Fixing bugs and adding new features #4874
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve updates to several localization files ( Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx (1)
19-26: Good use of shallow routing for optimization!The implementation efficiently uses shallow routing to prevent unnecessary full page refreshes when navigating to the account page.
Consider enhancing the implementation.
A few suggestions to improve the code:
- The query parameter
opencheckcould be more semantic, e.g.,verifyEmailorshowEmailVerification- Consider adding error handling for the router navigation
router.push( { pathname: Routes.MyAccount, - query: { opencheck: 'true' }, + query: { showEmailVerification: 'true' }, }, undefined, { shallow: true }, - ); + ).catch(error => { + console.error('Failed to navigate:', error); + // Handle navigation error appropriately + });src/components/modals/VerifyEmailModal.tsx (1)
37-81: Consider improving the JSX structure and spacing approach.The current implementation has a few areas for improvement:
- Using
<br />tags for spacing is an anti-pattern- Nested
<div>elements could be replaced with semantic elements- Multiple similar
formatMessagecalls could be optimizedConsider applying these improvements:
- <div> - {formatMessage({ - id: 'label.email_modal_need_verify', - })} - </div> - <br /> - <div> - {formatMessage({ - id: 'label.email_modal_verifying', - })} - </div> - <br /> - <div> + <StyledParagraph> + {formatMessage({ + id: 'label.email_modal_need_verify', + })} + </StyledParagraph> + <StyledParagraph> + {formatMessage({ + id: 'label.email_modal_verifying', + })} + </StyledParagraph> + <StyledParagraph>Add this styled component:
const StyledParagraph = styled.p` margin-bottom: 1rem; `;src/components/controller/modal.ctrl.tsx (1)
Line range hint
1-118: Consider a more scalable modal management approach.As the number of modals grows, the current approach of having individual visibility flags in Redux and separate conditional renders might become harder to maintain. Consider implementing a more generic modal management system that could:
- Use a single modal state with a type/identifier
- Implement a modal registry pattern
- Reduce Redux boilerplate for each new modal
This would make the codebase more maintainable and reduce the amount of code needed when adding new modals.
src/components/views/project/ProjectTabs.tsx (3)
65-72: Consider improving the click handler implementation.While the logic is correct, consider these improvements:
- Extract the condition to a named variable for better readability
- Add user feedback when navigation is prevented
+ const isUpdateTabBlocked = !verified && i.query === EProjectPageTabs.UPDATES; onClick={e => { - if (!verified && i.query === EProjectPageTabs.UPDATES) { + if (isUpdateTabBlocked) { e.preventDefault(); + // Show feedback to user about why they can't access updates + toast.warn(formatMessage({ id: 'error.verify_email_to_view_updates' })); } }}
74-80: Extract duplicated condition to avoid repetition.The unverified state check is duplicated from the click handler. Consider reusing the same condition.
+ const isUpdateTabBlocked = !verified && i.query === EProjectPageTabs.UPDATES; <Tab className={activeTab === index ? 'active' : ''} - $unverified={!verified && i.query === EProjectPageTabs.UPDATES} + $unverified={isUpdateTabBlocked} >
Line range hint
125-139: LGTM! Consider extracting the opacity value to a constant.The styled-component implementation is clean and follows best practices. Consider extracting the opacity value to a named constant for better maintainability.
+ const UNVERIFIED_TAB_OPACITY = 0.5; const Tab = styled(P)<TabProps>` // ...other styles - opacity: ${({ $unverified }) => ($unverified ? '0.5' : '1')}; + opacity: ${({ $unverified }) => ($unverified ? UNVERIFIED_TAB_OPACITY : 1)}; `;src/components/views/userProfile/UserProfile.view.tsx (1)
67-71: Consider cleanup on unmountThe useEffect hook properly updates the modal state based on the router query. However, consider cleaning up the modal state when the component unmounts to prevent potential memory leaks.
useEffect(() => { setShowModal(!!router.query.opencheck); + return () => { + setShowModal(false); + }; }, [router.query.opencheck]);src/components/views/project/ProjectGIVbackToast.tsx (1)
Line range hint
410-422: Consider enhancing visual feedback for unverified stateWhile the opacity reduction provides subtle feedback, it might not be noticeable enough to effectively communicate the verification requirement to users. Consider:
- Adding a visual indicator (icon or badge)
- Using a more distinct visual treatment (e.g., disabled appearance)
const Wrapper = styled(Flex)<{ $isverified: boolean }>` justify-content: space-between; align-items: center; gap: 24px; padding: 24px 16px; - background: #ffffff; + background: ${({ $isverified }) => ($isverified ? '#ffffff' : neutralColors.gray[100])}; border-radius: 16px; margin-top: 12px; flex-direction: column; ${mediaQueries.laptopL} { flex-direction: row; } - opacity: ${({ $isverified }) => ($isverified ? '1' : '0.75')}; + ${({ $isverified }) => !$isverified && ` + border: 1px solid ${neutralColors.gray[300]}; + &::after { + content: '✉️ Email verification required'; + position: absolute; + top: -10px; + right: 16px; + background: ${neutralColors.gray[300]}; + padding: 2px 8px; + border-radius: 4px; + font-size: 12px; + } + `} `;src/components/InputUserEmailVerify.tsx (1)
Line range hint
1-700: Consider improving code organization and type safetyWhile the current changes are good, here are some suggestions to enhance the component:
- Extract validation logic into separate hooks/utilities
- Add proper error typing for API responses
- Consider using a reducer instead of multiple useState hooks
- Add proper return type for the component
Example implementation for validation hook:
interface UseEmailValidation { isValid: boolean; validationStatus: EInputValidation; validate: (email: string) => Promise<boolean>; } const useEmailValidation = (initialEmail?: string): UseEmailValidation => { const [validationStatus, setValidationStatus] = useState<EInputValidation>(EInputValidation.NORMAL); const validate = useCallback(async (email: string) => { try { const { data } = await client.mutate({ mutation: SEND_USER_EMAIL_CONFIRMATION_CODE_FLOW, variables: { email } }); if (data.sendUserEmailConfirmationCodeFlow === 'EMAIL_EXIST') { setValidationStatus(EInputValidation.WARNING); return false; } setValidationStatus(EInputValidation.NORMAL); return true; } catch (error) { setValidationStatus(EInputValidation.ERROR); return false; } }, []); return { isValid: validationStatus === EInputValidation.NORMAL, validationStatus, validate }; };Example implementation for proper error typing:
interface EmailVerificationResponse { sendUserEmailConfirmationCodeFlow: 'EMAIL_EXIST' | 'VERIFICATION_SENT'; } interface CodeVerificationResponse { sendUserConfirmationCodeFlow: 'VERIFICATION_SUCCESS'; } type VerificationError = { message: string; code: string; };lang/en.json (1)
403-405: Remove unnecessary empty lines.These empty lines between translations are not needed and should be removed to maintain consistency with the rest of the file.
"label.email_modal_button": "Update profile", - - - "label.enable_change": "Enable Change",lang/es.json (1)
398-402: LGTM with some suggestions for more natural Spanish phrasingThe translations are accurate and maintain consistency with the English version. Here are some optional refinements to make the text flow more naturally in Spanish:
- "label.email_modal_verify_your": "Verifica tu dirección de correo electrónico", + "label.email_modal_verify_your": "Verifica tu email", - "label.email_modal_need_verify": "Necesitarás verificar tu dirección de correo electrónico antes de poder crear un nuevo proyecto.", + "label.email_modal_need_verify": "Debes verificar tu email antes de crear un proyecto nuevo.", - "label.email_modal_verifying": "Verificar tu dirección de correo electrónico asegura que podamos comunicarnos contigo sobre cualquier cambio importante en la plataforma. Tu dirección de correo electrónico no se compartirá públicamente.", + "label.email_modal_verifying": "Verificar tu email nos permite comunicarte cambios importantes en la plataforma. Tu email no se compartirá públicamente.", - "label.email_modal_to_verifying": "Para verificar tu dirección de correo electrónico, edita tu perfil y actualiza tu correo electrónico.", + "label.email_modal_to_verifying": "Para verificar tu email, edita tu perfil y actualízalo.",The suggested changes:
- Use the more common Spanish term "email" instead of "dirección de correo electrónico"
- Make sentences more concise while maintaining the same meaning
- Remove redundant phrases
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
lang/ca.json(1 hunks)lang/en.json(1 hunks)lang/es.json(1 hunks)src/components/Header/Header.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/InputUserEmailVerify.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/controller/modal.ctrl.tsx(4 hunks)src/components/modals/VerifyEmailModal.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/views/project/ProjectGIVbackToast.tsx(5 hunks)src/components/views/project/ProjectIndex.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/views/project/ProjectTabs.tsx(4 hunks)src/components/views/userProfile/UserProfile.view.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx(1 hunks)src/features/modal/modal.slice.ts(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (21)
src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx (1)
19-26: Verify integration with email verification system.
Let's ensure this component properly integrates with the new email verification modal and uses the correct translation keys.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can generate the final response as we have sufficient information about the integration points:
Email verification system integration is properly implemented
The verification shows:
- Translation key
label.email_verify_banneris correctly used in VerifyEmailBanner component - The
opencheckquery parameter is consistently used across components:- Set in VerifyEmailBanner.tsx and VerifyEmailModal.tsx
- Properly handled in UserProfile.view.tsx which controls the modal state
- Integration between banner, modal, and profile view is well-coordinated through the router query parameter
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify integration points of the email verification system
# Check if the translation key exists in language files
echo "Checking translation key 'label.email_verify_banner':"
rg "label\.email_verify_banner" src/
# Check modal integration
echo "Checking VerifyEmailModal usage with 'opencheck' parameter:"
rg -A 5 "opencheck.*true" src/
# Check for consistent query parameter usage
echo "Checking query parameter usage across components:"
rg "query.*opencheck" src/
Length of output: 1727
src/features/modal/modal.slice.ts (2)
11-11: LGTM! Clean state addition
The new state property follows the established pattern and is properly initialized.
39-41: LGTM! Well-structured reducer implementation
The new reducer and its export follow the existing patterns consistently. The implementation is clean and type-safe with PayloadAction.
Also applies to: 53-53
src/components/modals/VerifyEmailModal.tsx (3)
1-19: LGTM! Well-organized imports following best practices.
The imports are properly organized and utilize the design system components effectively.
20-24: LGTM! Well-structured component with proper hook usage.
The component is properly typed and follows React best practices for hooks usage.
25-35: Verify the implications of shallow routing and document query parameter usage.
The shallow routing implementation might skip data fetching on the MyAccount page. Additionally, the 'opencheck' query parameter's purpose should be documented.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the MyAccount route and how it handles the query parameter.
Let me try to find the correct path for the MyAccount page and related components.
Shallow routing implementation is correct and query parameter usage is properly handled
The opencheck query parameter is used in UserProfile.view.tsx to control modal visibility via setShowModal, and shallow routing is appropriate here since:
- It's used consistently across related components (VerifyEmailModal and VerifyEmailBanner)
- The parameter only affects UI state (modal visibility) and doesn't impact data fetching
- The implementation in UserProfile properly responds to route changes through the useEffect hook
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if MyAccount route relies on query parameters for data fetching
rg -A 5 "opencheck.*true" src/
# Check for other usages of shallow routing that might provide insights
rg "shallow.*true" src/
Length of output: 1919
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check MyAccount route implementation and query parameter handling
ast-grep --pattern 'const $_ = useRouter()' src/pages/my-account.tsx
rg -A 10 'useRouter' src/pages/my-account.tsx
# Check if there's any data fetching logic related to opencheck
rg -A 5 'opencheck' src/pages/my-account.tsx
# Look for any effects or handlers that might use this parameter
ast-grep --pattern 'useEffect(() => {
$$$
}, [$$$]);' src/pages/my-account.tsx
Length of output: 518
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the MyAccount page file
fd -t f -e tsx -e ts MyAccount
# Look for Routes definition to find the correct path
rg "MyAccount.*=" src/
# Search for components that might handle the opencheck parameter
rg -A 5 "opencheck" src/
Length of output: 1615
src/components/controller/modal.ctrl.tsx (3)
7-7: LGTM! Import statements are properly organized.
The new imports follow the established patterns and are correctly grouped with similar imports.
Also applies to: 17-17
109-115: LGTM! Modal implementation follows established patterns.
The VerifyEmailModal implementation:
- Follows the consistent conditional rendering pattern
- Correctly wires up the visibility control through Redux
- Maintains consistent formatting with other modal implementations
32-32: Consider adding cleanup logic for email verification modal.
Other modals in this component have specific cleanup effects (e.g., for showWelcomeModal and showSignWithWallet). Consider if the email verification modal needs similar cleanup logic based on certain conditions.
Let's check if there are any cleanup patterns in other files:
src/components/views/project/ProjectTabs.tsx (3)
20-20: LGTM! Interface change follows TypeScript best practices.
The optional verified boolean property is appropriately typed.
28-28: LGTM! Props destructuring is clean.
The addition of verified to props destructuring is consistent with the interface update.
28-28: Verify email verification state handling in parent components.
Let's ensure the verified prop is consistently passed from parent components.
✅ Verification successful
Email verification state is properly integrated
The verification state is correctly passed down from the parent component ProjectIndex.tsx to ProjectTabs. The parent component:
- Manages the
isAdminEmailVerifiedstate - Passes it down as the
verifiedprop toProjectTabs - Additionally handles the visibility of
VerifyEmailBannerbased on the same state
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for components that render ProjectTabs to verify proper prop passing
ast-grep --pattern 'ProjectTabs $$$verified={$_}'
# Search for potential parent components that might need to pass the verified prop
rg -l "ProjectTabs" | xargs rg "isAdminEmailVerified"
Length of output: 365
src/components/Header/Header.tsx (1)
38-38: LGTM: Import added for email verification modal.
The new import is correctly added and aligns with the email verification feature implementation.
src/components/views/userProfile/UserProfile.view.tsx (1)
50-51: LGTM!
Clean router declaration with proper spacing.
src/components/views/project/ProjectIndex.tsx (1)
224-228: LGTM with suggestions for verification.
The addition of the verified prop to ProjectTabs aligns with the email verification feature implementation. However, please verify:
- The handling of cases where
isAdminEmailVerifiedmight be undefined - The user experience impact when tabs become inaccessible due to unverified email status
Let's verify the implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate the final response:
Verification successful - email verification handling is properly implemented
The implementation handles the verified prop appropriately:
ProjectTabscomponent properly defines the optionalverifiedprop in its interface- The prop is used to control tab accessibility through styling (
opacityand conditional rendering) - Proper user feedback is provided through localized messages for email verification status
- The undefined case is handled as the prop is optional and defaults to a falsy value
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the ProjectTabs implementation and related components
# Check how ProjectTabs handles the verified prop
ast-grep --pattern 'interface $PROPS {
$$$
verified?: boolean;
$$$
}'
# Check for proper handling of undefined verification status
rg -A 5 'verified[^=]*='
# Look for user-facing messages about email verification requirements
rg -i "email.*verif" lang/
Length of output: 24387
src/components/views/project/ProjectGIVbackToast.tsx (2)
42-43: LGTM: Clean context usage for email verification state
The addition of isAdminEmailVerified to the context destructuring follows React best practices and maintains good naming conventions.
42-43: Verify consistent email verification handling across boost-related components
Let's ensure that email verification is handled consistently across all components that implement boost functionality.
Also applies to: 78-78, 410-422
✅ Verification successful
Email verification is consistently implemented for boost functionality
The verification shows that email verification is properly handled in boost-related components:
- The
ProjectGIVbackToast.tsxcorrectly checksisAdminEmailVerifiedbefore allowing boost actions:
const handleBoostClick = () => {
if (isSSRMode) return;
if (!isAdminEmailVerified) return;
// ... rest of the logic
};-
The email verification state is managed centrally in the project context (
project.context.tsx) and consistently provided to all components that need it. -
Other boost-related components (
BoostModal.tsx,BoostInnerModal.tsx, etc.) receive the verified state through the project context, ensuring consistent behavior across the application.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for boost-related components and verify email verification implementation
echo "Searching for boost-related components..."
rg -l "handleBoostClick|BoostModal" --type tsx
# Search for email verification checks in these files
echo "\nChecking email verification implementation..."
rg "isAdminEmailVerified|emailVerified" --type tsx
Length of output: 355
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for boost-related components and verify email verification implementation
echo "Searching for boost-related components..."
rg -l "handleBoostClick|BoostModal"
echo -e "\nChecking email verification implementation..."
rg "isAdminEmailVerified|emailVerified"
Length of output: 2228
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how email verification is handled in boost-related components
echo "Checking boost-related components for email verification handling..."
for file in $(rg -l "handleBoostClick|BoostModal"); do
echo -e "\nFile: $file"
rg -A 5 "handleBoostClick|openBoostModal|BoostModal" "$file"
done
Length of output: 12166
src/components/InputUserEmailVerify.tsx (2)
370-370: LGTM: Improved button disabled state logic
The addition of the verified condition to the disabled state prevents unnecessary re-verification attempts of already verified emails.
638-638: LGTM: Enhanced visual feedback for verified state
The dynamic opacity based on verification status provides better visual feedback to users.
lang/en.json (1)
398-402: LGTM! New email verification translations look good.
The new translations for the email verification modal are clear, concise and maintain a consistent tone with the rest of the localization file.
lang/ca.json (1)
398-402: LGTM! Well-crafted translations for email verification.
The new Catalan translations for email verification are well-written, maintain consistent tone, and accurately convey the intended meaning. The formal language style is appropriate for a web application.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Improvements
Bug Fixes