fix: update state filtering logic to allow 'All' as a valid state #870
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@davidemarcoli has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 7 minutes and 1 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request modify the Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/routers/secure/items.py (2)
105-113: Add test coverage for the new 'All' state functionality.The PR objectives indicate that tests haven't been added yet. Please add test cases to verify:
- The 'All' state bypasses filtering correctly
- Case variations of 'All' work as expected
- Mixed usage of 'All' with other states
- The existing state validation still works when 'All' is not present
Would you like me to help generate test cases for these scenarios?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
105-105: Test for membership should be
not inConvert to
not in(E713)
105-113: Document the 'All' state behavior in the API documentation.The function's FastAPI documentation should be updated to reflect that 'All' is now a valid state option. This change affects the API contract and should be clearly documented for API consumers.
Add the following to the function's description in the FastAPI decorator:
@router.get( "", summary="Retrieve Media Items", description="Fetch media items with optional filters and pagination. Use 'All' in states parameter to retrieve items in any state.", operation_id="get_items", )🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
105-105: Test for membership should be
not inConvert to
not in(E713)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/routers/secure/items.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
src/routers/secure/items.py
105-105: Test for membership should be not in
Convert to not in
(E713)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/routers/secure/items.py (1)
105-113: Verify the impact on existing API consumers.
The introduction of 'All' as a special state value represents a behavioral change in the API. While it's backward compatible (old calls will work the same), we should verify that existing clients won't be affected if they happen to use 'All' as a literal state value.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
105-105: Test for membership should be not in
Convert to not in
(E713)
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Pull Request Check List
Resolves: #issue-number-here
Description:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes