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

fix(user-notifications): adds fulltNafn as fallback #17012

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

magnearun
Copy link
Contributor

@magnearun magnearun commented Nov 25, 2024

What

Add fallback for birtNafn, use fulltNafn

Why

if birtNafn is empty use fulltNafn

Screenshots / Gifs

Attach Screenshots / Gifs to help reviewers understand the scope of the pull request

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • Formatting passes locally with my changes
  • I have rebased against main before asking for a review

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved handling of user name retrieval to ensure empty strings are returned when no valid name is available.
    • Enhanced logic for returning company names to avoid potential null or undefined values.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request primarily focus on the getName method of the NotificationsWorkerService class. The modifications involve replacing the nullish coalescing operator (??) with the logical OR operator (||) in return statements to improve how the service handles undefined values when retrieving names. This ensures that if the primary name fields are falsy, an empty string is returned instead.

Changes

File Change Summary
apps/services/user-notification/src/app/modules/notifications/notificationsWorker/notificationsWorker.service.ts Updated getName method to use `

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

automerge

Suggested reviewers

  • rafnarnason

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.

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.

@magnearun magnearun marked this pull request as ready for review November 25, 2024 14:03
@magnearun magnearun requested review from a team as code owners November 25, 2024 14:03
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 35.59%. Comparing base (a61c6fb) to head (5725b9e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17012      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   35.59%   35.59%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        6924     6924              
  Lines      146386   146386              
  Branches    41564    41564              
==========================================
- Hits        52100    52099       -1     
- Misses      94286    94287       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
api 3.34% <ø> (ø)
application-system-api 38.71% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
application-template-api-modules 27.72% <ø> (ø)
web 1.74% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...notificationsWorker/notificationsWorker.service.ts 93.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a61c6fb...5725b9e. Read the comment docs.

---- 🚨 Try these New Features:

@datadog-island-is
Copy link

datadog-island-is bot commented Nov 25, 2024

Datadog Report

All test runs b404eb5 🔗

22 Total Test Services: 0 Failed, 21 Passed
🔻 Test Sessions change in coverage: 1 decreased (-0.39%), 92 no change

Test Services
This report shows up to 10 services
Service Name Failed Known Flaky New Flaky Passed Skipped Total Time Code Coverage Change Test Service View
air-discount-scheme-web 0 0 0 2 0 8.59s 1 no change Link
api 0 0 0 4 0 2.34s 1 no change Link
application-api-files 0 0 0 2 0 4.22s 1 no change Link
application-core 0 0 0 97 0 14.76s 1 decreased (-0.39%) Link
application-system-api 0 0 0 40 0 2m 0.93s 1 no change Link
application-template-api-modules 0 0 0 116 0 2m 2.68s 1 no change Link
application-templates-accident-notification 0 0 0 148 0 16.13s 1 no change Link
application-templates-criminal-record 0 0 0 2 0 10.05s 1 no change Link
application-templates-driving-license 0 0 0 13 0 15.29s 1 no change Link
application-templates-example-payment 0 0 0 2 0 10.73s 1 no change Link

🔻 Code Coverage Decreases vs Default Branch (1)

  • application-core - jest 78.14% (-0.39%) - Details

@magnearun magnearun added the automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass label Nov 25, 2024
Copy link
Member

@GunnlaugurG GunnlaugurG left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants