Test/years of experience #1121
Test/years of experience #1121
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new "Years of experience" field in the onboarding form within the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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 (
|
|
@leslycatota1 is attempting to deploy a commit to the Codú Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
leslyclopez11
temporarily deployed
to
production
GitHub Actions
Inactive
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
drizzle/0011_yearsOfExperience (3)
1-5: Consider adding a NOT NULL constraint to the "yearsOfExperience" column.The migration script correctly adds the "yearsOfExperience" column to the "User" table with proper exception handling. However, based on the PR objectives, this field is required in the onboarding form. Consider adding a NOT NULL constraint to ensure data integrity at the database level.
You can modify the ALTER TABLE statement as follows:
- ALTER TABLE "User" ADD COLUMN "yearsOfExperience" text; + ALTER TABLE "User" ADD COLUMN "yearsOfExperience" text NOT NULL;Note: If you add the NOT NULL constraint, ensure that you have a strategy to handle existing rows in the table, such as setting a default value or updating them before applying the constraint.
7-12: LGTM! Consider using ANY for better performance.The constraint is correctly implemented and aligns with the PR objectives. It ensures that only valid values can be inserted into the "yearsOfExperience" column.
For potentially better performance, especially with larger datasets, you might consider using the ANY operator instead of IN. Here's the suggested modification:
- CHECK ("yearsOfExperience" IN ('0-1', '1-3', '3-5', '5-8', '8-12', '12+')); + CHECK ("yearsOfExperience" = ANY(ARRAY['0-1', '1-3', '3-5', '5-8', '8-12', '12+']));This change is optional and might not have a significant impact for small to medium-sized tables, but it's worth considering for future scalability.
1-12: Overall, the migration script is well-implemented and meets the requirements.The script successfully adds the "yearsOfExperience" column to the "User" table and implements a constraint to ensure data integrity. The use of DO blocks and exception handling for both operations ensures idempotency, which is a best practice for database migrations.
To further improve the robustness of your database schema:
- Consider adding a default value for the "yearsOfExperience" column if you decide to make it NOT NULL.
- Ensure that your application code (form validation, API endpoints, etc.) aligns with these database constraints to provide a consistent user experience.
- If you haven't already, consider creating a corresponding down migration script to revert these changes if needed.
app/(app)/alpha/additional-details/page.tsx (2)
43-46: Approved with suggestions: Addition of yearsOfExperience to detailsWithNullsRemovedThe implementation correctly handles undefined or invalid
yearsOfExperiencevalues and ensures type safety. However, consider the following improvements:
- Move the array of valid values to a constant or configuration file for easier maintenance.
- Reconsider the default value approach. Setting "0-1" for invalid or undefined cases might not be appropriate for all users.
Consider refactoring the code as follows:
import { YEARS_OF_EXPERIENCE_OPTIONS } from '@/constants'; // ... yearsOfExperience: YEARS_OF_EXPERIENCE_OPTIONS.includes(details?.yearsOfExperience) ? (details.yearsOfExperience as YearsOfExperience) : undefined,This approach allows for easier updates to valid options and doesn't assume a default value when the input is invalid or undefined.
Line range hint
1-50: Overall assessment: Implementation aligns with PR objectivesThe changes successfully implement the "Years of experience" field as per the PR objectives. The field is correctly added to the database query and the details object. The implementation handles invalid cases and ensures type safety.
However, consider the suggestions for improvement in the previous comment to enhance maintainability and flexibility of the code.
To further improve the implementation:
- Consider creating a separate type file for
YearsOfExperienceand other related types.- If this pattern of retrieving user details is used in multiple places, consider extracting it into a reusable function in a separate file.
server/db/schema.ts (3)
221-221: LGTM! Consider adding a check constraint for valid values.The addition of the
yearsOfExperiencefield aligns well with the PR objectives. The use of varchar with a default value is appropriate for this use case.Consider adding a check constraint to ensure only valid values are inserted. For example:
CHECK (yearsOfExperience IN ('0-1', '1-3', '3-5', '5-10', '10+'))This would prevent invalid data from being inserted into the database.
Line range hint
228-228: Remove redundant index onusername.The addition of
usernameIndexis redundant as there's already a unique indexusernameKeyon theusernamecolumn. Having multiple indexes on the same column can negatively impact insert and update performance without providing additional query optimization benefits.Remove the redundant index:
- usernameIndex: index("User_username_index").on(table.username), // Add this lineThe existing
usernameKeyunique index is sufficient for optimizing queries on theusernamecolumn.
Line range hint
254-254: LGTM! Consider clarifying the comment.The update to the
sessionsrelation inuserRelationsis correct and ensures proper relationship definition between users and their sessions.Consider updating the comment to provide more context:
- sessions: many(session), // This should now be correctly inferred + sessions: many(session), // Defines the one-to-many relationship between users and their sessionsThis change would make the purpose of the relation more explicit and helpful for future developers.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- app/(app)/alpha/additional-details/_client.tsx (7 hunks)
- app/(app)/alpha/additional-details/page.tsx (3 hunks)
- drizzle/0010_gorgeous_living_tribunal.sql (1 hunks)
- drizzle/0011_yearsOfExperience (1 hunks)
- schema/additionalUserDetails.ts (2 hunks)
- server/db/schema.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (12)
app/(app)/alpha/additional-details/page.tsx (2)
5-5: LGTM: Import statement for YearsOfExperienceThe import statement for
YearsOfExperienceis correctly added and follows the existing import style in the file.
27-27: LGTM: Addition of yearsOfExperience to database queryThe
yearsOfExperiencefield is correctly added to thecolumnsobject in the database query. This ensures that the years of experience data is retrieved from the database, aligning with the PR objectives.schema/additionalUserDetails.ts (2)
2-2: LGTM: Well-defined constant for years of experience options.The
yearsOfExperienceOptionsconstant is well-defined and aligns with the PR objective. The use ofas constensures type safety, which is a good practice.
Line range hint
1-39: Verify implementation of status dropdown and additional questions.The PR objectives mention a dropdown for selecting status (Working professional, Current student, None of the above) and additional questions for "Working professional". These elements are not visible in this file.
Please confirm that these features are implemented in other files. If not, they should be added to fully meet the PR objectives. Run the following script to check for their implementation:
✅ Verification successful
✅ Status Dropdown and Additional Questions Implemented Successfully
The status dropdown and additional questions for "Working professional" are properly implemented across the codebase:
Status Dropdown Options:
schema/additionalUserDetails.tsapp/(app)/alpha/additional-details/selectOptions.tsAdditional Questions for "Working professional":
app/(app)/alpha/additional-details/_client.tsx🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for implementation of status dropdown and additional questions # Test 1: Search for status dropdown options echo "Searching for status dropdown options..." rg -i "working professional|current student|none of the above" --type typescript --type tsx # Test 2: Search for additional questions for "Working professional" echo "Searching for additional questions..." rg -i "where are you working|what is your job title" --type typescript --type tsxLength of output: 423
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Re-check implementation of status dropdown and additional questions with correct file types # Test 1: Search for status dropdown options echo "Searching for status dropdown options..." rg -i "working professional|current student|none of the above" --type ts --type tsx # Test 2: Search for additional questions for "Working professional" echo "Searching for additional questions..." rg -i "where are you working|what is your job title" --type ts --type tsxLength of output: 393
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Re-check implementation of status dropdown and additional questions using file extension patterns # Test 1: Search for status dropdown options echo "Searching for status dropdown options..." rg -i "working professional|current student|none of the above" -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" # Test 2: Search for additional questions for "Working professional" echo "Searching for additional questions..." rg -i "where are you working|what is your job title" -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx"Length of output: 1631
server/db/schema.ts (2)
Line range hint
93-93: LGTM! Good performance optimization.The addition of the
userIdIndexon theuserIdcolumn in theposttable is a good performance optimization. This index will improve query performance for operations that filter or join posts based on the user who created them, which is likely a common operation in a blog or social media-like application.
Line range hint
1-624: Overall, good changes with minor improvements suggested.The changes to the schema align well with the PR objectives and generally improve the database structure. Key points:
- The addition of the
yearsOfExperiencefield fulfills the requirement for capturing user experience.- New indexes have been added to improve query performance, but be cautious of redundant indexes.
- The
userRelationsupdate clarifies the relationship between users and sessions.Please address the suggestions in the previous comments, particularly removing the redundant
usernameIndexand considering a check constraint foryearsOfExperience.app/(app)/alpha/additional-details/_client.tsx (6)
43-44: Definition ofyearsOfExperienceOptionsandYearsOfExperiencetype looks goodThe constants are correctly defined and exported for use throughout the application.
56-56: AddedyearsOfExperiencetoUserDetailstypeIncluding
yearsOfExperiencein theUserDetailstype ensures proper typing and data handling.
74-74: DestructuredyearsOfExperiencefromdetailsThis allows the component to access and utilize the
yearsOfExperienceproperty.
406-406: DestructuredyearsOfExperienceinSlideThreecomponentAccessing
yearsOfExperienceensures it can be used within the form logic.
424-424: IncludedyearsOfExperiencein form default valuesThis ensures that the form pre-fills the
yearsOfExperiencefield if the data is already available.
435-435: Updated validation to includeyearsOfExperienceTriggering validation for
yearsOfExperiencewhen the user is a working professional is appropriate.
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| ALTER TABLE "user" ADD COLUMN "yearsOfExperience" varchar DEFAULT '0-1' NOT NULL; No newline at end of file | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Add constraints to the yearsOfExperience column for data integrity
The frontend implementation restricts yearsOfExperience to predefined options, ensuring valid user input. However, the current database schema does not enforce these constraints, which could allow invalid data entries if bypassed.
To align the database schema with the application's validation logic and enhance data integrity, consider updating the column definition as follows:
ALTER TABLE "user"
ADD COLUMN "yearsOfExperience" varchar(20)
CHECK ("yearsOfExperience" IN ('0-1', '1-3', '3-5', '5-8', '8-12', '12+', 'Student', 'None'))
DEFAULT 'None'
NOT NULL;This modification introduces a length limit and enforces that only the specified values can be stored in the yearsOfExperience column, ensuring consistency between the frontend and backend.
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider refining the yearsOfExperience column definition
The addition of the yearsOfExperience column aligns with the PR objectives. However, there are a few points to consider:
-
The
varchartype allows for any string input, which might not be ideal if we're using a dropdown with predefined options. Consider using anenumtype if your database supports it, or add a CHECK constraint to limit the possible values. -
The default value '0-1' might not cover all scenarios mentioned in the PR objectives, such as "Current student" or "None of the above". Consider if a different default value or making the column nullable would be more appropriate.
-
There's no explicit length limit on the
varcharfield. It's generally a good practice to set a reasonable maximum length to prevent potential issues with very long strings.
Here's a suggested refinement:
ALTER TABLE "user" ADD COLUMN "yearsOfExperience" varchar(20) CHECK ("yearsOfExperience" IN ('0-1', '1-3', '3-5', '5-10', '10+', 'Student', 'None')) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'None';This suggestion adds a length limit, includes a CHECK constraint for predefined options, and uses 'None' as the default value. Adjust the options and default value as needed to match your specific requirements.
To ensure this change aligns with the frontend implementation, let's check the related React components:
Please review the script output to ensure the backend and frontend implementations are consistent.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the implementation of yearsOfExperience in React components
# Test: Search for yearsOfExperience in TypeScript/JavaScript files
rg --type-add 'web:*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}' -t web 'yearsOfExperience'
# Test: Look for dropdown or select components related to years of experience
rg --type-add 'web:*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}' -t web -i 'dropdown|select.*years.*experience'
Length of output: 4236
| yearsOfExperience: z | ||
| .string() | ||
| .optional() | ||
| .refine((val) => val === undefined || yearsOfExperienceOptions.includes(val as typeof yearsOfExperienceOptions[number]), { | ||
| message: "Please select a valid years of experience.", | ||
| }), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider making yearsOfExperience a required field.
The implementation of yearsOfExperience is well done, using Zod for schema validation as required. The refinement ensures only valid options are accepted, which is great. However, the PR objectives state that this field should be required, but it's currently defined as optional.
Consider updating the schema to make yearsOfExperience a required field:
- yearsOfExperience: z
- .string()
- .optional()
+ yearsOfExperience: z
+ .string()
.refine((val) => val === undefined || yearsOfExperienceOptions.includes(val as typeof yearsOfExperienceOptions[number]), {
message: "Please select a valid years of experience.",
}),This change will ensure the field aligns fully with the PR objectives.
📝 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.
| yearsOfExperience: z | |
| .string() | |
| .optional() | |
| .refine((val) => val === undefined || yearsOfExperienceOptions.includes(val as typeof yearsOfExperienceOptions[number]), { | |
| message: "Please select a valid years of experience.", | |
| }), | |
| yearsOfExperience: z | |
| .string() | |
| .refine((val) => val === undefined || yearsOfExperienceOptions.includes(val as typeof yearsOfExperienceOptions[number]), { | |
| message: "Please select a valid years of experience.", | |
| }), |
|
|
||
| <Field className="mx-4 my-4 "> | ||
| <Label>Years of experience:</Label> | ||
| <Select | ||
| id="years-of-experience" | ||
| {...register('yearsOfExperience')} | ||
| > | ||
| <option value="" disabled> | ||
| Select range | ||
| </option> | ||
| <option value="0-1">0-1 years</option> | ||
| <option value="1-3">1-3 years</option> | ||
| <option value="3-5">3-5 years</option> | ||
| <option value="5-8">5-8 years</option> | ||
| <option value="8-12">8-12 years</option> | ||
| <option value="12+">12+ years</option> | ||
| </Select> | ||
| {errors.yearsOfExperience && ( | ||
| <ErrorMessage className="text-red-500"> | ||
| {errors.yearsOfExperience.message} | ||
| </ErrorMessage> | ||
| )} | ||
| </Field> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor to use yearsOfExperienceOptions in Select component
Currently, the options in the Select component for "Years of experience" are hardcoded, which duplicates data and can lead to inconsistencies. Refactor to map over the yearsOfExperienceOptions array for better maintainability.
Apply this change:
<Field className="mx-4 my-4 ">
<Label>Years of experience:</Label>
<Select
id="years-of-experience"
{...register('yearsOfExperience')}
>
<option value="" disabled>
Select range
</option>
- <option value="0-1">0-1 years</option>
- <option value="1-3">1-3 years</option>
- <option value="3-5">3-5 years</option>
- <option value="5-8">5-8 years</option>
- <option value="8-12">8-12 years</option>
- <option value="12+">12+ years</option>
+ {yearsOfExperienceOptions.map((range) => (
+ <option key={range} value={range}>
+ {range} years
+ </option>
+ ))}
</Select>
{errors.yearsOfExperience && (
<ErrorMessage className="text-red-500">
{errors.yearsOfExperience.message}
</ErrorMessage>
)}
</Field>Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
|
Hey @leslyclopez11 Which one of these can be closed? |
|
@John-Paul-Larkin oh, I fear I did learn a lot of git. Hopefully, I did the PR correct now but let me know if that's not the case. I feel more confident with this one: Test/years of experience #1121 |
Great, so I will close the other PR and review this one. |
|
Hey @leslyclopez11 The value '0-1' is defaulted to for every record. On the same subject, we actually dont want a default value for this. The field should be null until the user inputs something in the form. If you run "npx drizzle-kit studio" it will connect to your database and spin up proxy server for Drizzle Studio which you can use for viewing the database. I hope this all makes sense? |
|
Is this still being worked on? Just so I know if I should keep it open or close? |
|
@NiallJoeMaher I'm still working on this! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There should be only one migration file for the updates. Let me know if you still want to take this on or else we can take it over.
4 participants
✨ Codu Pull Request 💻
Fixes #1009
Pull Request details
Any Breaking changes
Associated Screenshots