feat: ✨ import getUserUseCase in UsersService #58
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily involve the addition of the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Warning Rate limit exceeded@zhumeisongsong has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 24 minutes and 28 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. 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 7 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.
Files not reviewed (1)
- apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts: Evaluated as low risk
Comments skipped due to low confidence (1)
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts:12
- The getUser method should handle the Promise<UserDto | null> return type correctly. Consider using async/await or .then() to handle the promise.
return this.usersService.findById(id);
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts (1)
11-12: Consider maintaining DTO conversion in resolver layerThe resolver layer typically handles the conversion between domain entities and DTOs. By directly returning the service result, this responsibility seems to have shifted to the service layer, which could blur the boundaries between layers.
Consider explicitly handling the conversion in the resolver:
@Query(() => UserDto, { nullable: true }) async getUser(@Args({ name: 'id', type: () => ID }) id: string): Promise<UserDto | null> { - return this.usersService.findById(id); + const user = await this.usersService.findById(id); + return user ? new UserDto(user) : null; }apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts (1)
13-13: LGTM! Well-structured provider registrationThe addition of
GetUserUseCaseto the providers array follows clean architecture principles, properly separating the use case from the service layer. This supports the transition to async operations while maintaining a clear separation of concerns.libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts (2)
22-27: Consider enhancing test description for clarityWhile the test implementation is correct, consider making the async nature explicit in the test description.
- it('should return a user by id', async () => { + it('should asynchronously retrieve a user by id', async () => {
22-35: Consider adding error handling test caseThe current test suite covers successful retrieval and not-found scenarios, but lacks error handling tests. Consider adding a test case for when GetUserUseCase throws an error.
Example test to add:
it('should handle errors when retrieving user', async () => { const error = new Error('Database connection failed'); jest.spyOn(service, 'findById').mockRejectedValue(error); await expect(service.findById('1')).rejects.toThrow(error); });libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts (2)
33-38: LGTM with suggestions for enhancementThe test case correctly implements async/await pattern and properly mocks the service. Consider enhancing it with additional assertions:
it('should return a user by id', async () => { const user = new User('1', 'John Doe'); jest.spyOn(service, 'findById').mockResolvedValue(user); const result = await resolver.getUser('1'); expect(result).toEqual(user); + expect(service.findById).toHaveBeenCalledWith('1'); + expect(service.findById).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1); });
Based on the git history, I can generate the final response as I have enough context about the changes related to
resolveReference.Breaking change: Removal of resolveReference functionality
The
resolveReferencemethod has been intentionally removed as part of a larger refactoring effort that:
- Moved the resolver from
apps/users-applicationtolibs/users/interface-adapters- Changed the implementation to use async/await pattern with Promises
- Introduced DTO layer separation
This is a breaking change that needs documentation as it affects GraphQL federation capabilities.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-47: Verify removal of resolveReference testsThe AI summary indicates that
resolveReferencetests were removed. Let's verify if this removal is documented and intentional.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for any remaining resolveReference implementations and documentation echo "Checking for resolveReference implementation..." rg -l "resolveReference" --type ts echo "Checking for related changes in commit history..." git log -p --all -S "resolveReference" --since="1 month ago" echo "Checking for breaking change documentation..." fd "BREAKING" --type f --exec rg -l "resolveReference" {}Length of output: 28264
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/application/src/index.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- libs/users/application/src/index.ts
🔇 Additional comments (5)
libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.ts (3)
4-4: LGTM! Clean import following best practices
The import statement follows clean architecture principles by properly separating use cases.
8-8: LGTM! Constructor injection follows best practices
The constructor properly implements dependency injection with appropriate access modifiers and readonly for immutability.
10-11: Verify consumers of findById method
The implementation is clean and follows best practices. However, the change from synchronous to asynchronous and from undefined to null requires verification of all consumers.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results from the shell scripts. The search results show all usages of findById across the codebase:
- The interface in
user.repository.tsalready defines it as async returningPromise<User | null> - All implementations (MongooseUserRepository, test implementations) are already async and handle null
- All consumers are properly using
await:- UsersResolver: Direct pass-through
- Tests: Using await and checking for null
- GetUserUseCase: Properly handles the async nature
Implementation is consistent with existing patterns
The changes to findById in UsersService align with the existing repository interface and all implementations across the codebase. All consumers are already handling the async nature and null returns correctly.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all usages of findById to verify they handle the async nature and null return type
# Search for direct method calls
rg -l "findById\(" | xargs rg -A 5 "findById\("
# Search for potential await usage
rg -l "await.*findById" | xargs rg -A 5 "await.*findById"
# Search for potential .then() usage
rg -l "\.then\(" | xargs rg -A 5 "findById.*\.then\("
Length of output: 7935
apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts (1)
8-8: LGTM! Clean import structure
The import statement follows good practices by using destructuring and maintaining clear module boundaries.
libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts (1)
5-5: LGTM: Proper setup for GetUserUseCase integration
The import and provider setup for GetUserUseCase is correctly implemented, aligning with the dependency injection pattern.
Also applies to: 12-12
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts (1)
14-20: Consider adding comprehensive error handling.While the null check is good, consider adding:
- Validation for invalid MongoDB ObjectId format
- Error logging for debugging purposes
Here's a suggested improvement:
async findById(id: string): Promise<User | null> { + try { + if (!Types.ObjectId.isValid(id)) { + return null; + } const userDoc = await this.userModel.findById(id).exec(); if (!userDoc) { return null; } return new User(userDoc.id, userDoc.name); + } catch (error) { + Logger.error(`Failed to find user by id ${id}:`, error); + throw new RepositoryException('Failed to find user', error); + } }libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.spec.ts (2)
Line range hint
4-13: Consider extracting mock data to test fixturesThe mock data could be moved to a separate test fixtures file for better reusability across different test files.
+// users.fixtures.ts +export const mockUsers = [ + { id: '1', name: 'John Doe' }, + { id: '2', name: 'Jane Doe' }, +]; class MockUsersRepository implements UsersRepository { - private users: User[] = [ - { id: '1', name: 'John Doe' }, - { id: '2', name: 'Jane Doe' }, - ]; + private users: User[] = mockUsers;
22-30: Consider adding tests for edge casesWhile the current tests cover the basic scenarios, consider adding tests for the following edge cases:
- Invalid ID format
- Empty ID
- Special characters in ID
test('findById should handle empty id', async () => { const user = await usersRepository.findById(''); expect(user).toBeNull(); }); test('findById should handle special characters in id', async () => { const user = await usersRepository.findById('!@#$%'); expect(user).toBeNull(); });libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts (2)
8-9: Consider organizing tests into nested describe blocksWhile the rename is correct, consider improving test organization by grouping related tests:
-describe('MongooseUsersRepository', () => { +describe('MongooseUsersRepository', () => { + describe('findById', () => { // existing findById tests + });
Line range hint
15-23: Consider using a more explicit mock setupWhile the mock configuration works, consider making it more explicit and type-safe:
providers: [ MongooseUsersRepository, { provide: getModelToken(UserDocument.name), useValue: { - findById: jest.fn(), + findById: jest.fn().mockReturnThis(), + exec: jest.fn(), }, }, ],
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
README.md(1 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/index.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.spec.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/index.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- README.md
- libs/users/domain/src/index.ts
- libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/index.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts
🔇 Additional comments (6)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.ts (1)
3-3: LGTM! The interface rename improves naming consistency.
The change from UserRepository to UsersRepository better reflects that repositories typically handle collections of entities.
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts (2)
1-9: LGTM! Class renaming improves consistency.
The transition from MongooseUserRepository to MongooseUsersRepository and the corresponding interface update to UsersRepository better reflects the repository's role in managing multiple user entities. The @Injectable() decorator properly enables dependency injection in NestJS.
10-12: LGTM! Constructor follows NestJS and Mongoose best practices.
The dependency injection is properly configured using @InjectModel decorator with correct typing.
libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.spec.ts (1)
15-20: LGTM!
The test suite setup follows best practices with proper scoping and initialization.
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts (2)
4-4: LGTM: Import statement correctly updated
The import statement has been properly updated to reflect the renamed repository class.
Line range hint 25-43: Verify error handling test coverage
The current tests cover successful and not-found scenarios, but consider adding tests for error cases:
Consider adding the following test:
it('should handle mongoose errors', async () => {
jest.spyOn(userModel, 'findById').mockReturnValue({
exec: jest.fn().mockRejectedValue(new Error('Database error')),
} as any);
await expect(repository.findById('1')).rejects.toThrow('Database error');
});
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.ts (1)
11-18: Consider adding error handlingThe method should handle potential repository operation failures (e.g., database errors, network issues).
Consider implementing error handling:
async execute(id: string): Promise<User | null> { - const user = await this.usersRepository.findById(id); + try { + const user = await this.usersRepository.findById(id); + + if (!user) { + return null; + } + return user; + } catch (error) { + // Log the error for monitoring + throw new Error(`Failed to fetch user: ${error.message}`); + } - if (!user) { - return null; - } - return user; }libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts (1)
17-34: Consider adding more edge cases to strengthen test coverage.While the current test cases effectively cover the basic success and failure scenarios, consider adding tests for:
- Invalid ID formats (e.g., empty string, malformed UUID)
- Error handling scenarios (e.g., repository throws an error)
Example additional test:
it('should handle repository errors gracefully', async () => { usersRepository.findById.mockRejectedValue(new Error('Database error')); await expect(getUserUseCase.execute('1')).rejects.toThrow('Database error'); expect(usersRepository.findById).toHaveBeenCalledWith('1'); });apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts (2)
20-28: Consider reordering providers for better dependency managementWhile the provider configuration is correct, consider reordering them to better reflect the dependency hierarchy:
providers: [ + { + provide: USERS_REPOSITORY, + useClass: MongooseUsersRepository, + }, + GetUserUseCase, UsersService, UsersResolver, - GetUserUseCase, - { - provide: USERS_REPOSITORY, - useClass: MongooseUsersRepository, - }, ],This ordering better reflects the dependency flow: Repository → UseCase → Service → Resolver.
Line range hint
20-45: Consider adding Reference Resolution for FederationSince this is part of a GraphQL federation setup and handles user data, you might need to implement reference resolution for the User entity if other services need to reference users.
Consider adding a reference resolver like:
@Resolver('User') export class UserReferenceResolver { @ResolveReference() resolveReference(reference: { __typename: string; id: string }) { return this.usersService.findById(reference.id); } }And add it to the providers array.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts
🔇 Additional comments (7)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM!
The import statement is clean and necessary for the interface definition.
7-7: LGTM! Well-defined DI token.
The symbol is appropriately named and follows the dependency injection token pattern.
3-5: LGTM! Clean and focused interface definition.
The interface is well-defined with appropriate async return type and null handling.
Let's verify the interface rename implementation:
✅ Verification successful
The verification results show that:
- No references to the old "UserRepository" name exist in the codebase
- Two implementations of the new "UsersRepository" interface are found:
- A mock implementation in the test file
- A Mongoose implementation in the infrastructure layer
Both implementations correctly follow the interface contract with the findById method.
Interface rename has been properly implemented across the codebase
The migration from UserRepository to UsersRepository is complete with no lingering references to the old name. All implementations are consistent with the interface definition.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the interface rename implementation and its usage
# Check for any remaining references to the old interface name
echo "Checking for any remaining references to 'UserRepository'..."
rg "UserRepository" --type ts
# Verify implementations of the new interface
echo -e "\nVerifying implementations of 'UsersRepository'..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ implements UsersRepository {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 2598
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.ts (1)
1-9: LGTM! Well-structured class setup with proper dependency injection.
The class follows NestJS best practices with:
- Proper use of dependency injection
- Clear separation of concerns
- Good use of repository pattern
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts (1)
1-13: LGTM! Well-structured test setup.
The test setup follows best practices with proper typing of mocks and clear initialization.
apps/users/src/users/users.module.ts (2)
9-17: LGTM! Well-organized imports following clean architecture patterns
The imports are properly organized by layer (application, interface-adapters, infrastructure) and follow clear separation of concerns.
45-45: Verify UserSchema configuration
The MongoDB schema registration looks correct. Let's verify the schema definition to ensure all required fields are properly configured.
✅ Verification successful
Schema configuration is properly defined but minimal
The UserSchema is correctly configured with the required name field, but it appears to be a minimal schema. If this is intentional, the configuration is valid. However, typical user schemas often include additional fields like email, password, or roles. Consider expanding the schema based on your application's requirements.
- Schema location:
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts - Current fields:
name(string, required)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check UserSchema definition in the infrastructure layer
# Look for UserSchema definition
ast-grep --pattern 'export const UserSchema = SchemaFactory.createForClass($_)'
# Check for schema decorators and field definitions
rg -A 10 '@Schema\(\).*UserDocument'
Length of output: 251
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the complete schema definition file
cat libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts
# Also search for any Prop decorators that define the schema fields
rg -B 2 -A 2 '@Prop\(\)' libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts
Length of output: 422
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts (2)
8-13: Consider using a type-safe mock implementation.While the current mock works, it could benefit from explicit typing to catch potential interface mismatches early.
Consider this more type-safe implementation:
- usersRepository = { - findById: jest.fn(), - }; + usersRepository = { + findById: jest.fn<Promise<{ id: string; name: string } | null>, [string]>(), + } as UsersRepository;
15-34: Well-structured test cases with room for enhancement.The current test cases effectively cover the basic scenarios. However, consider these enhancements:
- Add more comprehensive mock user data to match the actual User entity
- Consider additional test cases:
it('should throw error when userId is empty', async () => { await expect(getUserUseCase.execute('')).rejects.toThrow(); }); it('should handle repository errors gracefully', async () => { (usersRepository.findById as jest.Mock).mockRejectedValue(new Error('DB Error')); await expect(getUserUseCase.execute('1')).rejects.toThrow(); });libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts (1)
12-20: Consider adding return type to mock function for better type safetyThe test module configuration is well-structured, but we could enhance type safety.
useValue: { - execute: jest.fn(), + execute: jest.fn<Promise<User | null>, [string]>(), },Also applies to: 24-24
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.ts
🔇 Additional comments (4)
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts (2)
1-2: LGTM! Clean and well-organized imports.
The imports are properly structured using path aliases.
1-35: Verify test coverage matches implementation.
Let's ensure the test coverage aligns with the actual GetUserUseCase implementation.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to find the implementation file.
Test coverage perfectly matches the implementation
The test file comprehensively covers the GetUserUseCase implementation:
- Tests the successful case where user is found
- Tests the null case when user is not found
- Verifies correct interaction with the repository's
findByIdmethod - No additional public methods exist that require testing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find and analyze the GetUserUseCase implementation
echo "Searching for GetUserUseCase implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class GetUserUseCase {
$$$
execute($$$) {
$$$
}
}'
# Check if there are any additional public methods that need testing
echo "Checking for additional public methods..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class GetUserUseCase {
$$$
public $method($$$) {
$$$
}
}'
Length of output: 368
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the GetUserUseCase implementation file
echo "Searching for GetUserUseCase implementation file..."
fd "get-user.use-case.ts" --type f --exclude "*.spec.ts"
# If found, let's look at its content
fd "get-user.use-case.ts" --type f --exclude "*.spec.ts" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 759
libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts (2)
3-4: LGTM! Clean setup for GetUserUseCase integration
The imports and test setup variables are properly organized and follow testing best practices.
Also applies to: 8-8
31-45: LGTM! Well-structured test cases with proper async handling
The test cases are comprehensive and correctly implement async/await pattern. The null handling is now consistent throughout the tests.
The previous review comment about null vs undefined inconsistency has been addressed in this version.
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.2.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Related #47
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
GetUserUseCaseto enhance user data retrieval functionality.UsersResolverto support asynchronous user retrieval.Bug Fixes
Documentation
mongooselayer in the architecture section.Refactor
UsersServiceandMongooseUsersRepositoryto use asynchronous methods for user retrieval, improving architecture and performance.