Skip to content
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

refactor: set correct log level #478

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 23, 2024

Conversation

rare-magma
Copy link
Contributor

@rare-magma rare-magma commented Oct 13, 2024

This PR will set the correct log level for bank integration messages which previously were logging unnecessary details at info level.

@actual-github-bot actual-github-bot bot changed the title refactor: set correct log level [WIP] refactor: set correct log level Oct 13, 2024
@rare-magma rare-magma changed the title [WIP] refactor: set correct log level refactor: set correct log level Oct 13, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 13, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve modifications to the logging mechanism in the integration-bank.js file, specifically replacing console.log statements with console.debug in the methods normalizeAccount, sortTransactions, and calculateStartingBalance. This adjustment aims to enhance the logging level for debugging information without affecting the core functionality of the integration logic. The property accessValidForDays remains unchanged at 90, and the methods continue to process account and transaction data as previously implemented. Additionally, the corresponding test suite in integration-bank.spec.js has been updated to reflect these logging changes, replacing console.log with console.debug in the beforeEach setup and throughout the test cases. The core functionality and assertions of the tests remain intact, ensuring that expected outcomes are still validated correctly.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

:sparkles: Merged

Suggested reviewers

  • matt-fidd

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
src/app-gocardless/banks/integration-bank.js (4)

31-34: Approved: Logging level adjustment implemented correctly.

The change from console.log to console.debug aligns with the PR objective of adjusting the logging level for bank integration messages. This is a good practice for debugging information that shouldn't appear in production logs.

Consider using a more descriptive message for the debug log:

console.debug(
  'Normalizing account properties for new institution integration',
  { account: JSON.stringify(account) },
);

This minor change would make the purpose of the log more immediately clear to developers reviewing the logs.


69-73: Approved: Logging level adjustment implemented correctly.

The change from console.log to console.debug is consistent with the PR objective and previous changes. Good practice to log only the first 10 transactions to avoid overwhelming the logs.

For consistency with the previous log message, consider updating the debug message:

console.debug(
  'Sorting transactions for new institution integration',
  { top10Transactions: JSON.stringify(transactions.slice(0, 10)) },
);

This change maintains a consistent style across debug messages in the file.


Line range hint 77-86: Approved: Logging level adjustment implemented correctly.

The change from console.log to console.debug is consistent with the PR objective and previous changes. Good practice to log balances and only the first 10 transactions to avoid overwhelming the logs.

For consistency and clarity, consider updating the debug message:

console.debug(
  'Calculating starting balance for new institution integration',
  {
    balances: JSON.stringify(balances),
    top10SortedTransactions: JSON.stringify(
      sortedTransactions.slice(0, 10),
    ),
  },
);

This change maintains a consistent style across debug messages in the file and clearly indicates the purpose of the function.


Line range hint 1-101: Summary: Logging level adjustments successfully implemented.

The changes in this file consistently replace console.log with console.debug for debugging information related to account normalization, transaction sorting, and starting balance calculation. These adjustments align well with the PR objective of setting the correct log level for bank integration messages.

Key points:

  1. The core functionality of the integration logic remains unchanged.
  2. Debug logs now include relevant information for troubleshooting without affecting production logs.
  3. The changes improve the clarity and relevance of logged information as intended.

Consider implementing a centralized logging mechanism (if not already in place) that allows for easy toggling of debug logs in different environments. This would provide more flexibility in managing log levels across the application.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between a8c4c5f and 089b161.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • upcoming-release-notes/478.md is excluded by !**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/app-gocardless/banks/integration-bank.js (2 hunks)
  • src/app-gocardless/banks/tests/integration-bank.spec.js (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/app-gocardless/banks/tests/integration-bank.spec.js (3)

12-12: LGTM: Consistent logging level adjustment

The change from console.log to console.debug in the test setup is consistent with the PR objective and the changes made in the main code. This ensures that the tests accurately reflect the behavior of the actual implementation.


Line range hint 1-165: Summary of changes

The changes in this file align with the PR objective of adjusting the logging level from info to debug. The test setup has been updated to mock console.debug instead of console.log, which is consistent with the changes made in the main code.

Key points:

  1. The core functionality of the tests remains unchanged.
  2. The logging level adjustment improves consistency between the implementation and tests.
  3. We've requested verification for potential additional changes mentioned in the AI summary but not visible in the provided code snippet.

Overall, these changes contribute to better logging practices and maintain the integrity of the test suite.


Line range hint 1-165: Verify completeness of changes

The AI summary mentions changes in other test cases (e.g., normalizeAccount, sortTransactions, and calculateStartingBalance), but these changes are not visible in the provided code snippet. To ensure a comprehensive review:

  1. Please confirm if there are additional changes in this file that need to be reviewed.
  2. If there are missing changes, kindly provide the complete diff or updated file content.

To help identify any missing changes, you can run the following command:

If you need assistance reviewing any additional changes or if you'd like me to generate updated test cases for the modified logging behavior, please let me know.

Copy link
Contributor

@matt-fidd matt-fidd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this!

@matt-fidd matt-fidd merged commit f6f49b1 into actualbudget:master Oct 23, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants