feat(j-s): Send Indictment Case Defender Info to Robot #16927
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request involves significant modifications to the judicial system's handling of defender information in indictment cases. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #16927 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 36.41% 36.60% +0.18%
==========================================
Files 6911 6865 -46
Lines 144853 143728 -1125
Branches 41384 41000 -384
==========================================
- Hits 52753 52613 -140
+ Misses 92100 91115 -985
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
... and 112 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Datadog ReportBranch report: ✅ 0 Failed, 21240 Passed, 0 Skipped, 16m 54.97s Total Time |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/dto/deliver.dto.ts (1)
Line range hint
7-11: Enhance Swagger documentation for better API clarityWhile the basic Swagger decoration is present, consider adding more descriptive metadata to improve API documentation.
export class DeliverDto { @IsNotEmpty() @IsObject() - @ApiProperty({ type: Object }) + @ApiProperty({ + type: Object, + description: 'User information for the delivery operation', + example: { + id: 'user-123', + name: 'John Doe', + email: '[email protected]' + } + }) readonly user!: User }apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourtGuards.spec.ts (1)
18-25: Enhance test coverage for guard behaviorWhile the test verifies the guard types and configuration, it doesn't test the actual guard behavior. Consider adding tests that verify:
- The CaseTypeGuard actually rejects non-indictment cases
- The DefendantExistsGuard properly validates defendant existence
Also, given that this endpoint sends data to an external robot system (as per PR objectives), consider adding tests to verify that only authorized cases can proceed.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourt.spec.ts (3)
Line range hint
13-24: LGTM! Consider enhancing type safety with literal types.The type definitions are well-structured and reflect the architectural changes. For enhanced type safety, consider using literal types for the response.
interface Then { - result?: DeliverResponse + result?: { delivered: boolean } error?: Error }🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 78-78: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 79-79: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
Line range hint
53-83: Enhance error case coverage in test infrastructure.The test infrastructure is well-organized, but consider adding more error scenarios to ensure robust error handling when communicating with the court service.
Consider adding tests for:
- Network timeouts
- Invalid defender data responses
- Court service unavailability
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 78-78: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
[error] 79-79: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
Line range hint
85-116: Add comprehensive test coverage for this critical feature.Given that this feature automates sending defender information to a robotic system, the current test coverage is insufficient.
Add test cases for:
- Validation of defender information format
- Missing or incomplete defender data
- Specific error types from the court service
- Retry mechanisms (if implemented)
- Verification that correct data is being sent
Example:
it('should validate defender email format before sending', async () => { const invalidDefendant = { ...defendant, defenderEmail: 'invalid-email' }; const then = await givenWhenThen( caseId, defendantId, theCase, invalidDefendant, { user } ); expect(then.error).toBeDefined(); expect(then.error.message).toContain('invalid email format'); });apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/internalDefendant.controller.ts (1)
96-122: Consider enhancing API documentation and logging.The implementation correctly handles the delivery of indictment defender information to the court, with proper guards and error handling. However, consider these improvements:
- Make the API response description more specific about what defender information is being delivered (national ID, name, email).
- Enhance the debug log message to include the operation context (e.g., "Sending defender assignment to robot").
@ApiOkResponse({ type: DeliverResponse, - description: 'Delivers indictment case defender info to court', + description: 'Delivers defender information (national ID, name, email) for indictment cases to court robot', }) deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourt( @Param('caseId') caseId: string, @Param('defendantId') defendantId: string, @CurrentCase() theCase: Case, @CurrentDefendant() defendant: Defendant, @Body() deliverDto: DeliverDto, ): Promise<DeliverResponse> { this.logger.debug( - `Delivering defender info for defendant ${defendantId} of case ${caseId} to court`, + `Sending defender assignment to court robot for defendant ${defendantId} of indictment case ${caseId}`, )apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/defendantController/update.spec.ts (1)
188-195: Consider adding error case test coverage.While the happy path is well tested, consider adding test cases for potential error scenarios in the defender info delivery process, such as:
- Invalid defender email format
- Missing required defender information
- Network/system failures during delivery
Would you like me to help generate these additional test cases?
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts (1)
617-619: LGTM! Method signature and implementation look good.The changes align well with the PR objective of sending specific defender information to the robot system. The JSON payload structure is clean and contains all necessary information.
Consider adding input validation for the optional parameters to ensure data quality:
updateIndictmentCaseWithDefenderInfo( user: User, caseId: string, courtName?: string, courtCaseNumber?: string, defendantNationalId?: string, defenderName?: string, defenderEmail?: string, ): Promise<unknown> { + if (defendantNationalId && !this.isValidNationalId(defendantNationalId)) { + throw new Error('Invalid national ID format'); + } + if (defenderEmail && !this.isValidEmail(defenderEmail)) { + throw new Error('Invalid email format'); + } try { const subject = `${courtName} - ${courtCaseNumber} - verjandi varnaraðila`Also applies to: 622-627
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/defendant.service.ts (3)
142-155: Simplify Message Construction LogicThe construction of the
messagesarray within the conditional block can be refactored for clarity. Extracting message creation into a separate helper method would enhance readability and adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle.Apply this diff to refactor the message construction:
+ private createDefenderConfirmedMessages( + theCase: Case, + updatedDefendant: Defendant, + user: User, + ): Message[] { + const messages: Message[] = [ + { + type: MessageType.DELIVERY_TO_COURT_INDICTMENT_DEFENDER, + user, + caseId: theCase.id, + elementId: updatedDefendant.id, + }, + ] + + if ( + updatedDefendant.defenderChoice === DefenderChoice.CHOOSE || + updatedDefendant.defenderChoice === DefenderChoice.DELEGATE + ) { + messages.push({ + type: MessageType.DEFENDANT_NOTIFICATION, + caseId: theCase.id, + body: { type: DefendantNotificationType.DEFENDER_ASSIGNED }, + elementId: updatedDefendant.id, + }) + } + return messages + }Then update the original block:
if ( updatedDefendant.isDefenderChoiceConfirmed && !oldDefendant.isDefenderChoiceConfirmed ) { - const messages: Message[] = [ - { - type: MessageType.DELIVERY_TO_COURT_INDICTMENT_DEFENDER, - user, - caseId: theCase.id, - elementId: updatedDefendant.id, - }, - ] - if ( - updatedDefendant.defenderChoice === DefenderChoice.CHOOSE || - updatedDefendant.defenderChoice === DefenderChoice.DELEGATE - ) { - messages.push({ - type: MessageType.DEFENDANT_NOTIFICATION, - caseId: theCase.id, - body: { type: DefendantNotificationType.DEFENDER_ASSIGNED }, - elementId: updatedDefendant.id, - }) - } + const messages = this.createDefenderConfirmedMessages( + theCase, + updatedDefendant, + user, + ) return this.messageService.sendMessagesToQueue(messages) }
Line range hint
249-265: Reduce Code Duplication in Update MethodsThe methods
updateRequestCaseDefendantandupdateIndictmentCaseDefendantcontain similar logic. Consider combining them into a single method with conditional handling for indictment cases to improve maintainability.Example refactored method:
- async updateRequestCaseDefendant(...) { ... } - async updateIndictmentCaseDefendant(...) { ... } + async updateCaseDefendant( + theCase: Case, + defendant: Defendant, + update: UpdateDefendantDto, + user: User, + ): Promise<Defendant> { + const updatedDefendant = await this.updateDatabaseDefendant( + theCase.id, + defendant.id, + update, + ) + + if (isIndictmentCase(theCase.type)) { + await this.sendIndictmentCaseUpdateDefendantMessages( + theCase, + updatedDefendant, + defendant, + user, + ) + } else { + await this.sendRequestCaseUpdateDefendantMessages( + theCase, + updatedDefendant, + defendant, + user, + ) + } + + return updatedDefendant + }Update the
updatemethod accordingly:async update( theCase: Case, defendant: Defendant, update: UpdateDefendantDto, user: User, ): Promise<Defendant> { - if (isIndictmentCase(theCase.type)) { - return this.updateIndictmentCaseDefendant( - theCase, - defendant, - update, - user, - ) - } else { - return this.updateRequestCaseDefendant(theCase, defendant, update, user) - } + return this.updateCaseDefendant(theCase, defendant, update, user) }
278-285: Utilize Strategy Pattern for Case Type HandlingIn the
updatemethod, the logic branches based on the case type. Implementing a strategy pattern could improve scalability and maintainability, especially if more case types are added in the future.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.controller.ts(0 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.service.ts(0 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/test/internalCaseController/deliverIndictmentDefenderInfoToCourtGuards.spec.ts(0 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts(2 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/defendant.service.ts(6 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/dto/deliver.dto.ts(1 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/internalDefendant.controller.ts(4 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/defendantController/update.spec.ts(1 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverDefendantToCourtGuards.spec.ts(2 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourt.spec.ts(5 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourtGuards.spec.ts(1 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/internalDefendantControllerGuards.spec.ts(0 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/subpoena/subpoena.service.ts(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (5)
- apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.controller.ts
- apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.service.ts
- apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/test/internalCaseController/deliverIndictmentDefenderInfoToCourtGuards.spec.ts
- apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/internalDefendantControllerGuards.spec.ts
- apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/subpoena/subpoena.service.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (8)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/defendant.service.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/dto/deliver.dto.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/internalDefendant.controller.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/defendantController/update.spec.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverDefendantToCourtGuards.spec.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourt.spec.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourtGuards.spec.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
📓 Learnings (3)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/internalDefendant.controller.ts (1)
Learnt from: gudjong
PR: island-is/island.is#15393
File: apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.controller.ts:28-28
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:11.835Z
Learning: The `DeliverCancellationNoticeDto` import in `apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.controller.ts` is used in the `deliverIndictmentCancellationNoticeToCourt` method.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverDefendantToCourtGuards.spec.ts (2)
Learnt from: gudjong
PR: island-is/island.is#16389
File: apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/test/limitedAccessCaseController/getIndictmentPdfGuards.spec.ts:24-25
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:11.835Z
Learning: In certain scenarios within the judicial-system backend, the `RolesGuard` may intentionally follow the `CaseExistsGuard` when specific roles rules require the guard order to be reversed, as seen in tests like `getIndictmentPdfGuards.spec.ts`.
Learnt from: gudjong
PR: island-is/island.is#16389
File: apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts:175-185
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:20.157Z
Learning: In the Jest tests for the `LimitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard` in `apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts`, code duplication in the `beforeEach` blocks is acceptable and should remain unchanged.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourtGuards.spec.ts (2)
Learnt from: gudjong
PR: island-is/island.is#16389
File: apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/test/limitedAccessCaseController/getIndictmentPdfGuards.spec.ts:24-25
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:11.835Z
Learning: In certain scenarios within the judicial-system backend, the `RolesGuard` may intentionally follow the `CaseExistsGuard` when specific roles rules require the guard order to be reversed, as seen in tests like `getIndictmentPdfGuards.spec.ts`.
Learnt from: gudjong
PR: island-is/island.is#16389
File: apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts:175-185
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:20.157Z
Learning: In the Jest tests for the `LimitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard` in `apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/file/guards/test/limitedAccessViewCaseFileGuard.spec.ts`, code duplication in the `beforeEach` blocks is acceptable and should remain unchanged.
🔇 Additional comments (12)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/dto/deliver.dto.ts (1)
7-7: Verify the impact of the DTO rename across the codebase
The class has been renamed from DeliverDefendantToCourtDto to DeliverDto. While this makes the DTO more generic and potentially reusable, we should ensure all references have been updated.
✅ Verification successful
No issues found with the DTO rename
The codebase scan shows that:
- No references to the old name
DeliverDefendantToCourtDtoexist - The new
DeliverDtois consistently used across multiple modules (defendant, subpoena, file, case) - Each module has its own
DeliverDtodefinition with identical structure, suggesting this is an intentional pattern for handling delivery operations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for any remaining references to the old DTO name
# and verify the usage of the new DTO name
echo "Checking for any remaining references to DeliverDefendantToCourtDto..."
rg "DeliverDefendantToCourtDto"
echo "Verifying usage of the new DeliverDto..."
rg "DeliverDto" -A 3
Length of output: 20594
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverDefendantToCourtGuards.spec.ts (2)
1-4: LGTM! Clean import organization.
The imports are well-organized and properly scoped to include only the necessary case types.
22-27: Consider enhancing test coverage for guard behavior.
While the guard configuration is correctly tested, consider adding test cases to verify:
- Guard behavior with invalid case types
- Error scenarios and rejection cases
- Integration with the actual controller method
Additionally, there seems to be a potential discrepancy between the PR objectives (which mention indictment cases) and the allowed case types (which include investigation and restriction cases but not explicitly indictment cases).
Let's verify if indictment cases are handled elsewhere:
Consider adding these test cases:
it('should reject invalid case types', () => {
const guard = new CaseTypeGuard();
guard.allowedCaseTypes = [...restrictionCases, ...investigationCases];
// Test with invalid case type
expect(guard.canActivate({ params: { type: 'INVALID_TYPE' } })).toBeFalsy();
});
it('should accept valid case types', () => {
const guard = new CaseTypeGuard();
guard.allowedCaseTypes = [...restrictionCases, ...investigationCases];
// Test with valid case types
restrictionCases.forEach(caseType => {
expect(guard.canActivate({ params: { type: caseType } })).toBeTruthy();
});
});apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourtGuards.spec.ts (1)
19-24: Verify guard order for security implications
Based on the retrieved learnings about guard order importance in this codebase, please verify if the current guard order (CaseTypeGuard before DefendantExistsGuard) is correct for this endpoint's security requirements.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourt.spec.ts (1)
33-40: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add validation for critical defender information.
Since this information will be sent to a robotic system, consider adding validation for the defender's email format and ensuring all required fields are present.
const defendant = {
id: defendantId,
name: 'Test Ákærði',
nationalId: '1234567890',
defenderNationalId: '1234567899',
defenderName: 'Test Verjandi',
- defenderEmail: 'defenderEmail',
+ defenderEmail: '[email protected]', // Use valid email format in tests
} as Defendantapps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/internalDefendant.controller.ts (2)
20-24: LGTM! Import changes are well-structured.
The new imports for case types and DeliverDto are properly organized and align with the controller's enhanced functionality.
Also applies to: 27-27
45-48: Verify the impact of DTO change on API consumers.
The guard changes appropriately restrict the endpoint to restriction and investigation cases. The switch to a more generic DeliverDto is a good refactor for code reuse.
Let's verify if all API consumers have been updated to use the new DTO:
Also applies to: 61-61
✅ Verification successful
DTO change has been properly implemented across the codebase
The switch from DeliverDefendantToCourtDto to DeliverDto has been consistently implemented:
- No references to the old
DeliverDefendantToCourtDtoremain in the codebase - The new
DeliverDtois properly imported and used in all relevant controllers - The change is part of a broader standardization where the same
DeliverDtois used across multiple modules (case, defendant, file, subpoena) - All test files have been updated to use the new DTO
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining usage of the old DTO
rg "DeliverDefendantToCourtDto" -A 3
Length of output: 36
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check for the new DTO usage
rg "DeliverDto" -A 3
# Also check the file content to understand the DTO change
cat apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/internalDefendant.controller.ts
Length of output: 24208
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/test/defendantController/update.spec.ts (1)
188-195: LGTM! Test coverage for the new defender info delivery.
The test case properly verifies that both the new court delivery message and the existing defendant notification are queued when the defender is confirmed. This aligns well with the PR's objective of automating defender information delivery to the court system.
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts (2)
637-637: LGTM! Error message update.
The error message has been appropriately updated to reflect the new purpose of the method.
Line range hint 617-644: Verify the method usage in controllers and services.
Let's ensure that all consumers of this method have been updated to use the new signature.
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate additional scripts to verify the error handling consistency.
Based on the verification results, I can now provide a final response:
Method signature and usage are consistent across the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The method is used correctly in
defendant.service.tswith all required parameters - Test files in
deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourt.spec.tsmatch the implementation - Error handling follows the consistent pattern used across the codebase using
eventService.postErrorEvent
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all usages of updateIndictmentCaseWithDefenderInfo to verify they match the new signature
# Search for method calls
rg -l "updateIndictmentCaseWithDefenderInfo" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg -A 5 "updateIndictmentCaseWithDefenderInfo" "$file"
done
# Search for any remaining references to the old defendants parameter
rg "defendants.*updateIndictmentCaseWithDefenderInfo"
Length of output: 2032
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find similar error handling patterns in the court service
ast-grep --pattern 'this.eventService.postErrorEvent($$$)'
# Check the method signature in the interface/test mocks
rg -l "CourtService" | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg -A 5 "updateIndictmentCaseWithDefenderInfo" "$file"
done
Length of output: 44556
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/defendant.service.ts (2)
136-136: Ensure 'user' Parameter is Appropriately Handled
The user: User parameter has been added to the sendIndictmentCaseUpdateDefendantMessages method. Verify that all calls to this method correctly pass the user object and that it is used consistently within the method.
469-475:
Avoid Logging Potentially Sensitive Identifiers
When logging errors, ensure that sensitive information such as defendant.id and theCase.id does not violate privacy policies or expose Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Consider sanitizing or omitting these details if necessary.
Would you like me to verify the logging policies regarding sensitive information?
...es/defendant/test/internalDefendantController/deliverIndictmentDefenderToCourtGuards.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/defendant/defendant.service.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
This PR currently has a merge conflict. Please resolve this and then re-add the |
|
This PR currently has a merge conflict. Please resolve this and then re-add the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.service.ts(0 hunks)apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/case/internalCase.service.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts (1)
Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:
- NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
- Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
- Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
🔇 Additional comments (2)
apps/judicial-system/backend/src/app/modules/court/court.service.ts (2)
622-627: LGTM! Clean and focused JSON payload structure.
The JSON payload is well-structured with the essential defender information fields:
nationalId: For identifying the defendantdefenderName: For the defender's full namedefenderEmail: For contact information
637-637: LGTM! Clear error message.
The error message "Failed to update indictment case with defender info" accurately describes the operation context.
Send Indictment Case Defender Info to Robot
Roboti - ákærur - skráning verjanda
What
Why
Checklist:
Summary by CodeRabbit