-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
004 Oct 9 Implementation Models #58
004 Oct 9 Implementation Models #58
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces significant updates to the server's environment configuration and expands the functionality of the Express.js application. Key changes include modifications to the 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post
🛑 Comments failed to post (88)
Servers/.example.env (2)
5-5:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity concern: Weak database password in example configuration
While this is an example file, using "password" as the database password could lead to security vulnerabilities if accidentally used in a production environment.
Consider using a placeholder that emphasizes the need for a strong, unique password. For example:
-DB_PASSWORD=password +DB_PASSWORD=<strong-unique-password>This change would serve as a reminder for developers to use a secure password in their actual configuration.
📝 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.DB_PASSWORD=<strong-unique-password>
9-9:
⚠️ Potential issueSecurity concern: Weak JWT secret in example configuration
While the JWT_SECRET remains unchanged, using "verifywise" as the secret is not secure, even in an example file.
Consider using a placeholder that emphasizes the need for a strong, unique secret. For example:
-JWT_SECRET=verifywise +JWT_SECRET=<strong-unique-secret>This change would serve as a reminder for developers to use a secure, unique secret in their actual configuration.
📝 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.JWT_SECRET=<strong-unique-secret>
Servers/models/ComplianceTracker.ts (1)
1-8: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing type safety and adding documentation
The
ComplianceTracker
interface looks good overall, but there are a few suggestions to improve its robustness and clarity:
For
id
andproject_id
, consider using a more specific type likeinteger
if your TypeScript version supports it. If not, add a comment specifying that these should be integers.For
compliance_status
, it would be beneficial to use an enum or union type instead ofnumber
. This would provide better type safety and self-documentation. For example:export enum ComplianceStatus { NonCompliant = 0, PartiallyCompliant = 1, Compliant = 2 } // Then in the interface compliance_status: ComplianceStatus;
Add JSDoc comments to explain the purpose of each field, especially for
compliance_status
,pending_audits
,completed_assessments
, andimplemented_controls
.Consider adding timestamp fields like
created_at
andupdated_at
to track when the compliance tracker was created and last updated.Here's an example of how you might implement these suggestions:
/** * Represents the compliance tracking information for a project. */ export interface ComplianceTracker { /** Unique identifier for the compliance tracker */ id: number; /** ID of the associated project */ project_id: number; /** Current compliance status */ compliance_status: ComplianceStatus; /** Number of audits that are pending completion */ pending_audits: number; /** Number of assessments that have been completed */ completed_assessments: number; /** Number of controls that have been implemented */ implemented_controls: number; /** Timestamp of when the tracker was created */ created_at: Date; /** Timestamp of the last update to the tracker */ updated_at: Date; } export enum ComplianceStatus { NonCompliant = 0, PartiallyCompliant = 1, Compliant = 2 }These changes would make the interface more self-documenting and type-safe.
Servers/models/Risk.ts (2)
1-11: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refining the Risk interface for improved clarity and type safety.
The
Risk
interface provides a good foundation for representing risk entities. However, there are a few suggestions to enhance its structure and usability:
The
likelihood
andprobability
fields seem to serve the same purpose. Consider removing one to avoid redundancy.Fields like
impact
,probability
,severity
,likelihood
, andrisk_level
might benefit from being more strictly typed. Consider using enums or union types to restrict these to a predefined set of values. This would improve type safety and prevent invalid data.Consider adding
created_at
andupdated_at
timestamp fields. These can be valuable for auditing and tracking the lifecycle of risk entries.Here's a suggested refactoring of the interface:
export enum Probability { Low = 'low', Medium = 'medium', High = 'high' } export enum Severity { Low = 'low', Medium = 'medium', High = 'high', Critical = 'critical' } export enum RiskLevel { Low = 'low', Medium = 'medium', High = 'high', Critical = 'critical' } export interface Risk { id: number project_id: number risk_description: string impact: string probability: Probability owner_id: number severity: Severity risk_level: RiskLevel created_at: Date updated_at: Date }This refactoring improves type safety, removes redundancy, and adds audit fields. Adjust the enum values as needed to match your specific risk assessment criteria.
1-11: 💡 Codebase verification
Missing Integration of Risk Interface Components
The
Risk
interface is utilized inServers/utils/risk.utils.ts
, but there are no corresponding database migrations, controllers, or routes implemented. This may indicate incomplete integration of theRisk
model within the system.
- Database Migration: Ensure a migration script exists to create the
Risk
table.- Controller Implementation: Verify that a
RiskController
is implemented to handleRisk
operations.- Route Definitions: Confirm that routes for
Risk
are defined to enable API interactions.🔗 Analysis chain
Verify integration with related components
While the
Risk
interface looks good on its own, it's important to ensure it aligns well with other parts of the system.Please run the following script to check for consistency with related components:
This script will help verify that the
Risk
interface is properly integrated with other components such as database migrations, controllers, and routes. Please review the output to ensure consistency across the system.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistency between Risk interface and related components # Test 1: Check if there's a corresponding database migration for the Risk table echo "Checking for Risk table migration:" rg --type typescript -g 'migrations/*.ts' 'createTable.*Risk' # Test 2: Check if there's a corresponding controller for Risk echo "Checking for Risk controller:" rg --type typescript -g 'controllers/*.ts' 'class.*RiskController' # Test 3: Check if there are corresponding routes for Risk echo "Checking for Risk routes:" rg --type typescript -g 'routes/*.ts' 'router.*risk' # Test 4: Check for usage of Risk interface in other files echo "Checking for usage of Risk interface:" rg --type typescript 'import.*Risk.*from.*models/Risk'Length of output: 678
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistency between Risk interface and related components # Test 1: Check if there's a corresponding database migration for the Risk table echo "Checking for Risk table migration:" rg -g 'migrations/*.ts' 'createTable.*Risk' # Test 2: Check if there's a corresponding controller for Risk echo "Checking for Risk controller:" rg -g 'controllers/*.ts' 'class.*RiskController' # Test 3: Check if there are corresponding routes for Risk echo "Checking for Risk routes:" rg -g 'routes/*.ts' 'router.*risk' # Test 4: Check for usage of Risk interface in other files echo "Checking for usage of Risk interface:" rg 'import.*Risk.*from.*models/Risk'Length of output: 980
Servers/models/Vendor.ts (3)
8-9: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using enums for status and result fields.
For
review_result
,review_status
, andrisk_status
, consider using TypeScript enums instead of strings. This would provide better type safety and prevent invalid values from being assigned.Here's an example of how you could implement this:
export enum ReviewResult { Approved = 'APPROVED', Rejected = 'REJECTED', PendingChanges = 'PENDING_CHANGES' } export enum ReviewStatus { InProgress = 'IN_PROGRESS', Completed = 'COMPLETED', NotStarted = 'NOT_STARTED' } export enum RiskStatus { Low = 'LOW', Medium = 'MEDIUM', High = 'HIGH' } export interface Vendor { // ... other properties review_result: ReviewResult, review_status: ReviewStatus, risk_status: RiskStatus, }This approach would provide better type checking and autocompletion in your IDE.
Also applies to: 12-12
6-6: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add URL validation for the website field.
Consider adding a URL validator for the
website
property to ensure that only valid URLs are stored.You could use a custom type or a validation function. Here's an example using a custom type:
type URL = string & { __brand: 'URL' }; function isValidURL(url: string): url is URL { try { new URL(url); return true; } catch { return false; } } export interface Vendor { // ... other properties website: URL, }This approach would require validation when assigning a value to the
website
property, ensuring only valid URLs are stored.
7-7: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider expanding the contact_person field.
The
contact_person
field might benefit from being expanded into a more detailed structure. This could provide more comprehensive information about the contact person.Here's a suggestion for a more detailed contact person structure:
interface ContactPerson { name: string; email: string; phone: string; position: string; } export interface Vendor { // ... other properties contact_person: ContactPerson, }This structure would allow for storing more detailed information about the contact person, which could be beneficial for communication and record-keeping purposes.
Servers/models/VendorRisk.ts (1)
1-14: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using more specific types and adding documentation
The
VendorRisk
interface looks good overall, but there are a few suggestions to improve its robustness and clarity:
Some properties could benefit from more specific types:
probability
,impact
,risk_severity
,likelihood
, andrisk_level
could be enums or numbers instead of strings to ensure consistency and prevent invalid values.There seems to be redundancy between
likelihood
andprobability
. Consider removing one of these properties or clarifying their distinct purposes if both are necessary.Adding documentation for the interface and its properties would greatly improve readability and maintainability. Consider using JSDoc comments to describe the purpose of each property and any constraints or expected values.
Here's an example of how you might refactor the interface with these suggestions:
/** * Represents a risk associated with a vendor. */ export interface VendorRisk { /** Unique identifier for the vendor risk */ id: number; /** ID of the associated vendor */ vendor_id: number; /** Description of the risk */ risk_description: string; /** Description of the potential impact */ impact_description: string; /** ID of the associated project */ project_id: number; /** Probability of the risk occurring */ probability: 'Low' | 'Medium' | 'High'; /** Potential impact of the risk */ impact: 'Low' | 'Medium' | 'High'; /** Plan to mitigate or address the risk */ action_plan: string; /** ID of the person responsible for the action plan */ action_owner_id: number; /** Overall severity of the risk */ risk_severity: 'Low' | 'Medium' | 'High'; /** Calculated risk level based on probability and impact */ risk_level: 'Low' | 'Medium' | 'High'; }Note that I've removed the
likelihood
property as it seemed redundant withprobability
. If they serve different purposes, please clarify and keep both with appropriate documentation.Servers/routes/complianceTracker.route.ts (1)
1-24: 💡 Codebase verification
Imported functions or middleware may be missing or incorrectly implemented.
It appears that the necessary controller functions and the
authenticateJWT
middleware are not found as expected. Please verify that all imported functions in../controllers/complianceTracker.ctrl
and theauthenticateJWT
middleware in../middleware/auth.middleware
are correctly implemented and exported.🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the existence and implementation of imported functions and middleware.
The router implementation looks good overall. To ensure completeness, please verify:
- The correct implementation of all imported controller functions in
../controllers/complianceTracker.ctrl
.- The proper implementation of the
authenticateJWT
middleware in../middleware/auth.middleware
.Run the following script to check for the existence of the imported functions and middleware:
This will help ensure that all necessary components are in place for the router to function correctly.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of imported functions and middleware # Test 1: Check for controller functions echo "Checking for controller functions:" ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern $'export const $_: $_ = async (req, res) => { $$$ }' Servers/controllers/complianceTracker.ctrl.ts # Test 2: Check for authenticateJWT middleware echo "Checking for authenticateJWT middleware:" ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern $'export const authenticateJWT = (req, res, next) => { $$$ }' Servers/middleware/auth.middleware.tsLength of output: 448
Servers/mocks/tools/risk.mock.db.ts (4)
7-9:
⚠️ Potential issueCorrect parameter naming and improve type safety in
getMockRiskById
function.There are two issues to address:
- The parameter in the
find
callback is named 'vendor' instead of 'risk'.- The return type can be more specific for better type safety.
Suggested fix:
export const getMockRiskById = (id: number): Risk | undefined => { return risks.find((risk) => risk.id === id); };
11-14:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove
createMockRisk
function with id generation and type safety.The function needs improvements in two areas:
- It should generate a new id for the risk to prevent duplicate ids.
- It should use more specific types for better type safety.
Suggested implementation:
export const createMockRisk = (newRisk: Omit<Risk, 'id'>): Risk => { const id = Math.max(...risks.map(r => r.id), 0) + 1; const riskWithId = { ...newRisk, id }; risks.push(riskWithId); return riskWithId; };This implementation generates a new id, ensures type safety, and returns the newly created risk with its id.
16-23:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove
updateMockRiskById
function for consistency and type safety.The function needs several improvements:
- Correct the parameter naming in the
findIndex
callback.- Use more specific types for better type safety.
- Prevent updating the id of a risk.
Suggested implementation:
export const updateMockRiskById = (id: number, updatedRisk: Partial<Omit<Risk, 'id'>>): Risk | null => { const index = risks.findIndex((risk) => risk.id === id); if (index !== -1) { risks[index] = { ...risks[index], ...updatedRisk }; return risks[index]; } return null; };This implementation addresses the naming issue, improves type safety, and prevents updating the risk's id.
25-32:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove
deleteMockRiskById
function for consistency and type safety.The function needs two improvements:
- Correct the parameter naming in the
findIndex
callback.- Use a more specific return type for better type safety.
Suggested implementation:
export const deleteMockRiskById = (id: number): Risk | null => { const index = risks.findIndex((risk) => risk.id === id); if (index !== -1) { const [deletedRisk] = risks.splice(index, 1); return deletedRisk; } return null; };This implementation addresses the naming issue and improves type safety.
Servers/mocks/complianceTrackers/complianceTrackers.data.ts (3)
1-42: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding TypeScript interfaces for better type safety and documentation.
The structure of the
complianceTrackers
array is consistent, but we can improve type safety and readability by defining a TypeScript interface for the compliance tracker objects.Consider adding the following interface at the beginning of the file:
interface ComplianceTracker { id: number; project_id: number; compliance_status: number; pending_audits: number; completed_assessments: number; implemented_controls: number; } export const complianceTrackers: ComplianceTracker[] = [ // ... existing array contents ];This will provide better type checking and auto-completion in IDEs, making the code more maintainable and less error-prone.
1-42: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider expanding mock data to cover more scenarios and edge cases.
The current mock data provides a good starting point, but consider enhancing it to cover more scenarios and edge cases. This will help in more comprehensive testing and development.
Here are some suggestions to improve the mock data:
- Add an object with all numeric values set to 0 to test boundary conditions.
- Include an object with very large numbers to test UI rendering and potential overflow scenarios.
- Consider adding more diverse
project_id
values, including larger numbers.- Ensure that there's at least one object for each possible
compliance_status
value.Example of an additional object to consider:
{ id: 6, project_id: 1000000, compliance_status: ComplianceStatus.UnderReview, pending_audits: 0, completed_assessments: 0, implemented_controls: 0 }These additions will help catch potential issues early in the development process and ensure the application handles various data scenarios correctly.
5-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Replace magic numbers with an enum for
compliance_status
.The current use of numeric values (1, 2, 3) for
compliance_status
with comments is not ideal for maintainability and readability.Consider defining an enum for
compliance_status
at the beginning of the file:enum ComplianceStatus { Compliant = 1, NonCompliant = 2, UnderReview = 3 } interface ComplianceTracker { // ... other properties compliance_status: ComplianceStatus; } export const complianceTrackers: ComplianceTracker[] = [ { // ... other properties compliance_status: ComplianceStatus.Compliant, }, // ... other objects ];This change will make the code more self-documenting and type-safe, eliminating the need for comments to explain the status values.
Also applies to: 13-13, 21-21, 29-29, 37-37
Servers/mocks/tools/vendor.mock.db.ts (2)
3-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve type safety by using a more specific return type.
The function correctly returns all vendors. However, using
Array<any>
as the return type reduces type safety.Consider defining a
Vendor
interface and using it as the return type:interface Vendor { id: number; // Add other properties here } export const getAllMockVendors = (): Vendor[] => { return vendors; };This will provide better type checking and improve code readability.
11-14:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove type safety and add data validation for new vendors.
While the function correctly adds a new vendor to the array, there are several areas for improvement:
- Use a more specific type instead of
any
for thenewVendor
parameter and the return type.- Add validation for the new vendor object to ensure it has all required fields.
- Consider generating a unique ID for the new vendor if it's not provided.
Here's a suggested improvement:
export const createMockVendor = (newVendor: Omit<Vendor, 'id'>): Vendor => { const id = Math.max(...vendors.map(v => v.id), 0) + 1; const vendorWithId = { ...newVendor, id }; // Add validation here if (!validateVendor(vendorWithId)) { throw new Error('Invalid vendor data'); } vendors.push(vendorWithId); return vendorWithId; }; function validateVendor(vendor: Vendor): boolean { // Add validation logic here return true; }This approach ensures type safety, generates a unique ID, and allows for data validation before adding the new vendor.
Servers/mocks/tools/project.mock.db.ts (1)
11-14:
⚠️ Potential issueEnhance type safety and add data validation
The current implementation lacks type safety and data validation, which could lead to data integrity issues.
Consider the following improvements:
- Use a specific type for the
newProject
parameter instead ofany
.- Add validation for required fields and data types.
- Check for duplicate IDs before adding a new project.
- Generate a new ID for the project instead of relying on the client to provide one.
Here's an example implementation:
interface NewProject { name: string; // Add other required fields here } export const createMockProject = (newProject: NewProject): Project => { const id = Math.max(...projects.map(p => p.id), 0) + 1; const project: Project = { id, ...newProject, createdAt: new Date().toISOString() }; if (projects.some(p => p.name === project.name)) { throw new Error('A project with this name already exists'); } projects.push(project); return project; };Servers/mocks/tools/vendorRisk.mock.db.ts (2)
3-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a more specific return type.
While the function is correctly implemented, using
Array<any>
as the return type is too permissive and could lead to type-related issues in the future. Consider defining aVendorRisk
interface and usingArray<VendorRisk>
as the return type for better type safety.interface VendorRisk { id: number; // Add other properties as needed } export const getAllMockVendorRisks = (): Array<VendorRisk> => { return vendorRisks; };
11-14: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using specific types and adding ID generation.
While the function is correctly implemented, using
any
for parameter and return types is too permissive. Consider using aVendorRisk
type for better type safety. Additionally, the function doesn't generate a new ID for the vendor risk, which could lead to duplicate IDs. Consider adding ID generation logic.export const createMockVendorRisk = (newVendorRisk: Omit<VendorRisk, 'id'>): VendorRisk => { const id = Math.max(...vendorRisks.map(vr => vr.id), 0) + 1; const vendorRiskWithId = { ...newVendorRisk, id }; vendorRisks.push(vendorRiskWithId); return vendorRiskWithId; };Servers/mocks/tools/complianceTracker.mock.db.ts (2)
3-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a more specific return type.
The function correctly returns all compliance trackers. However, using
Array<any>
as the return type might lead to type safety issues.Consider defining a
ComplianceTracker
interface and using it instead ofany
:interface ComplianceTracker { id: number; // Add other properties here } export const getAllMockComplianceTrackers = (): Array<ComplianceTracker> => { return complianceTrackers; };
11-14:
⚠️ Potential issueImprove type safety and ID handling in create operation.
The function correctly adds a new compliance tracker. However, there are some areas for improvement:
- Use a more specific type instead of
any
for better type safety.- Consider generating a new ID or checking for duplicate IDs before adding the tracker.
Here's a suggested implementation:
export const createMockComplianceTracker = (newComplianceTracker: Omit<ComplianceTracker, 'id'>): ComplianceTracker => { const newId = Math.max(...complianceTrackers.map(tracker => tracker.id), 0) + 1; const trackerWithId = { ...newComplianceTracker, id: newId }; complianceTrackers.push(trackerWithId); return trackerWithId; };Servers/mocks/risks/risks.data.ts (3)
1-57: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing mock data realism
While the mock data is well-structured, consider the following suggestions to make it more representative of real-world scenarios:
- Use non-sequential UUIDs for
id
to better simulate a production environment.- Vary the
owner_id
values to represent a more realistic distribution of risk owners.- Standardize the scales used for
impact
,probability
,severity
,likelihood
, andrisk_level
to ensure consistency.Example of standardized scales:
- Impact/Severity: Low, Medium, High, Critical
- Probability/Likelihood: Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Almost Certain
- Risk Level: Low, Medium, High, Critical
Would you like assistance in implementing these suggestions?
1-57: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding properties for more comprehensive risk management
To make the mock data more robust and useful for testing complex risk management scenarios, consider adding the following properties to each risk object:
status
: To track the current state of the risk (e.g., "Identified", "Assessed", "Mitigated", "Closed").mitigation_strategy
: A brief description of the plan to address the risk.created_at
andupdated_at
: Timestamps for auditing purposes.related_risks
: An array of IDs of related risks, to model risk dependencies.category
: To classify risks (e.g., "Technical", "Financial", "Operational").Example addition:
{ // ... existing properties ... status: "Assessed", mitigation_strategy: "Implement additional security measures and conduct regular audits", created_at: "2023-10-01T10:00:00Z", updated_at: "2023-10-05T14:30:00Z", related_risks: [2, 5], category: "Security" }Would you like assistance in implementing these additional properties?
5-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance diversity and specificity of risk scenarios
The current risk descriptions provide a good starting point, but consider enhancing them to cover a wider range of scenarios and add more specificity:
- Include industry-specific risks (e.g., "Regulatory changes affecting pharmaceutical trials").
- Add technology-related risks (e.g., "Compatibility issues with legacy systems during integration").
- Consider financial risks (e.g., "Currency fluctuations impacting international project costs").
- Incorporate environmental or external risks (e.g., "Supply chain disruptions due to natural disasters").
- Add more detail to existing scenarios (e.g., instead of "Data breach due to inadequate security measures", use "Data breach due to unpatched vulnerabilities in the customer database").
Would you like assistance in drafting more diverse and specific risk scenarios?
Also applies to: 16-16, 27-27, 38-38, 49-49
Servers/mocks/vendors/vendors.data.ts (3)
12-12:
⚠️ Potential issueReview dates for completed reviews should not be in the future
Some vendors have
review_date
set in the future, which is inconsistent with theirreview_status
being "Completed". For example:
- Line 51: Review date is set to '2024-05-12' for a completed review
- Line 64: Review date is set to '2024-10-01' for an in-progress review
Ensure that completed reviews have past dates, and in-progress reviews have current or future dates.
Consider updating the dates to be more consistent with the review statuses.
Also applies to: 25-25, 38-38, 51-51, 64-64
9-13: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve correlation between review status, result, and risk status
There's no clear correlation between
review_status
,review_result
, andrisk_status
. For more realistic mock data, consider establishing a logical relationship between these fields. For example:
- "Completed" status should always have a definitive "Approved" or "Rejected" result, not "Pending".
- "In Progress" status should typically have a "Pending" result.
- Consider correlating "High" risk status with "Rejected" or "Pending" results more often than with "Approved" results.
Update the mock data to reflect more realistic relationships between these fields. For example:
{ // ... review_result: "Pending", review_status: "In Progress", // ... risk_status: "High" }, { // ... review_result: "Rejected", review_status: "Completed", // ... risk_status: "High" },Also applies to: 22-26, 35-39, 48-52, 61-65
1-67: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance mock data usefulness and maintainability
Consider the following improvements to make the mock data more robust and developer-friendly:
Add more varied scenarios to improve test coverage. For example, include cases with missing optional fields or edge cases.
Define a TypeScript interface or type for the vendor object to enhance type safety and provide better documentation. For example:
interface Vendor { id: number; name: string; project_id: number; description: string; website: string; contact_person: string; review_result: 'Approved' | 'Pending' | 'Rejected'; review_status: 'Completed' | 'In Progress'; reviewer_id: number; review_date: Date; risk_status: 'Low' | 'Moderate' | 'High'; } export const vendors: Vendor[] = [ // ... existing data ];
- Add a comment at the top of the file explaining the purpose and usage of this mock data. For example:
/** * Mock vendor data for testing and development purposes. * This data simulates various vendor scenarios including different * review statuses, risk levels, and project associations. * * Usage: Import this data in test files or use it to populate * development environments with realistic vendor information. */Would you like me to implement these suggestions or create a separate issue to track these improvements?
Servers/mocks/vendorRisks/vendorRisks.data.ts (1)
1-72: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using enums and more robust ID formats
To improve the quality and consistency of the mock data:
Replace string values with enums for fields like probability, impact, risk_severity, likelihood, and risk_level. This will ensure consistency and make it easier to validate input.
Use more realistic ID formats, such as UUIDs, to better simulate real-world scenarios and test for potential issues with unique identifiers.
Here's an example of how you could implement these suggestions:
import { v4 as uuidv4 } from 'uuid'; enum Probability { Low = "Low", Medium = "Medium", High = "High" } enum Impact { Minor = "Minor", Moderate = "Moderate", High = "High", Critical = "Critical" } enum RiskSeverity { Low = "Low", Moderate = "Moderate", High = "High", Severe = "Severe" } enum Likelihood { Unlikely = "Unlikely", Possible = "Possible", Likely = "Likely" } enum RiskLevel { Low = "Low", Moderate = "Moderate", High = "High" } export const vendorRisks = [ { id: uuidv4(), vendor_id: uuidv4(), risk_description: "Potential data security risks due to third-party integrations.", impact_description: "Data breaches could lead to significant financial and reputational damage.", project_id: uuidv4(), probability: Probability.High, impact: Impact.Critical, action_plan: "Implement enhanced encryption and regular security audits.", action_owner_id: uuidv4(), risk_severity: RiskSeverity.Severe, likelihood: Likelihood.Likely, risk_level: RiskLevel.High }, // ... other risk objects ];This approach provides better type safety and more realistic IDs for testing purposes.
Servers/routes/user.route.ts (1)
92-92:
⚠️ Potential issueCorrect route path for user login
The addition of the leading slash in the login route path is a necessary and correct change. This ensures that the login endpoint is properly defined as an absolute path, consistent with other routes in the file.
This change fixes a potential bug where the login route might not have been accessible as expected. It's a small but crucial correction that aligns with Express.js best practices for route definitions.
Servers/utils/risk.utils.ts (2)
46-48: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Handle empty update requests gracefully
Throwing an error when no fields are provided might not be the best user experience. Consider returning early or sending a meaningful response indicating that no update was performed.
For example:
if (fields.length === 0) { - throw new Error("No fields to update"); + return await getRiskByIdQuery(id); // Return the existing risk without changes }📝 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 (fields.length === 0) { return await getRiskByIdQuery(id); // Return the existing risk without changes }
37-52:
⚠️ Potential issueFix parameter indexing in dynamic SQL query to ensure correctness
There's a logical error in how SQL query parameters are handled in the
updateRiskByIdQuery
function. The parameter placeholders ($1
,$2
, etc.) are hardcoded, which can lead to incorrect parameter associations when some fields are omitted.Here's how the issue manifests:
- If only one field (e.g.,
name
) is being updated,fields
will contain one element with$1
, andvalues
will have one value.- The
id
parameter is always assigned to$3
, regardless of how many fields are being updated.- This mismatch leads to SQL queries with incorrect parameter indexing, causing runtime errors.
Suggested Fix: Use parameter indexing dynamically based on fields
Adjust the code to dynamically assign parameter placeholders based on the number of fields provided. Here's the corrected implementation:
export const updateRiskByIdQuery = async ( id: number, risk: { name?: string; description?: string } ): Promise<Risk | null> => { console.log("updateRiskById", id, risk); const fields = []; const values = []; - let query = "UPDATE risks SET "; + let query = ""; if (risk.name) { - fields.push("name = $1"); + fields.push(`name = $${fields.length + 1}`); values.push(risk.name); } if (risk.description) { - fields.push("description = $2"); + fields.push(`description = $${fields.length + 1}`); values.push(risk.description); } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } - query += fields.join(", ") + " WHERE id = $3 RETURNING *"; - values.push(id); + query = `UPDATE risks SET ${fields.join(", ")} WHERE id = $${fields.length + 1} RETURNING *`; + values.push(id); const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; };This adjustment ensures that parameter placeholders are correctly associated with their corresponding values, regardless of which fields are being updated.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.if (risk.name) { fields.push(`name = $${fields.length + 1}`); values.push(risk.name); } if (risk.description) { fields.push(`description = $${fields.length + 1}`); values.push(risk.description); } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } query = `UPDATE risks SET ${fields.join(", ")} WHERE id = $${fields.length + 1} RETURNING *`; values.push(id);
Servers/utils/vendor.utils.ts (3)
5-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use a Logging Library Instead of
console.log
Using
console.log
for logging is not recommended in production environments. Consider using a logging library such as Winston or Bunyan to have better control over log levels, formatting, and destinations.Also applies to: 11-11, 20-20, 32-32, 58-58
4-64:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd Error Handling for Database Operations
Currently, the asynchronous database operations are not enclosed in
try-catch
blocks. If an error occurs during a database query, it could cause the application to crash or behave unpredictably. Proper error handling ensures that exceptions are caught and handled gracefully, improving the robustness of the application.Consider wrapping database calls in
try-catch
blocks and handling exceptions appropriately. For example:export const getAllVendorsQuery = async (): Promise<Vendor[]> => { try { console.log("getAllVendors"); const vendors = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM vendors"); return vendors.rows; } catch (error) { // Handle error or rethrow console.error("Error in getAllVendorsQuery:", error); throw error; } };Apply similar error handling to the other queries to ensure that all potential exceptions are managed properly.
37-53:
⚠️ Potential issueFix Parameter Placeholders in
updateVendorByIdQuery
to Prevent MismatchesThe current implementation hardcodes parameter placeholders (
$1
,$2
,$3
), which can lead to mismatches between the placeholders and the values array when optional fields are not provided. This can result in SQL errors due to incorrect parameter indexing.Here's a suggested fix to dynamically assign parameter placeholders:
const fields = []; const values = []; + let paramIndex = 1; let query = "UPDATE vendors SET "; if (vendor.name) { - fields.push("name = $1"); + fields.push(`name = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(vendor.name); + paramIndex++; } if (vendor.description) { - fields.push("description = $2"); + fields.push(`description = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(vendor.description); + paramIndex++; } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } - query += fields.join(", ") + " WHERE id = $3 RETURNING *"; + query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${paramIndex} RETURNING *`; values.push(id); const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null;This approach ensures that the parameter placeholders correctly correspond to the entries in the
values
array, regardless of which fields are being updated.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const fields = []; const values = []; let paramIndex = 1; let query = "UPDATE vendors SET "; if (vendor.name) { fields.push(`name = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(vendor.name); paramIndex++; } if (vendor.description) { fields.push(`description = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(vendor.description); paramIndex++; } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${paramIndex} RETURNING *`; values.push(id); const result = await pool.query(query, values);
Servers/utils/project.utils.ts (8)
20-20:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid logging entire objects to prevent exposure of sensitive data
Logging the entire
project
object or other parameters may expose sensitive information in logs. Consider logging only necessary identifiers or obfuscating sensitive data.Apply this diff:
- console.log("createNewProject", project); + console.log("createNewProject", { name: project.name }); - console.log("updateProjectById", id, project); + console.log("updateProjectById", { id, updatedFields: Object.keys(project) }); - console.log("deleteProjectById", id); + console.log("deleteProjectById", { id });Also applies to: 32-32, 58-58
58-64:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling to database query in
deleteProjectByIdQuery
Handling errors during the delete operation will improve the stability of your application.
Apply this diff:
export const deleteProjectByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<boolean> => { + try { console.log("deleteProjectById", id); const result = await pool.query( "DELETE FROM projects WHERE id = $1 RETURNING id", [id] ); - return result.rowCount !== null && result.rowCount > 0; + return result.rowCount > 0; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error deleting project by ID:", error); + throw error; + } };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const deleteProjectByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<boolean> => { try { console.log("deleteProjectById", id); const result = await pool.query( "DELETE FROM projects WHERE id = $1 RETURNING id", [id] ); return result.rowCount > 0; } catch (error) { console.error("Error deleting project by ID:", error); throw error; } };
58-64: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify the return condition in
deleteProjectByIdQuery
The condition
result.rowCount !== null && result.rowCount > 0
can be simplified toresult.rowCount > 0
sincerowCount
is always a number.Apply this diff:
return result.rowCount !== null && result.rowCount > 0; + return result.rowCount > 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.console.log("deleteProjectById", id); const result = await pool.query( "DELETE FROM projects WHERE id = $1 RETURNING id", [id] ); return result.rowCount > 0; };
10-14:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling to database query in
getProjectByIdQuery
Similar to the previous function, this function should handle potential errors from the database query.
Apply this diff to add error handling:
export const getProjectByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<Project | null> => { + try { console.log("getProjectById", id); const result = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM projects WHERE id = $1", [id]); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error fetching project by ID:", error); + throw error; + } };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const getProjectByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<Project | null> => { try { console.log("getProjectById", id); const result = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM projects WHERE id = $1", [id]); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; } catch (error) { console.error("Error fetching project by ID:", error); throw error; } };
16-26:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling to database query in
createNewProjectQuery
Adding error handling ensures that any issues during database insertion are properly managed.
Apply this diff:
export const createNewProjectQuery = async (project: { name: string; description: string; }): Promise<Project> => { + try { console.log("createNewProject", { name: project.name }); const result = await pool.query( "INSERT INTO projects (name, description) VALUES ($1, $2) RETURNING *", [project.name, project.description] ); return result.rows[0]; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error creating new project:", error); + throw error; + } };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const createNewProjectQuery = async (project: { name: string; description: string; }): Promise<Project> => { try { console.log("createNewProject", { name: project.name }); const result = await pool.query( "INSERT INTO projects (name, description) VALUES ($1, $2) RETURNING *", [project.name, project.description] ); return result.rows[0]; } catch (error) { console.error("Error creating new project:", error); throw error; } };
4-8:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling to database query in
getAllProjectsQuery
The function lacks error handling for the database query. Wrapping the database call in a
try/catch
block will help prevent unhandled promise rejections and improve robustness.Apply this diff to add error handling:
export const getAllProjectsQuery = async (): Promise<Project[]> => { + try { console.log("getAllProjects"); const projects = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM projects"); return projects.rows; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error fetching projects:", error); + throw error; + } };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const getAllProjectsQuery = async (): Promise<Project[]> => { try { console.log("getAllProjects"); const projects = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM projects"); return projects.rows; } catch (error) { console.error("Error fetching projects:", error); throw error; } };
28-55:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling to database query in
updateProjectByIdQuery
To handle potential errors during the update operation, wrap the database call in a
try/catch
block.Apply this diff:
export const updateProjectByIdQuery = async ( id: number, project: { name?: string; description?: string } ): Promise<Project | null> => { + try { console.log("updateProjectById", id, project); // Existing code... const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error updating project by ID:", error); + throw error; + } };📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const updateProjectByIdQuery = async ( id: number, project: { name?: string; description?: string } ): Promise<Project | null> => { try { console.log("updateProjectById", id, project); const fields = []; const values = []; let query = "UPDATE projects SET "; if (project.name) { fields.push("name = $1"); values.push(project.name); } if (project.description) { fields.push("description = $2"); values.push(project.description); } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } query += fields.join(", ") + " WHERE id = $3 RETURNING *"; values.push(id); const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; } catch (error) { console.error("Error updating project by ID:", error); throw error; } };
28-55:
⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect SQL parameter placeholders in
updateProjectByIdQuery
The placeholders in your SQL query may not align with the
values
array when only one ofname
ordescription
is provided, leading to incorrect parameter binding.Apply this diff to dynamically assign placeholder numbers:
const fields = []; const values = []; let query = "UPDATE projects SET "; + let paramIndex = 1; if (project.name) { - fields.push("name = $1"); + fields.push(`name = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(project.name); + paramIndex++; } if (project.description) { - fields.push("description = $2"); + fields.push(`description = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(project.description); + paramIndex++; } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } - query += fields.join(", ") + " WHERE id = $3 RETURNING *"; + query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${paramIndex} RETURNING *`; values.push(id);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const updateProjectByIdQuery = async ( id: number, project: { name?: string; description?: string } ): Promise<Project | null> => { console.log("updateProjectById", id, project); const fields = []; const values = []; let query = "UPDATE projects SET "; let paramIndex = 1; if (project.name) { fields.push(`name = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(project.name); paramIndex++; } if (project.description) { fields.push(`description = $${paramIndex}`); values.push(project.description); paramIndex++; } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${paramIndex} RETURNING *`; values.push(id); const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; };
Servers/utils/vendorRisk.util.ts (3)
5-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a logging library instead of console.log
Using
console.log
for logging in production code is not recommended, as it does not provide control over log levels and may expose sensitive information. Consider using a logging library likewinston
orpino
to manage logging levels and outputs more effectively.Also applies to: 11-11, 20-20, 32-32, 58-58
4-8: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider implementing pagination to improve performance
Returning all vendor risks without pagination could lead to performance issues and increased memory usage when the dataset grows large. Consider modifying the function to accept pagination parameters (e.g.,
limit
andoffset
) to fetch and return data in smaller, manageable chunks.
37-52:
⚠️ Potential issueFix placeholder numbering in SQL query to avoid runtime errors
The current implementation may cause errors when updating vendor risks because the SQL placeholders (
$1
,$2
,$3
) may not align correctly with thevalues
array when only one ofname
ordescription
is provided. This misalignment can lead to runtime SQL errors due to incorrect parameter indices.Apply this diff to fix the placeholder numbering:
const fields = []; const values = []; +let placeholderIndex = 1; let query = "UPDATE vendorRisks SET "; if (vendorRisk.name) { - fields.push("name = $1"); + fields.push(`name = $${placeholderIndex}`); values.push(vendorRisk.name); + placeholderIndex++; } if (vendorRisk.description) { - fields.push("description = $2"); + fields.push(`description = $${placeholderIndex}`); values.push(vendorRisk.description); + placeholderIndex++; } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } -query += fields.join(", ") + " WHERE id = $3 RETURNING *"; -values.push(id); +query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${placeholderIndex} RETURNING *`; +values.push(id); const result = await pool.query(query, values);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.const fields = []; const values = []; let placeholderIndex = 1; let query = "UPDATE vendorRisks SET "; if (vendorRisk.name) { fields.push(`name = $${placeholderIndex}`); values.push(vendorRisk.name); placeholderIndex++; } if (vendorRisk.description) { fields.push(`description = $${placeholderIndex}`); values.push(vendorRisk.description); placeholderIndex++; } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${placeholderIndex} RETURNING *`; values.push(id);
Servers/utils/complianceTracker.util.ts (6)
5-5: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use a structured logging library instead of
console.log
Multiple functions use
console.log
statements for logging (lines 5, 11, 20, 32, 58). In a production environment, it's advisable to use a structured logging library likewinston
orpino
to manage log levels and outputs more effectively.Consider refactoring your logging to use a dedicated logging library for better control and scalability.
Also applies to: 11-11, 20-20, 32-32, 58-58
57-64:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for database operations in
deleteComplianceTrackerByIdQuery
The function
deleteComplianceTrackerByIdQuery
does not include error handling for the database operation. Incorporate atry/catch
block to manage any exceptions that might occur during the deletion process.Apply this diff to add error handling:
export const deleteComplianceTrackerByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<boolean> => { console.log("deleteComplianceTrackerById", id); + try { const result = await pool.query( "DELETE FROM complianceTrackers WHERE id = $1 RETURNING id", [id] ); return result.rowCount !== null && result.rowCount > 0; + } catch (error) { + console.error(`Error deleting compliance tracker with id ${id}:`, error); + throw error; // Or handle the error as needed + } };📝 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.export const deleteComplianceTrackerByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<boolean> => { console.log("deleteComplianceTrackerById", id); try { const result = await pool.query( "DELETE FROM complianceTrackers WHERE id = $1 RETURNING id", [id] ); return result.rowCount !== null && result.rowCount > 0; } catch (error) { console.error(`Error deleting compliance tracker with id ${id}:`, error); throw error; // Or handle the error as needed } };
4-8:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for database operations in
getAllComplianceTrackersQuery
The function
getAllComplianceTrackersQuery
lacks error handling for the database query. If the query fails, it could result in an unhandled promise rejection. Wrapping the database operation in atry/catch
block will allow you to handle errors gracefully.Apply this diff to add error handling:
export const getAllComplianceTrackersQuery = async (): Promise<ComplianceTracker[]> => { + try { console.log("getAllComplianceTrackers"); const complianceTrackers = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM complianceTrackers"); return complianceTrackers.rows; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error fetching compliance trackers:", error); + throw error; // Or handle the error as needed + } };📝 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.export const getAllComplianceTrackersQuery = async (): Promise<ComplianceTracker[]> => { try { console.log("getAllComplianceTrackers"); const complianceTrackers = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM complianceTrackers"); return complianceTrackers.rows; } catch (error) { console.error("Error fetching compliance trackers:", error); throw error; // Or handle the error as needed } };
10-14:
⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for database operations in
getComplianceTrackerByIdQuery
The function
getComplianceTrackerByIdQuery
does not handle potential errors from the database query. Implementing atry/catch
block will help manage any exceptions that may occur during the database operation.Apply this diff to add error handling:
export const getComplianceTrackerByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<ComplianceTracker | null> => { + try { console.log("getComplianceTrackerById", id); const result = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM complianceTrackers WHERE id = $1", [id]); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; + } catch (error) { + console.error(`Error fetching compliance tracker with id ${id}:`, error); + throw error; // Or handle the error as needed + } };📝 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.export const getComplianceTrackerByIdQuery = async (id: number): Promise<ComplianceTracker | null> => { try { console.log("getComplianceTrackerById", id); const result = await pool.query("SELECT * FROM complianceTrackers WHERE id = $1", [id]); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; } catch (error) { console.error(`Error fetching compliance tracker with id ${id}:`, error); throw error; // Or handle the error as needed } };
16-26:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate input data in
createNewComplianceTrackerQuery
and add error handlingThe
createNewComplianceTrackerQuery
function inserts data into the database without validating the input fieldsname
anddescription
. Additionally, it lacks error handling for the database operation. It's important to validate user input to prevent unexpected behavior or security issues, and to handle potential database errors.Apply this diff to add input validation and error handling:
export const createNewComplianceTrackerQuery = async (complianceTracker: { name: string; description: string; }): Promise<ComplianceTracker> => { + if (!complianceTracker.name || !complianceTracker.description) { + throw new Error("Name and description are required fields"); + } console.log("createNewComplianceTracker", complianceTracker); + try { const result = await pool.query( "INSERT INTO complianceTrackers (name, description) VALUES ($1, $2) RETURNING *", [complianceTracker.name, complianceTracker.description] ); return result.rows[0]; + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error creating new compliance tracker:", error); + throw error; // Or handle the error as needed + } };📝 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.export const createNewComplianceTrackerQuery = async (complianceTracker: { name: string; description: string; }): Promise<ComplianceTracker> => { if (!complianceTracker.name || !complianceTracker.description) { throw new Error("Name and description are required fields"); } console.log("createNewComplianceTracker", complianceTracker); try { const result = await pool.query( "INSERT INTO complianceTrackers (name, description) VALUES ($1, $2) RETURNING *", [complianceTracker.name, complianceTracker.description] ); return result.rows[0]; } catch (error) { console.error("Error creating new compliance tracker:", error); throw error; // Or handle the error as needed } };
28-55:
⚠️ Potential issueFix placeholder numbering in
updateComplianceTrackerByIdQuery
There's a logical error with the SQL query placeholders in
updateComplianceTrackerByIdQuery
. The placeholders$1
,$2
, etc., need to match the order and number of parameters in thevalues
array. Currently, if only one field is updated, the placeholder numbering andvalues
array indices may not align correctly, leading to SQL errors.Apply this diff to correct the placeholder numbering dynamically:
export const updateComplianceTrackerByIdQuery = async ( id: number, complianceTracker: { name?: string; description?: string } ): Promise<ComplianceTracker | null> => { console.log("updateComplianceTrackerById", id, complianceTracker); const fields = []; const values = []; let query = "UPDATE complianceTrackers SET "; if (complianceTracker.name) { - fields.push("name = $1"); - values.push(complianceTracker.name); + fields.push(`name = $${values.length + 1}`); + values.push(complianceTracker.name); } if (complianceTracker.description) { - fields.push("description = $2"); - values.push(complianceTracker.description); + fields.push(`description = $${values.length + 1}`); + values.push(complianceTracker.description); } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } - query += fields.join(", ") + " WHERE id = $3 RETURNING *"; - values.push(id); + query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${values.length + 1} RETURNING *`; + values.push(id); try { const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; } catch (error) { console.error(`Error updating compliance tracker with id ${id}:`, error); throw error; // Or handle the error as needed } };This adjustment ensures that the placeholder numbers correspond correctly to the entries in the
values
array, regardless of which fields are updated.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export const updateComplianceTrackerByIdQuery = async ( id: number, complianceTracker: { name?: string; description?: string } ): Promise<ComplianceTracker | null> => { console.log("updateComplianceTrackerById", id, complianceTracker); const fields = []; const values = []; let query = "UPDATE complianceTrackers SET "; if (complianceTracker.name) { fields.push(`name = $${values.length + 1}`); values.push(complianceTracker.name); } if (complianceTracker.description) { fields.push(`description = $${values.length + 1}`); values.push(complianceTracker.description); } if (fields.length === 0) { throw new Error("No fields to update"); } query += fields.join(", ") + ` WHERE id = $${values.length + 1} RETURNING *`; values.push(id); try { const result = await pool.query(query, values); return result.rows.length ? result.rows[0] : null; } catch (error) { console.error(`Error updating compliance tracker with id ${id}:`, error); throw error; // Or handle the error as needed } };
Servers/controllers/risk.ctrl.ts (7)
29-29:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Use of HTTP 204 Status Code with Response Body
HTTP 204 No Content responses must not include a response body. The current implementation returns a JSON response with
risks
data while setting the status code to 204. To comply with the HTTP specification, you should either remove the response body when returning a 204 status or use a 200 status code if you intend to include content.Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](risks)); + return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](risks));Alternatively, if there are no risks to return, you can send a 204 status without any content:
- return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](risks)); + return res.status(204).send();Also applies to: 37-37
125-126:
⚠️ Potential issueUse Appropriate HTTP Status Code for Successful Update
The status code 202 Accepted indicates that the request has been accepted for processing, but processing is not completed. Since the update operation completes synchronously, it's more appropriate to use a 200 OK or 204 No Content status code.
Apply this diff to correct the status code:
- return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](updatedRisk)); + return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](updatedRisk));Also applies to: 136-137
157-158:
⚠️ Potential issueUse Appropriate HTTP Status Code for Successful Deletion
Using 202 Accepted implies that the deletion is pending. Since the deletion occurs immediately, a 200 OK or 204 No Content status code is more appropriate.
Apply this diff to adjust the status code:
- return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](deletedRisk)); + return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](deletedRisk));Also applies to: 165-166
39-41: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consistent Error Handling
The catch blocks in your functions return error messages directly to the client. Exposing internal error messages can be a security risk. Consider logging the error internally and returning a generic message to the client.
Apply this diff to improve error handling:
- return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); + console.error(error); + return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]({ message: "Internal server error" }));Also applies to: 65-67, 99-101, 142-143, 171-172
46-46:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
riskId
After ParsingThe
riskId
is parsed usingparseInt(req.params.id)
, but there's no validation to ensure it's a valid number. Ifreq.params.id
is not a valid integer,parseInt
may returnNaN
, leading to unexpected behavior. Consider adding a check to validateriskId
before proceeding.Apply this diff to fix the issue:
const riskId = parseInt(req.params.id); + if (isNaN(riskId)) { + return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid risk ID" })); + }📝 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 riskId = parseInt(req.params.id); if (isNaN(riskId)) { return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid risk ID" })); }
151-151:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
riskId
After ParsingAgain, ensure that
riskId
is a valid number to prevent potential errors.Apply this diff to add validation:
const riskId = parseInt(req.params.id); + if (isNaN(riskId)) { + return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid risk ID" })); + }📝 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 riskId = parseInt(req.params.id); if (isNaN(riskId)) { return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid risk ID" })); }
110-110:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
riskId
After ParsingSimilar to previous instances, ensure that
riskId
is a valid number after parsing.Apply this diff to add validation:
const riskId = parseInt(req.params.id); + if (isNaN(riskId)) { + return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid risk ID" })); + }📝 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 riskId = parseInt(req.params.id); if (isNaN(riskId)) { return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid risk ID" })); }
Servers/controllers/project.ctrl.ts (4)
29-29:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid including a response body with 204 No Content status
HTTP 204 No Content responses should not include a response body. Including content may cause issues with some clients, as they might expect no content at all.
Apply this diff to correct the responses:
-return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](projects)); +return res.status(204).send();Similarly, update line 37:
-return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](projects)); +return res.status(204).send();Also applies to: 37-37
46-46: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Specify radix when using
parseInt
For clarity and to prevent unexpected behavior, it's recommended to specify the radix parameter when using
parseInt
. This ensures that the string is parsed as a base-10 integer.Apply this diff to line 46:
-const projectId = parseInt(req.params.id); +const projectId = parseInt(req.params.id, 10);Similarly, update lines 110 and 151:
-const projectId = parseInt(req.params.id); +const projectId = parseInt(req.params.id, 10);Also applies to: 110-110, 151-151
125-126:
⚠️ Potential issueUse appropriate status codes for completed operations
The status code 202 Accepted indicates that the request has been accepted for processing but the processing has not been completed yet. Since the update and deletion operations are completed synchronously, consider returning 200 OK with the updated resource or 204 No Content if there's nothing to return.
For successful updates (lines 125-126 and 136-137):
-return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](updatedProject)); +return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](updatedProject));For successful deletions (lines 157-158 and 165-166):
-return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](deletedProject)); +return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](deletedProject));Alternatively, if you do not need to return any content:
-return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](updatedProject)); +return res.status(204).send();Also applies to: 136-137, 157-158, 165-166
2-2: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Convert
MOCK_DATA_ON
to a boolean for clarityCurrently,
MOCK_DATA_ON
is a string, which may lead to unexpected behavior if the environment variable is not set precisely to"true"
. Converting it to a boolean ensures that your condition checks are more reliable and the code is more readable.Apply this change:
-const MOCK_DATA_ON = process.env.MOCK_DATA_ON; +const MOCK_DATA_ON = process.env.MOCK_DATA_ON === "true";📝 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 MOCK_DATA_ON = process.env.MOCK_DATA_ON === "true";
Servers/controllers/vendorRisk.ctrl.ts (10)
55-55:
⚠️ Potential issueReturn a meaningful error message in 404 responses
In lines 55 and 63, the 404 responses include
vendorRisk
, which would beundefined
when the vendor risk is not found. Consider returning a meaningful error message instead.Apply this change:
- return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404](vendorRisk)); + return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404]({ message: "Vendor risk not found" }));Also applies to: 63-63
74-80: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Extract input validation logic to reduce duplication
The validation for
name
anddescription
is repeated in bothcreateVendorRisk
andupdateVendorRiskById
. Consider extracting this logic into a middleware or utility function to promote code reuse.Example of a validation function:
// In a separate file, e.g., validation.util.ts export function validateVendorRiskInput(req: Request, res: Response, next: NextFunction) { const { name, description } = req.body; if (!name || !description) { return res .status(400) .json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "name and description are required" })); } next(); }Then, apply it to your routes as middleware.
Also applies to: 113-119
89-89:
⚠️ Potential issueReview the use of HTTP 503 Service Unavailable status code
In lines 89 and 97, a 503 status code is returned when the creation of a new vendor risk fails. A 503 indicates that the server is temporarily unavailable, which might not accurately represent a creation failure. Consider using a 500 Internal Server Error or a 400 Bad Request if the failure is due to client input.
Apply this change:
- return res.status(503).json(STATUS_CODE[503]({})); + return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]({ message: "Failed to create vendor risk" }));Also applies to: 97-97
29-29:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid including response body in HTTP 204 No Content responses
In lines 29 and 37, a 204 No Content status is returned with a response body. According to the HTTP specification, a 204 response should not contain a body. Consider returning a 200 status with an empty array or object if no vendor risks are found.
Apply this change:
- return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](vendorRisks)); + return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200]([]));Also applies to: 37-37
108-108:
⚠️ Potential issueRemove unnecessary
console.log
statementThe
console.log("updateVendorRiskById");
on line 108 appears to be a leftover from debugging. It's best to remove such statements or replace them with proper logging if needed.Apply this change:
- console.log("updateVendorRiskById");
📝 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.
48-64: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to eliminate code duplication in data retrieval and response handling
In the
getVendorRiskById
function, the logic within both branches is similar. Refactoring can reduce duplication and simplify the code.Refactored code:
export async function getVendorRiskById(req: Request, res: Response): Promise<any> { try { const vendorRiskId = parseInt(req.params.id); let vendorRisk; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { vendorRisk = getMockVendorRiskById(vendorRiskId); } else { vendorRisk = await getVendorRiskByIdQuery(vendorRiskId); } if (vendorRisk) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](vendorRisk)); } else { return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404]({ message: "Vendor risk not found" })); } } catch (error) { return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.let vendorRisk; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { vendorRisk = getMockVendorRiskById(vendorRiskId); } else { vendorRisk = await getVendorRiskByIdQuery(vendorRiskId); } if (vendorRisk) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](vendorRisk)); } else { return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404]({ message: "Vendor risk not found" })); }
121-140: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to eliminate code duplication in update logic
The
updateVendorRiskById
function contains duplicated code in both branches of theif (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true")
condition. Refactoring can reduce duplication.Refactored code:
export async function updateVendorRiskById( req: Request, res: Response ): Promise<any> { try { const vendorRiskId = parseInt(req.params.id); const { name, description } = req.body; if (!name || !description) { return res .status(400) .json( STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "name and description are required" }) ); } let updatedVendorRisk; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { updatedVendorRisk = updateMockVendorRiskById(vendorRiskId, { name, description }); } else { updatedVendorRisk = await updateVendorRiskByIdQuery(vendorRiskId, { name, description }); } if (updatedVendorRisk) { return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](updatedVendorRisk)); } else { return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404]({ message: "Vendor risk not found" })); } } catch (error) { return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); } }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
22-38: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to eliminate code duplication in data retrieval and response handling
In the
getAllVendorRisks
function, both theif (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true")
andelse
blocks perform similar operations: retrieving vendor risks and sending responses based on whether data exists. Consider refactoring to reduce code duplication and enhance maintainability.Here's a suggested refactor:
export async function getAllVendorRisks(req: Request, res: Response): Promise<any> { try { let vendorRisks; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { vendorRisks = getAllMockVendorRisks(); } else { vendorRisks = await getAllVendorRisksQuery(); } if (vendorRisks) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](vendorRisks)); } else { return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](vendorRisks)); } } catch (error) { return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export async function getAllVendorRisks(req: Request, res: Response): Promise<any> { try { let vendorRisks; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { vendorRisks = getAllMockVendorRisks(); } else { vendorRisks = await getAllVendorRisksQuery(); } if (vendorRisks) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](vendorRisks)); } else { return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](vendorRisks)); } } catch (error) { return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); } }
91-98:
⚠️ Potential issueHandle creation failure appropriately
In the
createVendorRisk
function, ifnewVendorRisk
is not created, consider returning a 400 Bad Request status if the failure is due to invalid input, or a 500 Internal Server Error for server-side issues.Apply this change:
- return res.status(503).json(STATUS_CODE[503]({})); + return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]({ message: "Failed to create vendor risk" }));📝 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 newVendorRisk = await createNewVendorRiskQuery({ name, description }); if (newVendorRisk) { return res.status(201).json(STATUS_CODE[201](newVendorRisk)); } return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]({ message: "Failed to create vendor risk" })); }
153-169: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to eliminate code duplication in delete logic
The
deleteVendorRiskById
function contains duplicated code in both branches. Refactoring can simplify the function.Refactored code:
export async function deleteVendorRiskById( req: Request, res: Response ): Promise<any> { try { const vendorRiskId = parseInt(req.params.id); let deletedVendorRisk; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { deletedVendorRisk = deleteMockVendorRiskById(vendorRiskId); } else { deletedVendorRisk = await deleteVendorRiskByIdQuery(vendorRiskId); } if (deletedVendorRisk) { return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](deletedVendorRisk)); } else { return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404]({ message: "Vendor risk not found" })); } } catch (error) { return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.export async function deleteVendorRiskById( req: Request, res: Response ): Promise<any> { try { const vendorRiskId = parseInt(req.params.id); let deletedVendorRisk; if (MOCK_DATA_ON === "true") { deletedVendorRisk = deleteMockVendorRiskById(vendorRiskId); } else { deletedVendorRisk = await deleteVendorRiskByIdQuery(vendorRiskId); } if (deletedVendorRisk) { return res.status(202).json(STATUS_CODE[202](deletedVendorRisk)); } else { return res.status(404).json(STATUS_CODE[404]({ message: "Vendor risk not found" })); } } catch (error) { return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); } }
Servers/controllers/complianceTracker.ctrl.ts (5)
25-29:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid returning data with a 204 No Content response
The HTTP 204 No Content status code indicates that the response should not include a message body. Returning
complianceTrackers
data with a 204 response can cause unexpected behavior in clients. Instead, if no compliance trackers are found, consider returning a 200 OK status with an empty array or a 404 Not Found status if appropriate.Suggested change:
- return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](complianceTrackers)); + return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200]([]));📝 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 (complianceTrackers) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](complianceTrackers)); } return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200]([]));
33-37:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid returning data with a 204 No Content response
As above, ensure that a 204 response does not include a message body. Modify the response to return a 200 OK status with an empty array if no data is found.
Suggested change:
- return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](complianceTrackers)); + return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200]([]));📝 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 (complianceTrackers) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](complianceTrackers)); } return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200]([]));
46-47:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
complianceTrackerId
to prevent invalid inputsWhen parsing
complianceTrackerId
, ensure that it is a valid number. IfparseInt
returnsNaN
, it could lead to errors in database queries or unexpected behavior.Suggested change:
const complianceTrackerId = parseInt(req.params.id); + if (isNaN(complianceTrackerId)) { + return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid complianceTrackerId" })); + }📝 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 complianceTrackerId = parseInt(req.params.id); if (isNaN(complianceTrackerId)) { return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid complianceTrackerId" })); }
151-152:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
complianceTrackerId
to prevent invalid inputsAgain, ensure that
complianceTrackerId
is validated to handle cases where the ID may not be a number.Suggested change:
const complianceTrackerId = parseInt(req.params.id); + if (isNaN(complianceTrackerId)) { + return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid complianceTrackerId" })); + }📝 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 complianceTrackerId = parseInt(req.params.id); if (isNaN(complianceTrackerId)) { return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid complianceTrackerId" })); }
110-111:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
complianceTrackerId
to prevent invalid inputsSimilar to the previous comment, validate
complianceTrackerId
after parsing to ensure it's a valid number.Suggested change:
const complianceTrackerId = parseInt(req.params.id); + if (isNaN(complianceTrackerId)) { + return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid complianceTrackerId" })); + }📝 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 complianceTrackerId = parseInt(req.params.id); if (isNaN(complianceTrackerId)) { return res.status(400).json(STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid complianceTrackerId" })); } const { name, description } = req.body;
Servers/controllers/user.ctrl.ts (3)
124-124:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid accepting
created_at
andlast_login
from client inputTo maintain data integrity and security, it's recommended to set
created_at
andlast_login
server-side rather than accepting them fromreq.body
.Apply this diff to set the values server-side:
const { name, email, password, role } = req.body; + const created_at = new Date(); + const last_login = null; // Set to appropriate default value📝 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 { name, email, password, role } = req.body; const created_at = new Date(); const last_login = null; // Set to appropriate default value
183-189:
⚠️ Potential issueUpdate HTTP status codes in real data login
In the
loginUser
function (real data), aligning status codes with standard HTTP practices enhances clarity and consistency.Apply this diff:
if (passwordIsMatched) { const token = generateToken({ id: user!.id, email: email, }); - return res.status(202).json( + return res.status(200).json( STATUS_CODE[202]({ token, }) ); } -return res.status(406).json(STATUS_CODE[406]({})); +return res.status(401).json(STATUS_CODE[401]({ message: 'Invalid credentials' }));Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
160-166:
⚠️ Potential issueUse standard HTTP status codes for authentication responses
In the
loginUser
function (mock data), it's recommended to use200 OK
for successful logins and401 Unauthorized
for failed authentication attempts instead of202 Accepted
and406 Not Acceptable
.Apply this diff to update the status codes:
if (user?.password_hash === password) { const token = generateToken({ id: user!.id, email: email, }); - return res.status(202).json( + return res.status(200).json( STATUS_CODE[202]({ token, }) ); } -return res.status(406).json(STATUS_CODE[406]({})); +return res.status(401).json(STATUS_CODE[401]({ message: 'Invalid credentials' }));Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
Servers/controllers/vendor.ctrl.ts (5)
2-2: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Convert
MOCK_DATA_ON
to a boolean for cleaner condition checksCurrently,
MOCK_DATA_ON
is a string compared to"true"
in multiple places. Converting it to a boolean once can simplify your conditionals and reduce the likelihood of typos.Apply this change at line 2:
-const MOCK_DATA_ON = process.env.MOCK_DATA_ON; +const MOCK_DATA_ON = process.env.MOCK_DATA_ON === "true";Then, update your conditionals to use:
if (MOCK_DATA_ON) { // Mock data logic } else { // Database logic }
46-46:
⚠️ Potential issueValidate
vendorId
to handle invalid inputs gracefullyWhen parsing
vendorId
usingparseInt
, there's a risk ofNaN
if the input is not a valid integer. Adding validation ensures your application handles invalid IDs properly.Update the parsing and add validation:
-const vendorId = parseInt(req.params.id); +const vendorId = parseInt(req.params.id, 10); +if (isNaN(vendorId)) { + return res.status(400).json( + STATUS_CODE[400]({ message: "Invalid vendor ID supplied" }) + ); +}Apply this change in the following locations:
- Line 46 in
getVendorById
- Line 110 in
updateVendorById
- Line 151 in
deleteVendorById
Also applies to: 110-110, 151-151
20-42: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to reduce code duplication in controller methods
Each controller method contains similar logic for handling mock data and database queries. Refactoring can improve maintainability and readability.
Consider creating a helper function to abstract the conditional logic:
async function handleRequest(mockFunc: Function, dbFunc: Function) { if (MOCK_DATA_ON) { return mockFunc(); } else { return await dbFunc(); } }Then, simplify your controller methods:
export async function getAllVendors(req: Request, res: Response): Promise<any> { try { const vendors = await handleRequest( () => getAllMockVendors(), () => getAllVendorsQuery() ); if (vendors) { return res.status(200).json(STATUS_CODE[200](vendors)); } return res.status(204).send(); } catch (error) { // Error handling } }Repeat this pattern for the other controller methods.
Also applies to: 44-68, 70-102, 104-144, 146-173
39-41:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid exposing internal error details to the client
Returning detailed error messages can expose sensitive information. It's better to log the error internally and return a generic message.
Modify your catch blocks:
-return res.status(500).json(STATUS_CODE[500]((error as Error).message)); +console.error(error); +return res.status(500).json( + STATUS_CODE[500]({ message: "Internal server error" }) +);Ensure this change is applied in all controller methods.
Also applies to: 65-67, 99-101, 142-143, 171-172
29-29:
⚠️ Potential issueCorrect usage of 204 No Content status code
A 204 status code should not include a response body. Currently,
STATUS_CODE[204](vendors)
may add unintended content.Adjust the response for a 204 status:
-return res.status(204).json(STATUS_CODE[204](vendors)); +return res.status(204).send();Apply this change to:
- Line 29 in
getAllVendors
when using mock data- Line 37 in
getAllVendors
when using the databaseAlso applies to: 37-37
Added following models with required files:
Controllers, Endpoint-tests, Models, Routes, Utils
Affected issue: #49
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores