Pass accessibility props to the Popup component:
-<PopupRender /> +<PopupRender + aria-label="Add new risk button" + role="button" +/>Clients/src/presentation/components/Popup/index.tsx (3)
Line range hint
72-77: Enhance accessibility implementationWhile basic aria-describedby is implemented, the popup needs additional accessibility features:
- Keyboard navigation (Escape key to close)
- Focus trap within the popup when open
- Additional ARIA attributes for the popup dialog
Consider these improvements:
<BasePopup id={id} open={open} anchor={anchor} + role="dialog" + aria-modal="true" + aria-labelledby={`${id}-title`} + onKeyDown={(e) => e.key === 'Escape' && handleOpenOrClose?.(e as any)} style={{...}}> <Stack sx={styles.popupContent}> - <Typography variant="h1" component="div" sx={{...}}> + <Typography id={`${id}-title`} variant="h1" component="div" sx={{...}}> {popupTitle} </Typography>Consider using a focus management library like
focus-trap-reactto handle focus properly.Also applies to: 96-98
Line range hint
31-67: Improve styling maintainability and consistencyThe current styling implementation has several areas for improvement:
- Hardcoded color values bypass the theme system
- Mixed usage of pixel values and theme spacing
- Inline styles make it harder to maintain consistency
Consider these improvements:
const styles = { openPopupButton: { - width: 120, height: 34, + width: theme.spacing(15), + height: theme.spacing(4.25), fontSize: 13, textTransform: "inherit", - backgroundColor: "#4C7DE7", + backgroundColor: theme.palette.primary.main, boxShadow: "none", borderRadius: 2, - border: "1px solid #175CD3", + border: `1px solid ${theme.palette.primary.dark}`, "&:hover": { boxShadow: "none" } }, // Similar changes for other style objects... }Consider moving these styles to a separate styled-components or emotion implementation for better maintainability.
Consider using stable MUI components instead of experimental API
The codebase is using MUI v6 (as seen from dependencies), but relies on an experimental
Unstable_Popupcomponent from@mui/base. Since MUI v6 provides stable alternatives:
- Consider using stable components like
Modal,Popper, orPopoverfrom@mui/materialbased on your use case- These components are production-ready and less likely to introduce breaking changes in future updates
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
5-5: Consider implications of using experimental MUI APIThe component uses
Unstable_Popupfrom MUI Base, which is an experimental API as indicated by theUnstable_prefix. This could lead to breaking changes in future MUI updates.
Let me gather more information about the MUI Base package version and available Popup components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there's a stable alternative in the codebase rg -l "import.*@mui/(base|material)/.*Popup" # Check package.json for MUI version to verify if stable version is available fd -t f "package.json" --exec cat {} | jq '.dependencies["@mui/base"]'Length of output: 181
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check all package.json files for MUI dependencies and their versions fd -t f "package.json" --exec cat {} | jq '.dependencies | select(. != null) | with_entries(select(.key | startswith("@mui")))' # Search for other Popup-related imports to understand usage patterns rg -g '*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}' -A 2 "import.*@mui.*Popup"Length of output: 611
Clients/src/presentation/components/RiskLevel/index.tsx (1)
Line range hint
22-33: Consider enhancing risk calculation logicThe risk calculation logic could benefit from the following improvements:
- Extract threshold values as named constants
- Memoize the calculation to prevent unnecessary recalculations
- Add documentation explaining the risk calculation formula
Here's a suggested implementation:
+ const RISK_THRESHOLDS = { + LOW: 3, + MEDIUM: 6, + HIGH: 9 + } as const; + /** + * Calculates risk level based on likelihood and severity scores + * Formula: Risk Score = Likelihood × Severity + * @param score - The calculated risk score + * @returns Object containing risk level text and associated color + */ - const getRiskLevel = (score: number): {text: string, color: string} => { + const getRiskLevel = useMemo(() => (score: number): {text: string, color: string} => { - if (score <= 3) { + if (score <= RISK_THRESHOLDS.LOW) { return RISK_LABELS.low; - } else if (score <= 6) { + } else if (score <= RISK_THRESHOLDS.MEDIUM) { return RISK_LABELS.medium; - } else if (score <= 9) { + } else if (score <= RISK_THRESHOLDS.HIGH) { return RISK_LABELS.high; } else { return RISK_LABELS.critical; } - } + }, []);Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Datepicker/index.tsx (2)
43-45: Consider improving styling readability and specificityWhile the logic is correct, the styling could be improved:
- The multi-line ternary operator could be simplified
- The use of
!importantsuggests potential specificity issues that should be addressed through proper CSS cascadeConsider refactoring to:
- border: error - ? `1px solid ${theme.palette.status.error.border}!important` - : `1px solid ${theme.palette.border.dark}!important` + border: `1px solid ${error ? theme.palette.status.error.border : theme.palette.border.dark}`Also, consider reviewing the CSS specificity to eliminate the need for
!important.
119-132: Enhance error message accessibilityWhile the error message implementation is solid, it could benefit from improved accessibility for screen readers.
Consider adding ARIA attributes:
{error && ( <Typography component="span" className="input-error" + role="alert" + aria-live="polite" color={theme.palette.status.error.text} mt={theme.spacing(2)} sx={{ opacity: 0.8, fontSize: 11 }} > {error} </Typography> )}This ensures screen readers announce error messages when they appear.
Clients/src/presentation/pages/Home/index.tsx (2)
91-99: Enhance accessibility for popup triggerThe popup trigger button should have proper ARIA attributes for better accessibility.
<Popup popupId="create-project-popup" popupContent={<CreateProjectForm />} openPopupButtonName="New project" + aria-haspopup="dialog" + aria-expanded={Boolean(anchor)} popupTitle="Create new project" popupSubtitle="Create a new project from scratch by filling in the following." handleOpenOrClose={handleOpenOrClose} anchor={anchor} />
109-109: Add error boundary and loading statesThe popup integration should handle potential errors and loading states for better user experience.
-<PopupRender /> +<ErrorBoundary fallback={<ErrorMessage />}> + <Suspense fallback={<LoadingSpinner />}> + <PopupRender /> + </Suspense> +</ErrorBoundary>Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Select/index.tsx (2)
35-36: Update JSDoc documentation to include new propsThe component's JSDoc comments should be updated to include the new
isRequiredanderrorprops for better documentation coverage.Add these to the existing JSDoc:
* @param {object} [props.sx] - Additional styles to apply to the select component. +* @param {boolean} [props.isRequired] - Flag to indicate if the field is required. +* @param {string} [props.error] - Error message to display below the select input. */
67-71: Refactor duplicate error styling logicThe error styling logic is duplicated between normal and focused states. Consider extracting the common styling into a variable or using a more concise approach.
sx={{ ".MuiOutlinedInput-notchedOutline": { - border: error - ? `1px solid ${theme.palette.status.error.border}!important` - : `1px solid ${theme.palette.border.dark}!important` + border: `1px solid ${error ? theme.palette.status.error.border : theme.palette.border.dark}!important` }, ".Mui-focused .MuiOutlinedInput-notchedOutline": { - border: error - ? `1px solid ${theme.palette.status.error.border}!important` - : `1px solid ${theme.palette.border.dark}!important` + border: `1px solid ${error ? theme.palette.status.error.border : theme.palette.border.dark}!important` } }}Also, consider investigating why
!importantflags are necessary, as they might indicate potential style specificity issues.Also applies to: 73-75
Clients/src/presentation/themes/light.ts (2)
60-60: Consider using semantic color tokens for error statesThe error border color has been updated to a lighter shade (#FDA29B). While this change improves visibility, consider defining semantic color tokens for error states to maintain consistency across the application.
- border: "#FDA29B", + // Define in a separate color tokens file + border: tokens.error.border.light,
Group variant styling needs validation state handling
The group variant styling implementation is incomplete as it doesn't handle form validation states (error, warning, success). While both light and dark themes define these states in their palettes, the Button component's group variant doesn't utilize them. Consider adding validation state styles to maintain consistency with the design system.
Clients/src/presentation/themes/light.ts: Add validation state styles to the group variant implementationClients/src/presentation/themes/dark.ts: Ensure the same validation state handling is mirrored here🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
91-108: Verify the group variant styling implementationThe styling for the new
groupvariant looks good, with proper handling of both default and filled states. However, ensure that this styling is consistent with the design system and works well with the form validation states introduced in this PR.
Let me gather more information to verify the group variant styling implementation.
Let me gather one final piece of information to verify the form validation states.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent usage of the new group variant across components # Look for components using the group variant rg -l "variant=\"group\"" --type ts --type tsx # Check for any custom button styling that might conflict ast-grep --pattern 'styled(Button)'Length of output: 226
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Button component usage and styling rg -l "variant.*group" --type ts rg "Button.*variant" -A 3 --type ts # Check theme configurations for button styling fd "theme|style" -e ts -x cat {}Length of output: 9561
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for form validation states in themes and button components rg "error|success|warning" -A 3 Clients/src/presentation/themes/light.ts rg "error|success|warning" -A 3 Clients/src/presentation/themes/dark.ts # Look for form validation related code ast-grep --pattern 'props.error' ast-grep --pattern 'props.variant === "group" && props.error'Length of output: 811
Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Field/index.tsx (2)
101-104: Simplify error border styling and fix formatting.The error border styling can be improved for clarity and efficiency:
- Remove unnecessary whitespace after 'error'
- Consolidate redundant border definitions
Apply this diff to improve the code:
- border: error - ? `1px solid ${theme.palette.status.error.border}` - : `1px solid ${theme.palette.border.dark}`, - borderColor: theme.palette.status.error.border, + border: `1px solid ${error ? theme.palette.status.error.border : theme.palette.border.dark}`,
219-219: Consider using theme-based font sizing.Instead of using a hard-coded font size value, consider using the theme's typography system for better maintainability and consistency across the application.
Apply this diff to improve the code:
- fontSize: 11 + fontSize: theme.typography.caption.fontSizeClients/src/presentation/components/CreateProjectForm/index.tsx (3)
118-118: Remove unnecessaryconsole.log(values)statement.The
console.log(values)statement appears to be for debugging purposes and should be removed to prevent cluttering the console in production.Apply this diff to remove the statement:
- console.log(values)
149-152: Fetch options for Select components dynamically.The options for the Select components are currently hardcoded with placeholder values:
- "Some value 1"
- "Some value 2"
- "Some value 3"
Consider fetching these options from an API or a data source to make the form dynamic and reflect actual data.
Also applies to: 164-167, 191-194, 206-209
68-103: RefactorvalidateFormfunction to reduce repetition.The
validateFormfunction contains repetitive code for validating each form field individually. This can make the code harder to maintain, especially as the form grows. Consider refactoring the validation logic to be more concise and scalable.Here's an example of how you might refactor the function:
const validateForm = (): boolean => { const newErrors: FormErrors = {}; const validations: { [key in keyof FormValues]: () => { accepted: boolean; message: string } } = { projectTitle: () => checkStringValidation("Project title", values.projectTitle, 1, 64), goal: () => checkStringValidation("Goal", values.goal, 1, 256), startDate: () => checkStringValidation("Start date", values.startDate, 1), users: () => selectValidation("Users", values.users), owner: () => selectValidation("Owner", values.owner), riskClassification: () => selectValidation("AI risk classification", values.riskClassification), typeOfHighRiskRole: () => selectValidation("Type of high risk role", values.typeOfHighRiskRole), }; for (const field in validations) { const validation = validations[field as keyof FormValues](); if (!validation.accepted) { newErrors[field as keyof FormErrors] = validation.message; } } setErrors(newErrors); return Object.keys(newErrors).length === 0; };Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/RisksSection/index.tsx (3)
122-128: Remove unnecessaryasynckeyword inhandleSubmitThe
handleSubmitfunction is declared asasyncbut does not contain any asynchronous operations. Unless you plan to add asynchronous code, theasynckeyword can be removed.Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary
asynckeyword:-const handleSubmit = async (event: React.FormEvent<HTMLFormElement>) => { +const handleSubmit = (event: React.FormEvent<HTMLFormElement>) => {
61-65:alertstate is defined but never updatedThe
alertstate is initialized and theAlertcomponent is conditionally rendered, butalertis never updated in the code. As a result, theAlertcomponent will not display any messages.Consider setting the
alertstate where appropriate or remove it if it's not needed.Also applies to: 132-140
277-277: UseisRequiredprop for consistencyIn previous
Fieldcomponents, theisRequiredprop is used to indicate mandatory fields. Here, you're usingisOptional. For consistency and to avoid confusion, consider usingisRequired={false}for optional fields.Apply this diff to use
isRequiredprop:- isOptional + isRequired={false}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (15)
Clients/src/application/validations/selectValidation.ts(1 hunks)Clients/src/application/validations/stringValidation.ts(1 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/MitigationSection/index.tsx(1 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/RisksSection/index.tsx(1 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/index.tsx(3 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/CreateProjectForm/index.tsx(1 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Datepicker/index.tsx(4 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Field/index.css(1 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Field/index.tsx(2 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Select/index.tsx(5 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/Popup/index.tsx(3 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/components/RiskLevel/index.tsx(3 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/pages/Home/index.tsx(2 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/pages/ProjectView/RisksView/index.tsx(2 hunks)Clients/src/presentation/themes/light.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Field/index.css
🔇 Additional comments (12)
Clients/src/application/validations/selectValidation.ts (1)
29-29: Verify the integration with form components.
The function is used in MitigationSection and RisksSection components. Let's verify the integration to ensure consistent usage.
✅ Verification successful
Integration with form components is properly implemented
The verification shows that selectValidation is correctly imported and consistently used across both components:
- In
RisksSection:- Validates action owner, AI lifecycle phase, risk category, assessment mapping, and controls mapping
- In
MitigationSection:- Validates mitigation status, current risk level, approver, and approval status
All validations follow the same pattern of checking the selection and setting appropriate error messages.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for imports and usage of selectValidation in the components
echo "Checking imports and usage in components..."
rg -A 3 "selectValidation" "Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/"
Length of output: 5643
Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/index.tsx (2)
14-14: LGTM! Clean component signature update.
The component signature is properly typed with FC and uses correct prop destructuring.
46-47: Verify closePopup implementation in child components.
The closePopup prop is correctly passed to both RiskSection and MitigationSection components. However, we should verify their implementations.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the implementation of closePopup in these components.
closePopup is properly implemented in both components
Both RiskSection and MitigationSection components:
- Correctly define closePopup in their props interface as
() => void - Properly receive the prop in their component definitions
- Actually use the closePopup function in their implementations
The implementation is consistent and correct in both components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that RiskSection and MitigationSection components properly implement the closePopup prop
# Check RiskSection implementation
echo "Checking RiskSection implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $interface {
$$$
closePopup: () => void
$$$
}' Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/RisksSection/index.tsx
# Check MitigationSection implementation
echo "Checking MitigationSection implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $interface {
$$$
closePopup: () => void
$$$
}' Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/MitigationSection/index.tsx
Length of output: 508
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for RiskSection and MitigationSection component definitions and their usage of closePopup
echo "Checking RiskSection implementation..."
rg -A 10 "RiskSection.*=.*{" Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/RisksSection/index.tsx
echo -e "\nChecking MitigationSection implementation..."
rg -A 10 "MitigationSection.*=.*{" Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/MitigationSection/index.tsx
# Also check for any closePopup usage in these files
echo -e "\nChecking closePopup usage in RiskSection..."
rg "closePopup" Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/RisksSection/index.tsx
echo -e "\nChecking closePopup usage in MitigationSection..."
rg "closePopup" Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/MitigationSection/index.tsx
Length of output: 1269
Clients/src/presentation/components/RiskLevel/index.tsx (2)
7-16: Well-structured type definitions!
The new RiskLevelFormValues interface and updated RiskLevelProps with strongly-typed event handlers improve type safety and maintainability. The use of keyof ensures type-safe property access.
18-18: Implementation aligns well with type changes
The component correctly implements the new typed event handlers while maintaining existing functionality.
Also applies to: 43-43, 58-58
Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Datepicker/index.tsx (2)
15-15: LGTM: Error prop type is well-defined
The error prop is correctly typed as an optional string, following TypeScript best practices.
26-26: LGTM: Props destructuring is consistent
The error prop is correctly destructured and maintains the component's existing pattern.
Clients/src/presentation/pages/Home/index.tsx (1)
93-93: Verify validation implementation in CreateProjectForm
The validation logic might be implemented in the CreateProjectForm component. Let's verify this.
✅ Verification successful
Validation is properly implemented in CreateProjectForm
The CreateProjectForm component has comprehensive validation implemented:
- Form-level validation through
validateForm()function - Field-level validations using:
checkStringValidationfor text fields (project title, goal)selectValidationfor select fields (users, owner, risk classification, etc.)- Date validation for start date
- Error states and messages for all form fields
- Form submission is blocked until all validations pass
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for validation logic in CreateProjectForm
ast-grep --pattern 'function CreateProjectForm() {
$$$
validate$_($$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Search for any validation-related imports or functions
rg -l "validate|validation" --type typescript
Length of output: 182
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CreateProjectForm component implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'const CreateProjectForm = $_'
# Search for validation related code with ripgrep
rg "validate|validation" -A 5 -B 5
# Find the actual file containing CreateProjectForm
fd "CreateProjectForm"
Length of output: 49298
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CreateProjectForm implementation
cat Clients/src/presentation/components/CreateProjectForm/index.tsx
Length of output: 8362
Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Select/index.tsx (1)
Line range hint 1-189: Overall implementation looks good!
The Select component is well-implemented with proper:
- TypeScript typing
- Theme integration
- Error handling
- Required field indication
- Material-UI integration
The suggested accessibility improvements will make it more inclusive, but the core functionality is solid.
Clients/src/presentation/themes/light.ts (1)
Line range hint 3-7: LGTM: Type declaration for the new button variant
The type declaration for the group variant is correctly implemented using module augmentation for Material-UI's Button component.
Clients/src/presentation/components/Inputs/Field/index.tsx (1)
Line range hint 1-230: Verify integration with form validation.
The styling changes enhance error state visibility, which aligns with the PR's validation objectives. However, let's verify the integration with the validation logic in the "Create new project" and "Add a new risk" popups.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response. The results show that:
- The Field component is used across multiple forms with proper validation integration
- Each form using the Field component has proper validation logic using
checkStringValidationandselectValidation - The error states are properly handled and displayed through the Field component's error prop
The Field component's error state styling changes are well integrated with form validation.
- The component is used in authentication forms (Login, Register, SetNewPassword) with password validation
- It's integrated in CreateProjectForm with project title validation
- Used in AddNewRiskForm with risk name and mitigation plan validation
- Profile settings use it for name and email validation
All these forms properly pass error states to the Field component, which then uses the new styling to display validation errors consistently.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how the Field component is used with validation in the relevant popup components
# Search for Field component usage in popup components
echo "Searching for Field usage in popup components..."
rg -A 10 "import.*Field.*from.*components/Inputs/Field" --type typescript
# Search for validation logic connected to Field
echo "Searching for validation logic..."
rg "error.*Field" --type typescript
Length of output: 367
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching without file type restrictions since typescript extension isn't recognized
# Search for Field component usage in popup components
echo "Searching for Field usage in popup components..."
rg -A 10 "import.*Field.*from.*['\"].*Field['\"]"
# Search for validation logic connected to Field component
echo "Searching for validation-related props in Field usage..."
rg "Field.*error=[\"{]" -A 3
# Search for form validation logic
echo "Searching for form validation patterns..."
rg "const.*validate|handleValidation|validation" -A 5
Length of output: 38569
Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/MitigationSection/index.tsx (1)
261-268: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update the DatePicker label to 'Date of Assessment'.
The DatePicker component is labeled "Start date" but is associated with the dateOfAssessment field. The label should match the field for clarity.
Change the label as follows:
- label="Start date"
+ label="Date of Assessment"Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| function selectValidation(title: string, value: number): {accepted: boolean; message: string} { | ||
| if (value === 0) { | ||
| return feedback(false, `${title} is required.`); | ||
| } | ||
| return feedback(true, "Success"); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Strengthen input validation.
The current validation has several potential issues:
- It assumes 0 is always invalid, which might not be true for all select fields.
- It doesn't validate for negative values.
- No type validation to ensure the value is actually a number.
-function selectValidation(title: string, value: number): {accepted: boolean; message: string} {
+function selectValidation(title: string, value: number): ValidationFeedback {
+ if (typeof value !== 'number') {
+ return feedback(false, `${title} must be a number.`);
+ }
+
+ if (value < 0) {
+ return feedback(false, `${title} cannot be negative.`);
+ }
+
if (value === 0) {
return feedback(false, `${title} is required.`);
}
return feedback(true, "Success");
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| (value.length === 0 || | ||
| value === undefined || | ||
| value === null || | ||
| value === "" || | ||
| value === " " | ||
| value === " ") && | ||
| minLength > 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize the empty string validation logic.
The current empty string validation can be improved in several ways:
- The checks for
undefinedandnullare redundant as they would cause runtime errors before reaching this condition (TypeScript enforces string type). - The empty string check
value === ""is redundant asvalue.length === 0covers this case. - The single space check
value === " "is too specific and doesn't handle multiple spaces.
Consider this improved implementation:
- (value.length === 0 ||
- value === undefined ||
- value === null ||
- value === "" ||
- value === " ") &&
- minLength > 0
+ minLength > 0 && value.trim().length === 0This change:
- Uses
trim()to handle any amount of whitespace - Simplifies the empty check to a single condition
- Evaluates
minLengthfirst for better short-circuiting - Maintains the same validation behavior while being more robust
📝 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.
| (value.length === 0 || | |
| value === undefined || | |
| value === null || | |
| value === "" || | |
| value === " " | |
| value === " ") && | |
| minLength > 0 | |
| minLength > 0 && value.trim().length === 0 |
| const PopupRender = () => { | ||
| const [anchor, setAnchor] = useState<null | HTMLElement>(null); | ||
| const handleOpenOrClose = (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => { | ||
| setAnchor(anchor ? null : event.currentTarget); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| return ( | ||
| <Popup | ||
| popupId="add-new-risk-popup" | ||
| popupContent={<AddNewRiskForm closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)} />} | ||
| openPopupButtonName="Add new risk" | ||
| popupTitle="Add a new risk" | ||
| popupSubtitle="Create a detailed breakdown of risks and their mitigation strategies to assist in documenting your risk management activities effectively." | ||
| handleOpenOrClose={handleOpenOrClose} | ||
| anchor={anchor} | ||
| /> | ||
| ) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Move PopupRender outside RisksView to prevent recreation.
The PopupRender component is defined inside RisksView, causing it to be recreated on every render. This can impact performance and break component state.
Move and refactor the component like this:
-const PopupRender = () => {
+interface PopupRenderProps {
+ // Add any props if needed
+}
+
+const PopupRender: React.FC<PopupRenderProps> = React.memo(() => {
const [anchor, setAnchor] = useState<null | HTMLElement>(null);
- const handleOpenOrClose = (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => {
+ const handleOpenOrClose = (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLButtonElement>) => {
setAnchor(anchor ? null : event.currentTarget);
};
return (
<Popup
popupId="add-new-risk-popup"
popupContent={<AddNewRiskForm closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)} />}
openPopupButtonName="Add new risk"
popupTitle="Add a new risk"
popupSubtitle="Create a detailed breakdown of risks and their mitigation strategies to assist in documenting your risk management activities effectively."
handleOpenOrClose={handleOpenOrClose}
anchor={anchor}
/>
)
-}
+});📝 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 PopupRender = () => { | |
| const [anchor, setAnchor] = useState<null | HTMLElement>(null); | |
| const handleOpenOrClose = (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => { | |
| setAnchor(anchor ? null : event.currentTarget); | |
| }; | |
| return ( | |
| <Popup | |
| popupId="add-new-risk-popup" | |
| popupContent={<AddNewRiskForm closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)} />} | |
| openPopupButtonName="Add new risk" | |
| popupTitle="Add a new risk" | |
| popupSubtitle="Create a detailed breakdown of risks and their mitigation strategies to assist in documenting your risk management activities effectively." | |
| handleOpenOrClose={handleOpenOrClose} | |
| anchor={anchor} | |
| /> | |
| ) | |
| } | |
| interface PopupRenderProps { | |
| // Add any props if needed | |
| } | |
| const PopupRender: React.FC<PopupRenderProps> = React.memo(() => { | |
| const [anchor, setAnchor] = useState<null | HTMLElement>(null); | |
| const handleOpenOrClose = (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLButtonElement>) => { | |
| setAnchor(anchor ? null : event.currentTarget); | |
| }; | |
| return ( | |
| <Popup | |
| popupId="add-new-risk-popup" | |
| popupContent={<AddNewRiskForm closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)} />} | |
| openPopupButtonName="Add new risk" | |
| popupTitle="Add a new risk" | |
| popupSubtitle="Create a detailed breakdown of risks and their mitigation strategies to assist in documenting your risk management activities effectively." | |
| handleOpenOrClose={handleOpenOrClose} | |
| anchor={anchor} | |
| /> | |
| ) | |
| }); |
| return ( | ||
| <Popup | ||
| popupId="add-new-risk-popup" | ||
| popupContent={<AddNewRiskForm closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)} />} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for form submission failures
The form submission in RisksSection lacks proper error handling. The current implementation:
- Only validates the form input
- Makes a backend request without try-catch
- Closes the popup without waiting for the request result
- Doesn't handle or display backend errors to the user
const handleSubmit = async (event: React.FormEvent<HTMLFormElement>) => {
event.preventDefault();
if (validateForm()) {
- //request to the backend
- closePopup();
+ try {
+ await submitRiskToBackend(values);
+ closePopup();
+ } catch (error) {
+ setAlert({
+ variant: "error",
+ title: "Error",
+ body: "Failed to add risk. Please try again.",
+ isToast: true
+ });
+ }
}
}🔗 Analysis chain
Add error handling for form submission.
The AddNewRiskForm is rendered without any error handling for form submission failures.
Let's verify the error handling in AddNewRiskForm:
Consider adding error handling:
-popupContent={<AddNewRiskForm closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)} />}
+popupContent={
+ <AddNewRiskForm
+ closePopup={() => setAnchor(null)}
+ onError={(error) => {
+ console.error('Failed to add risk:', error);
+ // Add error notification here
+ }}
+ />
+}🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if AddNewRiskForm has error handling
ast-grep --pattern 'const AddNewRiskForm = ({ closePopup }) => {
$$$
catch($_) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 107
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the AddNewRiskForm component file
fd "AddNewRiskForm" --type f
# Then let's examine its content for error handling patterns
rg -A 10 "AddNewRiskForm" --type tsx
# Also check for try-catch or error handling patterns in mutation/submission logic
rg "try.*catch|handleSubmit|onSubmit|mutation" --type tsx -A 10 "AddNewRiskForm"
Length of output: 202
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try without file type restriction since tsx isn't recognized
rg -A 10 "AddNewRiskForm"
# Also search for form submission and error handling patterns in the same files
rg "try.*catch|handleSubmit|onSubmit|mutation" $(fd "AddNewRiskForm" --type f)
Length of output: 10469
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the handleSubmit implementation in RisksSection
rg -B 5 -A 15 "const handleSubmit = async \(event: React\.FormEvent<HTMLFormElement>\)" Clients/src/presentation/components/AddNewRiskForm/RisksSection/index.tsx
Length of output: 740
| handleOpenOrClose?: (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => void, | ||
| anchor: null | HTMLElement |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make handleOpenOrClose required to ensure proper popup control
The handleOpenOrClose prop is marked as optional while anchor is required. Since the popup's visibility depends on anchor, the handler should be required to ensure the popup can always be controlled.
Apply this change to the interface:
- handleOpenOrClose?: (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => void,
+ handleOpenOrClose: (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => void,📝 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.
| handleOpenOrClose?: (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => void, | |
| anchor: null | HTMLElement | |
| handleOpenOrClose: (event: React.MouseEvent<HTMLElement>) => void, | |
| anchor: null | HTMLElement |
| label="Start date" | ||
| date={values.deadline ? dayjs(values.deadline) : null} | ||
| handleDateChange={(e) => handleDateChange("deadline", e)} | ||
| sx={{ | ||
| width: 130, | ||
| "& input": { width: 85 } | ||
| }} | ||
| isRequired | ||
| error={errors.deadline} | ||
| /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update the DatePicker label to 'Deadline'.
The DatePicker component is labeled "Start date" but is bound to the deadline field. To avoid confusion, the label should accurately reflect the field's purpose.
Change the label as follows:
- label="Start date"
+ label="Deadline"📝 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.
| label="Start date" | |
| date={values.deadline ? dayjs(values.deadline) : null} | |
| handleDateChange={(e) => handleDateChange("deadline", e)} | |
| sx={{ | |
| width: 130, | |
| "& input": { width: 85 } | |
| }} | |
| isRequired | |
| error={errors.deadline} | |
| /> | |
| label="Deadline" | |
| date={values.deadline ? dayjs(values.deadline) : null} | |
| handleDateChange={(e) => handleDateChange("deadline", e)} | |
| sx={{ | |
| width: 130, | |
| "& input": { width: 85 } | |
| }} | |
| isRequired | |
| error={errors.deadline} | |
| /> |
| const deadline = checkStringValidation("Recommendations", values.deadline, 1); | ||
| if (!deadline.accepted) { | ||
| newErrors.deadline = deadline.message; | ||
| } | ||
| const dateOfAssessment = checkStringValidation("Recommendations", values.dateOfAssessment, 1); | ||
| if (!dateOfAssessment.accepted) { | ||
| newErrors.dateOfAssessment = dateOfAssessment.message; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the validation labels for 'deadline' and 'dateOfAssessment'.
The validateForm function uses the label "Recommendations" when validating the 'deadline' and 'dateOfAssessment' fields, which is incorrect and may cause misleading error messages.
Update the validation labels:
- const deadline = checkStringValidation("Recommendations", values.deadline, 1);
+ const deadline = checkStringValidation("Deadline", values.deadline, 1);
- const dateOfAssessment = checkStringValidation("Recommendations", values.dateOfAssessment, 1);
+ const dateOfAssessment = checkStringValidation("Date of Assessment", values.dateOfAssessment, 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 deadline = checkStringValidation("Recommendations", values.deadline, 1); | |
| if (!deadline.accepted) { | |
| newErrors.deadline = deadline.message; | |
| } | |
| const dateOfAssessment = checkStringValidation("Recommendations", values.dateOfAssessment, 1); | |
| if (!dateOfAssessment.accepted) { | |
| newErrors.dateOfAssessment = dateOfAssessment.message; | |
| } | |
| const deadline = checkStringValidation("Deadline", values.deadline, 1); | |
| if (!deadline.accepted) { | |
| newErrors.deadline = deadline.message; | |
| } | |
| const dateOfAssessment = checkStringValidation("Date of Assessment", values.dateOfAssessment, 1); | |
| if (!dateOfAssessment.accepted) { | |
| newErrors.dateOfAssessment = dateOfAssessment.message; | |
| } |
| const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof MitigationFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => { | ||
| setValues({ ...values, [prop]: event.target.value }); | ||
| setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure numeric values are correctly handled in handleOnSelectChange.
The handleOnSelectChange function may assign string values to numeric fields in values, since event.target.value is a string. This can lead to type issues and unexpected behavior.
Modify the function to parse numeric values when updating numeric fields:
const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof MitigationFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => {
- setValues({ ...values, [prop]: event.target.value });
+ const value = typeof values[prop] === 'number' ? Number(event.target.value) : event.target.value;
+ setValues({ ...values, [prop]: value });
setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" });
};📝 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 handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof MitigationFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => { | |
| setValues({ ...values, [prop]: event.target.value }); | |
| setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" }); | |
| const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof MitigationFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => { | |
| const value = typeof values[prop] === 'number' ? Number(event.target.value) : event.target.value; | |
| setValues({ ...values, [prop]: value }); | |
| setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" }); |
| const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof RiskFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => { | ||
| setValues({ ...values, [prop]: event.target.value }); | ||
| setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" }); | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Type conversion needed for select inputs
In handleOnSelectChange, the event.target.value returns a string, but you are assigning it to properties in values that expect a number. This can lead to type inconsistencies and runtime errors.
Apply this diff to ensure proper type conversion:
const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof RiskFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => {
- setValues({ ...values, [prop]: event.target.value });
+ setValues({ ...values, [prop]: Number(event.target.value) });
setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" });
};📝 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 handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof RiskFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => { | |
| setValues({ ...values, [prop]: event.target.value }); | |
| setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" }); | |
| }; | |
| const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof RiskFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => { | |
| setValues({ ...values, [prop]: Number(event.target.value) }); | |
| setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" }); | |
| }; |
| <Divider /> | ||
| <Typography sx={{ fontSize: 16, fontWeight: 600, mt: 6.5 }}>Calculate risk level</Typography> | ||
| <Typography sx={{ fontSize: theme.typography.fontSize, mb: 8 }}>The Risk Level is calculated by multiplying the Likelihood and Severity scores. By assigning these scores, the risk level will be determined based on your inputs.</Typography> | ||
| <RiskLevel likelihood={values.likelihood} riskSeverity={values.riskSeverity} handleOnSelectChange={handleOnSelectChange} /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure riskLevel is calculated and updated
The riskLevel in values is not being updated based on likelihood and riskSeverity, which is necessary for accurate risk assessment.
Consider updating riskLevel whenever likelihood or riskSeverity changes:
// Inside handleOnSelectChange
const handleOnSelectChange = (prop: keyof RiskFormValues) => (event: SelectChangeEvent<string | number>) => {
const newValue = Number(event.target.value);
const newValues = { ...values, [prop]: newValue };
+ if (prop === 'likelihood' || prop === 'riskSeverity') {
+ newValues.riskLevel = newValues.likelihood * newValues.riskSeverity;
+ }
setValues(newValues);
setErrors({ ...errors, [prop]: "" });
};Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
Implemented validation for Create new project and Add a new risk popups
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Style
Documentation