Prepare for CC-1501: Ship experiment with Diff in stage 2 tutorial card #2393
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure. 🔧 eslint
warning [email protected]: This version is no longer supported. Please see https://eslint.org/version-support for other options. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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 (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is ✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
Additional details and impacted files📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
app/services/feature-flags.js (1)
17-18: Add documentation for the new feature flag.The implementation looks good, but please add JSDoc comments explaining:
- The purpose of this feature flag
- The meaning of the 'test' value
- When staff override applies
+ /** + * Determines if solutions for stage 2 should be visible. + * @returns {boolean} True if feature flag is 'test' or user is staff + */ get canSeeSolutionsForStage2() { return this.getFeatureFlagValue('can-see-solutions-for-stage-2') === 'test' || this.currentUser?.isStaff; }app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts (1)
64-66: LGTM! Consider adding testsThe implementation correctly combines the language guide visibility check with the new feature flag. This ensures solutions are only shown when both conditions are met.
Consider adding tests for this new computed property to verify the behavior when:
- Both conditions are true
- Only one condition is true
- Neither condition is true
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts(1 hunks)app/services/feature-flags.js(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
app/services/feature-flags.js (1)
17-18: Verify feature flag usage across the codebase.
Let's ensure the feature flag is consistently used and properly integrated with the stage 2 tutorial card mentioned in the PR objectives.
✅ Verification successful
Feature flag integration appears consistent and properly implemented
The verification shows that:
- The feature flag is correctly implemented in
feature-flags.jswith staff override - It's properly integrated in the instructions controller where it's used in conjunction with
shouldShowLanguageGuide - No legacy references to old flags were found
- The implementation aligns with the PR objectives for controlling stage 2 solution visibility
The feature flag usage is minimal but focused, which is appropriate for this specific feature control. No inconsistencies or integration issues were found.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of the new feature flag and its integration
# Check for feature flag references
echo "Checking feature flag usage:"
rg -l "can-see-solutions-for-stage-2"
# Check for related component templates that might use this flag
echo -e "\nChecking related component usage:"
rg -l "canSeeSolutionsForStage2"
# Look for stage 2 related files that might need this flag
echo -e "\nChecking stage 2 related files:"
fd -e hbs -e js -e ts "stage.*2|tutorial.*card" app/
# Check for any remaining references to the old flag
echo -e "\nChecking for old flag references:"
rg "canSeeLanguageGuidesForStage2"
Length of output: 726
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual implementation and usage of the feature flag
# Check the feature flag implementation
echo "Feature flag implementation:"
rg -A 5 "can-see-solutions-for-stage-2" app/services/feature-flags.js
# Check how the flag is used in the instructions controller
echo -e "\nFeature flag usage in instructions controller:"
rg -A 5 "canSeeSolutionsForStage2" app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts
# Let's also check for any stage 2 specific logic in the tutorial cards
echo -e "\nStage 2 related logic in tutorial cards:"
rg -A 5 "stage.*2|Stage.*2" app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/first-stage-tutorial-card.ts
# Check for any other stage 2 related components or templates
echo -e "\nOther stage 2 related files:"
fd "stage-2|stage2" app/
Length of output: 1015
app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts (2)
64-66: Verify the new feature flag implementation
Let's verify the implementation of canSeeSolutionsForStage2 to ensure it has the correct conditions.
✅ Verification successful
Feature flag implementation looks correct and secure
The canSeeSolutionsForStage2 feature flag is properly implemented with appropriate access controls:
- It checks for a specific feature flag value ('can-see-solutions-for-stage-2' === 'test')
- It includes a staff override (currentUser?.isStaff)
- Usage is tracked via analytics
- The flag is correctly used in combination with
shouldShowLanguageGuidein the instructions controller
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the implementation and usage of the new feature flag
# Search for the implementation of canSeeSolutionsForStage2
ast-grep --pattern 'get canSeeSolutionsForStage2() {
$$$
}'
# Search for other usages of the new feature flag
rg "canSeeSolutionsForStage2"
# Search for related tests
rg -t test "canSeeSolutionsForStage2"
Length of output: 357
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation in feature-flags.js
cat app/services/feature-flags.js
# Let's also check for any test files specifically
rg "canSeeSolutionsForStage2" --type js --type ts
Length of output: 1328
57-57: Verify the removal of feature flag dependency
The simplified logic for shouldShowLanguageGuide removes the dependency on featureFlags.canSeeLanguageGuidesForStage2. This aligns with the architectural changes, but we should verify that this doesn't unintentionally expose language guides to users who shouldn't see them.
✅ Verification successful
Removal of feature flag dependency is safe
The removal of featureFlags.canSeeLanguageGuidesForStage2 is part of a controlled architectural change. The tests show that language guide visibility is now properly controlled through:
- Stage-based access (not showing on first stage)
- Existence of language guide content for the stage
- Repository progress (tests create repositories 'withFirstStageCompleted')
The simplified logic maintains the core visibility rules while removing unnecessary feature flag complexity.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other usages of canSeeLanguageGuidesForStage2 to ensure complete removal
# Search for any remaining references to the old feature flag
rg "canSeeLanguageGuidesForStage2"
# Search for tests that might need updating
rg -t test "shouldShowLanguageGuide"
Length of output: 357
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search for both feature flags and tests
# Search for any references to language guides in feature flags
rg -A 2 "languageGuide" app/services/feature-flags.js
# Search for tests with correct file extensions
rg -t js -t ts "shouldShowLanguageGuide" tests/
# Check the history of the feature flag removal
git log -p --all | rg "canSeeLanguageGuidesForStage2"
# Look for any language guide related tests
rg -t js -t ts "languageGuide" tests/
Length of output: 1344
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the test file specifically for language guide visibility logic
# Check the language guides test file content
cat tests/acceptance/course-page/language-guides-test.js
# Look for any feature flag setup in tests
rg -t js -t ts "setupFeatureFlags|featureFlags.*language" tests/
# Check for any stage-specific logic in tests
rg -t js -t ts "isFirst.*languageGuide|stage.*languageGuide" tests/
Length of output: 3743
Bundle ReportChanges will increase total bundle size by 4.37kB (0.01%) ⬆️. This is within the configured threshold ✅ Detailed changes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs (1)
Line range hint
8-13: Consider implementing the TODO for dynamic completion statsThe hardcoded 98% completion rate and TODO comment indicate a need for backend integration. This could affect the accuracy of information presented to users.
Would you like me to help create a GitHub issue to track the implementation of dynamic completion statistics from the backend?
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs (4)
29-33: Address TODO comment about Code Examples integrationThe TODO comment indicates incomplete integration with Code Examples. This should be resolved before merging.
Would you like me to help implement the Code Examples integration or create a GitHub issue to track this task?
15-20: Enhance accessibility of the solution reveal buttonConsider adding ARIA attributes to improve accessibility:
-<PrimaryButton {{on "click" this.toggleSolution}} class="self-center"> +<PrimaryButton + {{on "click" this.toggleSolution}} + class="self-center" + aria-label="Click to reveal solution" + role="button"> <div class="flex items-center gap-2"> {{svg-jar "eye" class="size-6"}} <span>Reveal Solution</span> </div> </PrimaryButton>
2-4: Reduce code duplication by extracting common instruction textThe instruction text is duplicated. Consider extracting it into a shared partial or component.
Create a new partial
_editor-instruction.hbs:Then replace both occurrences with:
Also applies to: 37-38
41-45: Standardize Code Examples link textThe text surrounding the Code Examples link differs between conditions. Consider standardizing the messaging for consistency.
-If you want a quick look at what functions to use or how to structure your code, we recommend looking at +To see example functions and code structure, check out the <LinkTo @route="course.stage.code-examples">Code Examples</LinkTo>Also applies to: 47-49
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-24: Document the new solution visibility featureThe new
shouldShowSolutionprop appears to control solution visibility but lacks documentation about its purpose and usage. Consider adding TSDoc comments to explain:
- When solutions should be shown/hidden
- How this integrates with the step completion logic
- Any prerequisites or conditions for showing solutions
Example documentation:
interface Signature { Element: HTMLDivElement; Args: { repository: RepositoryModel; courseStage: CourseStageModel; shouldRecommendLanguageGuide: boolean; /** * Controls the visibility of solution content in the second stage. * This is part of the CC-1501 experiment for showing Diff in stage 2 tutorial cards. */ shouldShowSolution: boolean; }; }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs(1 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts(1 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs(1 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts(2 hunks)app/models/repository.ts(1 hunks)app/templates/course/stage/instructions.hbs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts
[warning] 21-21: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L21
Added line #L21 was not covered by tests
[warning] 27-27: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L27
Added line #L27 was not covered by tests
[warning] 31-31: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L31
Added line #L31 was not covered by tests
app/models/repository.ts
[warning] 206-206: app/models/repository.ts#L206
Added line #L206 was not covered by tests
🪛 eslint
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts
[error] 29-31: Member solution should be declared before all method definitions.
(@typescript-eslint/member-ordering)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts (3)
4-5: LGTM: Necessary imports added correctly
The new imports for @action and @tracked decorators are appropriate for the component's functionality.
15-15: LGTM: Well-typed interface addition
The shouldShowSolution boolean property is appropriately typed and follows naming conventions.
19-32: Verify integration with parent components
Please ensure this component properly integrates with SecondStageInstructionsCardComponent and respects the visibility conditions from CourseStageInstructionsController.
✅ Verification successful
Component integration is properly implemented
The verification shows that:
- The component is correctly integrated within
SecondStageInstructionsCardtemplate - The
shouldShowSolutionprop is properly passed down from parent to child - The component is used within an
ExpandableStepListwith proper conditional rendering - The component's state management (
solutionIsBlurred) is self-contained and doesn't conflict with parent components
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify component integration and usage
# Check for proper component usage in templates
rg -t hbs "ImplementSolutionStep" app/components/
# Check for proper shouldShowSolution prop passing
rg -t ts "shouldShowSolution.*ImplementSolutionStep" app/components/
Length of output: 289
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the parent components and their interactions
# Check SecondStageInstructionsCard implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class SecondStageInstructionsCard {
$$$
}'
# Check template for property passing
cat app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs
# Check for CourseStageInstructionsController
ast-grep --pattern 'class CourseStageInstructionsController {
$$$
}'
# Look for any shouldShowSolution related code
rg -t ts "shouldShowSolution" app/components/
Length of output: 2419
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the SecondStageInstructionsCard component's implementation and type definitions
# Check the component's implementation
cat app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts
# Check if there are any other usages of solutionIsBlurred
rg -t ts "solutionIsBlurred" app/components/
# Check for any analytics tracking related to solution visibility
rg -t ts "track.*solution" app/components/
Length of output: 4495
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 21-21: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L21
Added line #L21 was not covered by tests
[warning] 27-27: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L27
Added line #L27 was not covered by tests
[warning] 31-31: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L31
Added line #L31 was not covered by tests
🪛 eslint
[error] 29-31: Member solution should be declared before all method definitions.
(@typescript-eslint/member-ordering)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs (1)
29-29: LGTM: Clean addition of solution visibility control
The addition of @shouldShowSolution property follows Ember's conventions and aligns with the PR's objective to prepare for the Diff experiment in stage 2 tutorial card.
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs (1)
6-22: Implementation of BlurredOverlay with FileDiffCard looks good!
The solution reveal functionality is well-structured using the BlurredOverlay component, and the FileDiffCard integration for displaying changed files is implemented correctly.
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts (2)
Line range hint 1-144: Verify complete implementation of Diff experiment
While this component now supports controlling solution visibility, I don't see the actual Diff-related UI implementation. This might be in the template file.
Let's verify the complete feature implementation:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for related template file
fd "second-stage-instructions-card.hbs"
# Look for Diff-related components that might be used
rg -t ts -t hbs "Diff" --glob "app/components/**"
# Check for other files modified in this PR that might contain the Diff UI
git diff --name-only17-17: Verify the impact of the new required prop
The addition of shouldShowSolution as a required boolean prop might require updates to all existing usage sites of this component.
Let's verify the component usage across the codebase:
app/templates/course/stage/instructions.hbs (3)
41-46: Ensure consistent feature flag checks.
The component now receives both @shouldRecommendLanguageGuide and @shouldShowSolution flags. These properties should be consistently checked against feature flags in the controller.
Let's verify the feature flag implementation:
41-46: Verify SecondStageInstructionsCard component implementation.
Let's ensure the component properly handles the new @shouldShowSolution property.
Run this script to check the component implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the implementation of the BlurredOverlay component since it's being used with the solution display.
Based on the verification results, I can now provide the final response:
SecondStageInstructionsCard component properly implements the solution display functionality
The implementation correctly:
- Accepts and passes through the
@shouldShowSolutionproperty - Uses it as a conditional guard in the implement-solution-step template
- Integrates with BlurredOverlay component for controlled solution visibility
- Maintains proper component hierarchy and data flow
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify SecondStageInstructionsCard component implementation
# Expected: Should find the component definition and its usage of shouldShowSolution
# Search for the component definition
fd -e js -e ts -e hbs "second-stage-instructions-card" app/components/
# Search for shouldShowSolution usage within the component
rg -A 5 'shouldShowSolution' app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card*
Length of output: 3432
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check BlurredOverlay component implementation and its usage
fd -e js -e ts -e hbs "blurred-overlay" app/components/
# Check the content and implementation
rg -A 5 'class BlurredOverlay' app/components/
rg -A 5 '@isBlurred=' app/components/
Length of output: 5116
44-44: Verify the controller's shouldShowSolution implementation.
The addition of @shouldShowSolution property is consistent with the PR objectives for implementing the "Diff" feature in stage 2 tutorial card. However, we should verify that the controller properly implements this computed property.
Let's verify the controller implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Property implementation is correct and well-integrated
The shouldShowSolution computed property is properly implemented in the controller and correctly used in the component:
- Controller implements it as:
shouldShowSolution = shouldShowLanguageGuide && featureFlags.canSeeSolutionsForStage2 - Component accepts it via typed interface and uses it appropriately
- The property is gated behind a feature flag as expected
- Integration is consistent with the component's other features like step tracking
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the controller's shouldShowSolution implementation
# Expected: Should find the computed property definition in the controller
# Search for the shouldShowSolution computed property
ast-grep --pattern 'shouldShowSolution: computed(function() {
$$$
})'
# Backup: Search using ripgrep
rg -A 5 'shouldShowSolution.*computed'
Length of output: 114
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try different approaches to find the shouldShowSolution implementation
# Search for any file containing shouldShowSolution
rg -l "shouldShowSolution"
# Search for the controller file specifically
fd "stage.*.js" app/controllers/course/
# Look for computed property patterns in potential controller files
rg "computed\(" app/controllers/course/stage/
Length of output: 571
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the controller implementation since we found it's a TypeScript file
cat app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts
# Also look at the component implementation since it's receiving the property
cat app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts
Length of output: 9008
...ents/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ents/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ents/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
andy1li
force-pushed
the
prepare-for-stage-2-solutions-experiment
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2f474e3
to
9eba1ae
Compare
andy1li
force-pushed
the
prepare-for-stage-2-solutions-experiment
branch
from
9eba1ae
to
73cb9d5
Compare
andy1li
force-pushed
the
prepare-for-stage-2-solutions-experiment
branch
from
22dc4ad
to
bb77881
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts (1)
19-34: Consider implementing component integration testsWhile unit tests are needed for individual methods, also consider adding integration tests to verify:
- Component rendering with different prop combinations
- User interaction flows
- Integration with parent components
This will ensure the component behaves correctly in the context of the tutorial card.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 21-21: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L21
Added line #L21 was not covered by tests
[warning] 24-24: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L24
Added line #L24 was not covered by tests
[warning] 30-30: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L30
Added line #L30 was not covered by tests
[warning] 33-33: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by testsapp/models/course-stage-solution.ts (2)
3-3: Consider alternatives to mixinsMixins are discouraged in modern Ember applications as they can lead to inheritance-related issues and make code harder to maintain. Consider refactoring to use composition patterns like:
- Services
- Utility functions
- Class composition
- Ember's native class fields and decorators
2-9: Consider future refactoring of the solution visibility logicWhile the current changes implement the stage 2 solution feature, the use of mixins and the addition of the authenticator service suggest this might benefit from a more focused architectural approach:
- Consider extracting solution visibility logic into a dedicated service
- Use composition instead of mixins for shared functionality
- Document the relationship between authenticator and solution visibility
This would make the code more maintainable and align better with modern Ember practices.
app/models/repository.ts (1)
203-209: Consider extracting common solution-finding logicThe implementation looks correct, but there's duplicated logic between
firstStageSolutionandsecondStageSolution. Consider extracting the common pattern into a private helper method.+ private getStageSolution(stage: CourseStageModel | null): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { + if (!stage) { + return null; + } + return stage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; + } get firstStageSolution(): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { - if (!this.course.firstStage) { - return null; - } - return this.course.firstStage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; + return this.getStageSolution(this.course.firstStage); } get secondStageSolution(): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { - if (!this.course.secondStage) { - return null; - } - return this.course.secondStage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; + return this.getStageSolution(this.course.secondStage); }🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 205-205: app/models/repository.ts#L205
Added line #L205 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs(1 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts(1 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs(2 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts(2 hunks)app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts(1 hunks)app/models/course-stage-solution.ts(1 hunks)app/models/repository.ts(1 hunks)app/services/feature-flags.js(1 hunks)app/templates/course/stage/instructions.hbs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (6)
- app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs
- app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts
- app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs
- app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts
- app/services/feature-flags.js
- app/templates/course/stage/instructions.hbs
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts
[warning] 21-21: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L21
Added line #L21 was not covered by tests
[warning] 24-24: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L24
Added line #L24 was not covered by tests
[warning] 30-30: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L30
Added line #L30 was not covered by tests
[warning] 33-33: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by tests
app/models/repository.ts
[warning] 205-205: app/models/repository.ts#L205
Added line #L205 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (6)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts (4)
4-5: LGTM: Clean import additions and interface update
The new imports and interface property are well-typed and align with the component's enhanced functionality for solution visibility control.
Also applies to: 15-15
27-33: Add test coverage for solution toggle functionality
The toggleSolution action lacks test coverage. Please add tests for:
- Initial blurred state
- Toggle behavior
- Solution view creation
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 30-30: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L30
Added line #L30 was not covered by tests
[warning] 33-33: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by tests
28-30: Resolve analytics tracking TODO
The analytics tracking implementation is still pending. Consider using the analytics service for proper event tracking.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 30-30: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L30
Added line #L30 was not covered by tests
22-24: Add null safety handling for solution getter
The solution getter returns a potentially undefined value (secondStageSolution). Ensure proper null handling in the template where this getter is used.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 24-24: app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts#L24
Added line #L24 was not covered by tests
app/models/course-stage-solution.ts (2)
9-9: Verify authenticator service usage
The authenticator service has been added but its usage within this model isn't immediately clear. Let's verify how it's being used for the stage 2 solution feature.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how authenticator is used in relation to solutions
# Search for authenticator usage in this model
ast-grep --pattern 'this.authenticator'
# Check for solution-related methods in AuthenticatorService
echo "\nAuthenticator Service Implementation:"
rg -A 5 "canSeeSolutionsForStage2|solution" app/services/authenticator.ts8-8: Verify ViewableMixin usage and impact
Let's verify how this mixin is used across the codebase to understand its scope and potential impact.
...nts/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@andy1li no tests? |
andy1li
force-pushed
the
prepare-for-stage-2-solutions-experiment
branch
from
bb77881
to
85e8288
Compare
andy1li
force-pushed
the
prepare-for-stage-2-solutions-experiment
branch
from
85e8288
to
5d051b6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts (1)
22-24: Add JSDoc documentation for the solution getterPlease add documentation to explain the purpose and return type of this getter.
+ /** + * Returns the second stage solution from the repository + * @returns {string | undefined} The solution text if available + */ get solution() { return this.args.repository.secondStageSolution; }tests/acceptance/course-page/course-stage-solutions-test.js (2)
10-44: Consider improving test data isolation.The test setup is comprehensive and well-structured. However, consider extracting the test data (especially the diff content) to a separate fixture file for better maintainability and reusability.
Example structure:
// tests/fixtures/course-stage-solutions/redis-stage-2.js export const pythonSolutionDiff = `@@ -1,10 +1,11 @@\n import socket...`;This would make the test setup cleaner and allow reuse of the same diff content in other tests.
46-54: Consider adding more test cases.While the current test case covers the basic solution reveal functionality, consider adding tests for:
- Error states (e.g., network failures)
- Permission checks (non-staff users)
- Different file types in the diff
- Multiple files in the solution
This would provide better coverage for the feature.
Would you like me to help generate these additional test cases?
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 51-51: Use
assert.true orassert.false` for boolean assertions.(qunit/no-assert-equal-boolean)
app/components/expandable-step-list/step.hbs (1)
Test coverage needs to be added for the expandable step list component
The test selector
data-test-expand-step-buttonis only used in a page object (second-stage-instructions-card.ts) but there are no dedicated component tests found for the expandable-step-list component. To ensure robust test coverage:
- Add integration tests for the expandable-step-list component covering:
- Button visibility conditions (
@isExpanded,@isFirstIncompleteStep)- Button click behavior
- Expansion/collapse functionality
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
28-34: LGTM! Addition of test selector enhances testability.The addition of
data-test-expand-step-buttonfollows the established pattern of test selectors in the component and improves testability.Let's verify the test coverage for this new selector:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if tests are using the new test selector # Search for tests using the new selector rg -l 'data-test-expand-step-button' 'tests/' # Search for integration or acceptance tests that might need updates rg -l 'expandable-step-list/step' 'tests/integration/' 'tests/acceptance/'Length of output: 201
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the actual test file to understand the coverage rg -A 5 -B 5 'data-test-expand-step-button' 'tests/pages/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts' # Also check for any existing tests for the expandable-step-list component fd "expandable-step-list.*test" tests/ # Look for any integration tests that might be using this component fd "expandable-step" tests/integration/Length of output: 739
🛑 Comments failed to post (4)
tests/pages/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts (1)
8-8: 💡 Codebase verification
Missing test coverage for new UI elements
The visibility checks for the reveal solution button and file diff card are not covered by any existing tests. While the page object is imported and used in the test suite, specific test cases for these new UI elements are missing:
- No acceptance tests found using these selectors in
tests/acceptance/course-page/- The page object is only referenced in
tests/pages/course-page.jsbut without actual test coverage- The component implementation shows these elements are part of the second stage instructions card
Please add acceptance tests to verify the visibility and functionality of:
[data-test-reveal-solution-button][data-test-file-diff-card]🔗 Analysis chain
Verify test coverage for new visibility checks.
The visibility checks for the reveal solution button and file diff card are well-implemented. However, since the PR objectives mention no tests were added, let's verify the test coverage.
Also applies to: 10-10
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for test coverage of the new UI elements # Look for tests using these selectors echo "Searching for tests using the new selectors..." rg -l "data-test-reveal-solution-button|data-test-file-diff-card" tests/ # Look for acceptance tests that might use this page object echo "Searching for acceptance tests using SecondStageInstructionsCard..." rg -l "second-stage-instructions-card" tests/acceptance/Length of output: 466
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's search for any tests that might be using this page object echo "Searching for test files importing or using SecondStageInstructionsCard..." rg -l "SecondStageInstructionsCard" tests/ # Let's also check the component implementation to understand the context echo "Checking the component implementation..." fd "second-stage-instructions-card" --type f --exclude "*.ts" | xargs cat # Let's look for related test files in the acceptance directory echo "Checking acceptance tests directory structure..." fd . tests/acceptance/ -t dLength of output: 2976
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the course-page.js test file that references SecondStageInstructionsCard echo "Checking course-page.js test content..." cat tests/pages/course-page.js # Let's also look for acceptance tests in the course-page directory that might test this functionality echo "Checking course-page acceptance tests..." rg -l "reveal-solution|file-diff" tests/acceptance/course-page/Length of output: 9484
tests/acceptance/course-page/course-stage-solutions-test.js (1)
51-51: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use appropriate boolean assertions.
Replace
assert.strictEqualwithassert.falsefor boolean assertions to improve test clarity.- assert.strictEqual(coursePage.secondStageInstructionsCard.hasRevealSolutionButton, false, 'Expect reveal solution button to be hidden'); + assert.false(coursePage.secondStageInstructionsCard.hasRevealSolutionButton, 'Expect reveal solution button to be hidden');📝 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.assert.false(coursePage.secondStageInstructionsCard.hasRevealSolutionButton, 'Expect reveal solution button to be hidden');🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 51-51: Use
assert.true orassert.false` for boolean assertions.(qunit/no-assert-equal-boolean)
app/models/repository.ts (2)
203-209: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Extract common solution-finding logic to reduce duplication
The implementation duplicates logic from
firstStageSolution. Consider extracting the shared logic into a private helper method.Apply this diff to reduce code duplication:
+ private getStageSolution(stage: CourseStageModel | null): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { + if (!stage) { + return null; + } + + return stage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; + } get firstStageSolution(): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { - if (!this.course.firstStage) { - return null; - } - - return this.course.firstStage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; + return this.getStageSolution(this.course.firstStage); } get secondStageSolution(): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { - if (!this.course.secondStage) { - return null; - } - - return this.course.secondStage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; + return this.getStageSolution(this.course.secondStage); }📝 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.private getStageSolution(stage: CourseStageModel | null): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { if (!stage) { return null; } return stage.solutions.find((solution) => solution.language === this.language) || null; } get firstStageSolution(): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { return this.getStageSolution(this.course.firstStage); } get secondStageSolution(): CourseStageSolutionModel | null { return this.getStageSolution(this.course.secondStage); }🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 205-205: app/models/repository.ts#L205
Added line #L205 was not covered by tests
203-209: 💡 Codebase verification
Add test coverage for secondStageSolution getter
The test file exists at
tests/unit/models/repository-test.jsbut only contains a basic existence test. The implementation inrepository.tsshows thatsecondStageSolutionhas similar logic to other getters that deserve test coverage. Add the following test cases:
- Returns null when course has no second stage
- Returns null when no solution matches the language
- Returns correct solution when language matches
🔗 Analysis chain
Add test coverage for secondStageSolution getter
The new getter lacks test coverage. Add test cases to verify:
- Returns null when course has no second stage
- Returns null when no solution matches the language
- Returns correct solution when language matches
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify test coverage and implementation # Check for existing test patterns rg -A 5 "secondStageSolution|getStageSolution" "tests/unit/models/repository-test.ts" # Verify CourseModel's secondStage implementation ast-grep --pattern 'class CourseModel { $$$ get secondStage() { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 253
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's first locate the test files directory and any relevant test files fd -t f "test|spec" -e ts # Then check for any existing tests related to repository or course models rg -l "Repository|Course" $(fd -t f "test|spec" -e ts)Length of output: 3454
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check for test files in a different location pattern fd -t f "repository.*test" -e ts # Also search for any test files containing repository-related tests rg -l "describe.*Repository" $(fd -t f "test|spec" -e ts) # Check the implementation details of the repository model ast-grep --pattern 'class RepositoryModel { $$$ get secondStageSolution() { $$$ } $$$ }'Length of output: 1523
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try to find test files in a different directory structure fd -t f -e ts -d 3 "test" # Look for any files containing Repository in their content rg -l "class.*Repository" . # Check if there are any existing test files in tests directory ls -R tests/Length of output: 8540
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the content of the repository test file cat tests/unit/models/repository-test.js # Also check for any repository test in TypeScript cat tests/unit/models/repository-test.ts # Look at the implementation of the repository model to understand the context better cat app/models/repository.tsLength of output: 10635
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 205-205: app/models/repository.ts#L205
Added line #L205 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs(2 hunks)app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts(2 hunks)app/components/expandable-step-list/step.hbs(1 hunks)app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts(1 hunks)app/templates/course/stage/instructions.hbs(1 hunks)tests/acceptance/course-page/course-stage-solutions-test.js(1 hunks)tests/pages/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.hbs
- app/components/expandable-step-list/step.hbs
- app/controllers/course/stage/instructions.ts
- app/templates/course/stage/instructions.hbs
- tests/acceptance/course-page/course-stage-solutions-test.js
🔇 Additional comments (6)
tests/pages/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts (1)
5-6: LGTM: Well-structured test selectors for new UI interactions
The new clickable actions follow the established patterns and use semantic data-test attributes.
app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card/implement-solution-step.ts (5)
4-5: LGTM: Required imports added correctly
The new imports for @action and @tracked decorators are appropriate for the component's functionality.
20-20: LGTM: Reactive state management
The @tracked decorator is correctly used for managing the solution's blur state.
22-24: LGTM: Clean getter implementation
The solution getter provides a clean interface to access the repository's second stage solution.
26-31: Verify analytics tracking implementation
The action correctly handles the solution reveal, but let's verify the analytics implementation:
- Is
createView()the correct analytics method for this use case? - Should we track additional metrics for this experiment?
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check analytics implementation patterns in the codebase
# Find other usages of createView
rg "createView" --type ts -A 3
# Find similar tutorial card analytics
rg "analytics.*track.*tutorial" --type tsAdditionally, this code segment needs test coverage as mentioned in previous reviews.
15-15: Verify the parent component's implementation
The new shouldShowSolution boolean prop is correctly typed. Let's verify its implementation in the parent component.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the implementation details in the parent component to verify how this prop is being used.
The shouldShowSolution prop is correctly implemented
The parent component properly:
- Defines the prop in its interface (
shouldShowSolution: boolean) - Passes it down to the
ImplementSolutionStepcomponent in the template - Receives it as an external argument (
@shouldShowSolution)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the parent component passes the shouldShowSolution prop correctly
# Find the parent component's template that renders this component
rg -l "SecondStageInstructionsCard::ImplementSolutionStep" --type hbs
# Find where shouldShowSolution is computed/set
rg "shouldShowSolution" --type ts
Length of output: 431
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of the parent component's template and implementation
cat app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.hbs
cat app/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts
Length of output: 5954
tests/pages/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
tests/pages/components/course-page/course-stage-step/second-stage-instructions-card.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Checklist:
[percy]in the message to trigger)Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor