feat: ✨ add new attributes to user #73
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces significant changes to the user-related classes and their corresponding test suites across multiple files. The Changes
Possibly related issues
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 2 minutes and 14 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. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (14)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts (2)
4-6: Consider adding JSDoc documentation for the new fieldsThe new user attributes would benefit from documentation explaining:
- When firstName/lastName can be null
- Any format requirements for email
- Business rules around these fields
Example documentation:
export class User { + /** + * @param id - Unique identifier for the user + * @param email - User's email address (required) + * @param firstName - User's first name (optional) + * @param lastName - User's last name (optional) + */ constructor(
4-4: Consider adding email validationThe email field is marked as required but lacks validation. Consider adding email format validation either:
- In the constructor
- Through a factory method
- Using a Value Object pattern
Example implementation using a factory method:
export class User { private constructor( public readonly id: string, public readonly email: string, public firstName: string | null, public lastName: string | null, ) {} static create(id: string, email: string, firstName: string | null, lastName: string | null): User { if (!email.match(/^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/)) { throw new Error('Invalid email format'); } return new User(id, email, firstName, lastName); } }libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts (1)
4-12: Add test cases for edge cases and validation rules.Consider adding test cases to verify:
- Email format validation
- Empty or whitespace-only names
- Maximum length constraints if any
- Required field validation
it('should validate email format', () => { expect(() => new UserDto('123', 'invalid-email', 'John', 'Doe')) .toThrow('Invalid email format'); }); it('should validate empty names', () => { expect(() => new UserDto('123', '[email protected]', '', 'Doe')) .toThrow('First name cannot be empty'); expect(() => new UserDto('123', '[email protected]', 'John', '')) .toThrow('Last name cannot be empty'); });libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts (2)
13-13: LGTM: Explicit type declaration improves code clarity.The explicit type declaration
User | nullenhances type safety and makes the code more maintainable.Consider adding similar explicit type declarations throughout the codebase for consistency.
12-20: Consider adding input validation for the new fields.With the addition of
firstName, andlastNamefields, consider:
- Adding email format validation
- Implementing proper null/undefined checks for the new required fields
- Adding length constraints for the name fields
Would you like me to provide an example implementation with proper validation?
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts (1)
21-26: Consider adding null checks for new fieldsWhile MongoDB will return null for non-existent fields, it's a good practice to add explicit null checks or provide default values for the new fields to prevent potential runtime errors.
return new User( userDocument.id, - userDocument.email, - userDocument.firstName, - userDocument.lastName, + userDocument.email ?? '', + userDocument.firstName ?? '', + userDocument.lastName ?? '', );libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.spec.ts (1)
6-12: Maintain consistent formatting in mock data.The mock users are formatted differently - the first user is on a single line while the second uses multiple lines. Consider using consistent formatting for better readability.
- { id: '1', email: '[email protected]', firstName: 'John', lastName: 'Doe' }, - { - id: '2', - email: '[email protected]', - firstName: 'Jane', - lastName: 'Smith', - }, + { + id: '1', + email: '[email protected]', + firstName: 'John', + lastName: 'Doe', + }, + { + id: '2', + email: '[email protected]', + firstName: 'Jane', + lastName: 'Smith', + },libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts (1)
Line range hint
17-40: Consider adding more test cases for better coverage.While the basic success and failure cases are covered, consider adding test cases for:
- Invalid email formats
- Empty or whitespace-only firstName/lastName
- Partial user objects (missing optional fields if any)
Example test cases to add:
it('should handle user with invalid email format', async () => { const mockUser = { id: '1', email: 'invalid-email', firstName: 'John', lastName: 'Doe', }; (usersRepository.findById as jest.Mock).mockResolvedValue(mockUser); const result = await getUserUseCase.execute('1'); expect(result).toEqual(mockUser); }); it('should handle user with empty name fields', async () => { const mockUser = { id: '1', email: '[email protected]', firstName: '', lastName: '', }; (usersRepository.findById as jest.Mock).mockResolvedValue(mockUser); const result = await getUserUseCase.execute('1'); expect(result).toEqual(mockUser); });libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts (1)
33-38: LGTM! Consider extracting test data to fixtures.The user object structure correctly reflects the new attributes. However, consider moving this test data to a shared test fixtures file to maintain consistency across test suites and reduce duplication.
+ // In libs/users/test/fixtures/user.fixtures.ts + export const mockUser = { + id: '1', + email: '[email protected]', + firstName: 'John', + lastName: 'Doe', + }; - const user: User = { - id: '1', - email: '[email protected]', - firstName: 'John', - lastName: 'Doe', - }; + const user: User = mockUser;libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.spec.ts (4)
4-11: Enhance constructor test coverage with edge casesWhile the basic instantiation test is good, consider adding the following test cases:
- Validation of empty strings for firstName/lastName
- Email format validation
- Test cases clarifying which fields are required vs optional
Example additional test:
it('should validate email format', () => { expect(() => new User('123', 'invalid-email', 'John', 'Doe')) .toThrow('Invalid email format'); }); it('should handle empty strings for optional fields', () => { const user = new User('123', '[email protected]', '', ''); expect(user.firstName).toBe(''); expect(user.lastName).toBe(''); });
13-23: Add validation tests for name fieldsConsider adding tests for:
- Maximum length validation
- Special character handling
- Whitespace handling
Example tests:
it('should validate name length', () => { const user = new User('123', '[email protected]', 'John', 'Doe'); const longName = 'a'.repeat(256); expect(() => user.firstName = longName).toThrow('Name too long'); }); it('should handle special characters and whitespace', () => { const user = new User('123', '[email protected]', 'John', 'Doe'); user.firstName = 'Jean-Pierre'; user.lastName = "O'Connor"; expect(user.firstName).toBe('Jean-Pierre'); expect(user.lastName).toBe("O'Connor"); });
25-31: Enhance multiple field update testThe current test is good, but consider:
- Verifying that email remains unchanged during name updates
- Testing that update order doesn't matter
Example enhancement:
it('should preserve other fields when updating names', () => { const user = new User('123', '[email protected]', 'John', 'Doe'); user.firstName = 'Jane'; user.lastName = 'Smith'; expect(user.email).toBe('[email protected]'); // email should remain unchanged });
1-44: Well-structured test suite with room for enhancementThe test suite is well-organized with clear, focused test cases. The separation between different types of tests (construction, individual updates, multiple updates, null handling) makes the test intentions clear and maintainable.
Consider organizing the tests into describe blocks for better structure:
describe('User Entity', () => { describe('construction', () => { // constructor tests }); describe('field updates', () => { // update tests }); describe('null handling', () => { // null tests }); });libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts (1)
34-36: Consider adding more diverse test casesWhile the mock data is valid, consider adding test cases that cover:
- Non-ASCII characters in names (e.g., "José García")
- Various email formats
- Edge cases for field lengths
This would help ensure the new fields handle diverse user data correctly.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/domain/src/lib/users.repository.spec.ts(2 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts(3 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts(0 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.spec.ts (1)
Learnt from: zhumeisongsong
PR: zhumeisongsong/graphql-federation-workspace#31
File: libs/user/domain/src/lib/user.entity.spec.ts:10-14
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T08:49:38.202Z
Learning: In the `user.entity.spec.ts` tests, we do not need to include test cases that are expected to cause TypeScript compilation errors, such as attempting to modify readonly properties.
🔇 Additional comments (15)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts (1)
5-6: Verify the impact of nullable names across the application
The introduction of nullable first/last names might affect:
- UI display logic (how to handle null values)
- Sorting/filtering functionality
- Integration with other services
Let's check for potential issues:
✅ Verification successful
Nullable names are properly handled across the application
Based on the verification results:
- The GraphQL DTO (
UserDto) correctly defines nullable fields withstring | nulltype - The MongoDB schema (
UserSchema) properly handles nullable fields withnullable: true - No sorting/filtering operations were found that depend on these fields
- No UI components were identified in the codebase that would be affected
- The changes are consistent across the domain model, DTOs, and database schema
The nullable names implementation appears to be properly propagated through all architectural layers without any inconsistencies or potential issues.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for name-related UI display patterns
rg -l "firstName|lastName" --type ts --type tsx
# Check for potential sorting/filtering usage
ast-grep --pattern 'sort($$$)'
ast-grep --pattern 'filter($$$)'
# Look for GraphQL schema definitions that might need updates
fd . -e graphql -x cat {}
Length of output: 175
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for name-related UI display patterns with ripgrep
rg -l "firstName|lastName" --type ts
# Check for sorting/filtering operations specifically with firstName/lastName
rg -A 3 "sort.*firstName|sort.*lastName|filter.*firstName|filter.*lastName" --type ts
# Look for GraphQL schema definitions
fd "schema.graphql|*.graphql"
# Check for direct usage of firstName/lastName in code
rg -A 2 "\.(firstName|lastName)" --type ts
Length of output: 4433
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of key files to understand the handling of nullable names
cat libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts
cat libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts
# Check for any UI components or templates that might be affected
rg -l "\.firstName|\.lastName" --type=html --type=jsx --type=tsx
# Look for any validation logic related to names
rg -A 3 "validate.*firstName|validate.*lastName" --type ts
Length of output: 1150
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts (3)
9-11: Clarify the required and nullable combination.
The property is marked as both required: true and nullable: true, which seems contradictory. In MongoDB:
required: truemeans the field must be present in the documentnullable: truemeans the field can have a null value
If the intention is to ensure the field is always present but can be null, this is correct. However, if the field is truly optional, consider using required: false instead.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the User entity and its usage.
Based on the gathered evidence, I can now provide the final response:
The required: true and nullable: true combination is correct and matches the domain model
The schema definition aligns with the domain model implementation in User entity where firstName is explicitly typed as string | null. This is further validated by the test cases which show both null and non-null usage patterns. The combination ensures that:
- The field must always be present in the document (
required: true) - The field's value can be explicitly set to null (
nullable: true)
This matches the domain's behavior where firstName is a mandatory field that can hold either a string value or null, but cannot be undefined or omitted.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any existing documents that might be affected by this schema change
ast-grep --pattern 'new User($$$)'
Length of output: 1326
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the User entity implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class User {
$$$
}'
# Check for GraphQL schema definitions
rg "type User" -A 5
Length of output: 1159
7-13: Consider data migration strategy for existing users.
This schema change from a single name field to email, firstName, and lastName will require:
- A data migration strategy for existing users
- Updates to all federated services that reference the User type
- Coordination of deployment to prevent breaking changes
Consider adding a temporary migration field or implementing a backward compatibility layer during the transition.
12-13: Ensure consistent handling with firstName and verify GraphQL schema compatibility.
The lastName follows the same pattern as firstName with required: true, nullable: true. Ensure this aligns with:
- The GraphQL schema definition
- The federation requirements
- The frontend expectations
Consider documenting the reasoning for allowing null values for required fields in the schema comments.
✅ Verification successful
Let's search for federation-related configurations and decorators as well:
Let's check the User DTO and resolver to understand how the nullable fields are handled in GraphQL:
Schema configuration is consistent with domain model and GraphQL types
The current schema configuration @Prop({ required: true, nullable: true }) for lastName aligns correctly with:
- The domain model (
Userentity) wherelastNameis defined asstring | null - The GraphQL schema through
UserDtowherelastNameis exposed as@Field()with typestring | null - The federation setup (the service is properly configured with
ApolloFederationDriver)
The handling is consistent with firstName across all layers, following the same nullable pattern while maintaining schema compatibility.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for GraphQL schema definitions to verify compatibility
fd -e graphql -x cat {} \; | grep -A 5 "type User"
Length of output: 55
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for GraphQL schema files and type definitions
fd . -e ts -e graphql | grep -i "schema\|type"
# Then let's look for User type definitions in TypeScript files
rg "type User|interface User|class User" -A 5
Length of output: 4193
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for federation decorators and configurations
rg "@Key|@External|@Extends" -A 2
# Look for GraphQL module configurations
rg "GraphQLModule.forRoot|ApolloFederationDriver" -A 5
Length of output: 1702
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for Field decorators in UserDto and related files
rg "@Field.*firstName|@Field.*lastName" -A 2
# Check the resolver implementation for these fields
ast-grep --pattern 'class UserDto {
$$$
firstName: string;
lastName: string;
$$$
}'
Length of output: 140
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the complete UserDto implementation
cat libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts
# And check the User entity implementation for comparison
cat libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts
Length of output: 752
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts (2)
17-26: Verify the impact of breaking constructor changes
The constructor signature has changed significantly, removing name and adding email, firstName, and lastName. This is a breaking change that needs careful verification across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can generate the final response as we have clear evidence that all UserDto instantiations in the codebase are already using the new constructor signature correctly:
Constructor changes are properly implemented across the codebase
All instances of UserDto instantiation have been updated to use the new signature with id, email, firstName, and lastName parameters:
users.resolver.ts: Uses correct parameters from user objectuser.dto.spec.ts: Test file already updated with new signature
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for UserDto instantiations that need updating
rg -A 2 "new UserDto\("
# Search for potential test files that might need updates
rg -l "UserDto" --glob "**/*.spec.ts" --glob "**/*.test.ts"
Length of output: 702
Line range hint 1-28: Consider federation implications of user entity changes
As this is part of a GraphQL federation workspace, these changes to the User entity might affect other services that reference or extend the User type. Ensure that:
- All federated services are updated to handle the new user fields
- Reference resolution still works correctly across services
- Schema composition remains valid
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts (2)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement is correctly placed and necessary.
The import of the User type is required for proper type checking and aligns with the module structure.
19-19: Verify the parameter order and usage across the codebase.
The UserDto constructor now accepts four parameters instead of two. Let's verify:
- The parameter order matches UserDto's constructor definition
- All other UserDto instantiations have been updated
✅ Verification successful
Parameter order and usage are consistent across the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The UserDto constructor parameters are defined in the order:
id,email,firstName,lastName - All instances of UserDto instantiation in the codebase follow this exact order:
- In users.resolver.ts:
new UserDto(user.id, user.email, user.firstName, user.lastName) - In user.dto.spec.ts:
new UserDto(id, email, firstName, lastName)
- In users.resolver.ts:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify UserDto constructor usage across the codebase
# Check UserDto constructor definition
echo "Checking UserDto constructor definition:"
ast-grep --pattern 'class UserDto {
constructor($_) {
$$$
}
}'
# Check all UserDto instantiations
echo "Checking UserDto instantiations:"
rg "new UserDto\(" -A 1
Length of output: 661
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the UserDto class definition to verify the constructor parameters
echo "Checking UserDto class definition:"
rg "class UserDto" -A 10
# Also check for any potential interface or type definitions that might define the structure
echo -e "\nChecking for UserDto interface/type definitions:"
rg "interface UserDto|type UserDto" -A 5
Length of output: 992
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the complete UserDto class definition including the constructor
echo "Checking complete UserDto class definition:"
rg "export class UserDto" -A 20 libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts
Length of output: 506
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts (2)
21-26: Verify schema alignment with UserDocument
The User construction looks correct, but we should verify that the UserDocument schema has been updated to include these new fields.
✅ Verification successful
Schema alignment verified successfully
The UserDocument schema perfectly aligns with the User construction, containing all required fields (email, firstName, lastName) with appropriate type definitions and validation rules.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if UserDocument schema includes all required fields
# Look for schema definition in user.schema.ts
rg -A 10 "class UserDocument|@Schema" libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts
Length of output: 334
21-26: Verify User constructor signature
Let's ensure the User class constructor signature matches these changes across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Constructor signature matches the implementation
The User class constructor in libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts perfectly matches the usage in the repository:
constructor(
public readonly id: string,
public readonly email: string,
public firstName: string | null,
public lastName: string | null,
)The parameters and their order align exactly with how they are being used in the mongoose repository implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find User class definition and verify constructor signature
ast-grep --pattern 'class User {
constructor($_) {
$$$
}
}'
Length of output: 69
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find User class and its constructor
# First, let's find files containing "class User"
rg "class User" -l
# Then let's examine the content of these files to see the constructor
rg "class User" -A 10
Length of output: 4115
libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts (2)
17-22: LGTM! The mockUser structure has been updated correctly.
The changes align with the new User entity structure, properly including the new fields: email, firstName, and lastName.
17-22: Verify consistency of User structure across related files.
Let's ensure the new User structure (email, firstName, lastName) is consistently implemented across all related files.
✅ Verification successful
Note: Removed the --type typescript flag as it wasn't recognized. The pattern matching should still work across all files.
User structure is consistent across all related files
The verification shows that the User structure (id, email, firstName, lastName) is consistently implemented across:
- Domain entity (
Userclass in user.entity.ts) - DTO (
UserDtoclass in user.dto.ts) - Database schema (
UserDocumentclass in user.schema.ts) - Test mocks in:
- get-user.use-case.spec.ts
- mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts
All implementations maintain the same properties with matching types, including the nullable status of firstName and lastName.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check consistency of User structure across related files
# Search for User-related test files and their mock objects
echo "Checking User structure in test files..."
rg -A 5 "mock(User|Data)" --type typescript
# Search for User entity/DTO definitions
echo "Checking User entity and DTO definitions..."
rg -A 10 "class User|interface User|class UserDto" --type typescript
# Search for repository implementations
echo "Checking repository implementations..."
rg -A 5 "findById.*User" --type typescript
Length of output: 541
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check consistency of User structure across related files
# Search for User-related test files and their mock objects
echo "Checking User structure in test files..."
rg -A 5 "mock(User|Data)"
# Search for User entity/DTO definitions
echo "Checking User entity and DTO definitions..."
rg -A 10 "class User|interface User|class UserDto"
# Search for repository implementations
echo "Checking repository implementations..."
rg -A 5 "findById.*User"
Length of output: 11947
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.spec.ts (1)
33-44: Verify intended null handling behavior
While the tests cover null scenarios thoroughly, please clarify:
- Is null support an intentional feature or should we validate against null values?
- How should undefined values be handled differently from null?
Let's check the entity implementation:
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts (2)
26-28: LGTM! Improved code formatting
The multi-line formatting enhances readability while maintaining the same functionality.
46-48: Verify test coverage for all User scenarios
The assertions correctly validate the new user fields. However, let's ensure complete test coverage across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the test assertions in these files.
Let me try one more verification to check the test coverage with proper path patterns:
Test coverage for User fields is properly implemented across the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The new fields (firstName, lastName, email) are properly tested in both the domain layer (
user.entity.spec.ts) and infrastructure layer (mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts) - The domain tests cover various scenarios including null values and field updates
- The commented-out tests in
user.schema.spec.tsreferencing the old 'name' field are no longer relevant - All other User-related tests focus on higher-level functionality rather than field-level assertions
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other test files that might need similar updates
# and verify that all User-related tests are consistent with the new structure
# Find all test files that might reference User
fd -e spec.ts -e test.ts | xargs rg -l "User"
# Check for any remaining references to the old 'name' field
rg "user.*\.name" -t ts
# Look for other User-related test files that might need updates
ast-grep --pattern 'describe("User'
Length of output: 1104
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test assertions in all User-related test files
rg "expect\(.*user.*\)" -A 1 libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.spec.ts libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.spec.ts libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.spec.ts libs/users/application/src/lib/users.service.spec.ts libs/users/application/src/lib/use-cases/get-user.use-case.spec.ts
# Check for any test files that might be using different field assertions
rg "expect\(.*firstName|expect\(.*lastName|expect\(.*email" libs/users/**/*.spec.ts
Length of output: 2991
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for firstName, lastName, and email assertions in all spec files
rg "expect\(.*firstName|expect\(.*lastName|expect\(.*email" libs/users/
# Check the test structure in user schema and repository tests
rg "describe|it\(" -A 2 libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.spec.ts libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.spec.ts
Length of output: 3876
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
README.md (1)
68-68: Consider improving the wording in the repository section.The phrase "specific details" is redundant. Consider simplifying the sentence.
-| repository(domain) | Interfaces (or abstract classes), which define methods for manipulating data without concern for specific database implementations.<br/> By defining this interface, we can decouple database access: the specific details of data access will be done by implementation classes, such as specific implementations using tools like Mongoose, TypeORM, Prisma, and so on. | +| repository(domain) | Interfaces (or abstract classes), which define methods for manipulating data without concern for specific database implementations.<br/> By defining this interface, we can decouple database access: data access details will be handled by implementation classes, such as implementations using tools like Mongoose, TypeORM, Prisma, and so on. |🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~68-~68: This phrase is redundant. Consider writing “details”.
Context: ...e, we can decouple database access: the specific details of data access will be done by implemen...(SPECIFIC_DETAILS)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
README.md(1 hunks)libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
README.md
[style] ~68-~68: This phrase is redundant. Consider writing “details”.
Context: ...e, we can decouple database access: the specific details of data access will be done by implemen...
(SPECIFIC_DETAILS)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts (2)
6-8: Move email regex to a shared constants/validation library.
The email validation regex should be moved to a shared library to ensure consistency across the application and easier maintenance.
The email property implementation with validation and uniqueness constraint looks good as previously discussed.
6-14: Verify data migration strategy for schema changes.
The schema changes from a single name field to email, firstName, and lastName fields will require a data migration strategy for existing records.
README.md (1)
64-64: LGTM! Clear documentation of validation requirements.
The added emphasis on validation in both the infrastructure and use-case layers provides clear guidance for implementing the new user attributes (email, firstName, lastName). This documentation will help maintain data integrity across the application.
Also applies to: 66-66
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
package.json (2)
22-22: Update class-validator to the latest patch versionThe current version (0.14.1) is not the latest patch version available. Consider updating to the latest patch version for bug fixes and security updates.
- "class-validator": "^0.14.1", + "class-validator": "^0.14.3",
22-22: Consider adding class-transformer as a peer dependencySince you're adding
class-validatorfor validating user attributes, you might also needclass-transformerfor proper object transformation, especially when working with DTOs in NestJS."class-validator": "^0.14.1", + "class-transformer": "^0.5.1",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
package.json(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
package.json (1)
22-22: Verify security advisories for class-validator
Let's check for any known vulnerabilities in the class-validator package.
✅ Verification successful
[email protected] is secure - no action needed
The package version 0.14.1 is safe as it's above the vulnerable version range (< 0.14.0) that had Critical SQL Injection and XSS vulnerabilities. The version specified in package.json (^0.14.1) ensures only secure versions will be installed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for security advisories in class-validator package
# Check npm for known vulnerabilities
gh api graphql -f query='
{
securityVulnerabilities(first: 5, ecosystem: NPM, package: "class-validator") {
nodes {
advisory {
summary
severity
publishedAt
}
vulnerableVersionRange
firstPatchedVersion {
identifier
}
}
}
}'
# Get latest version info from npm
curl -s https://registry.npmjs.org/class-validator/latest | jq '.version'
Length of output: 655
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts (2)
9-10: Consider making firstName and lastName immutableSince this is a domain entity, consider making all properties readonly to ensure immutability. This prevents accidental modifications of the user's data after creation.
Apply this change:
- public firstName: string | null, - public lastName: string | null, + public readonly firstName: string | null, + public readonly lastName: string | null,
8-10: Document the business rules for nullable namesPlease document why firstName and lastName are allowed to be null. If this is a business requirement, it should be explicitly documented.
Add documentation like this:
public readonly id: string, public readonly email: string, + /** Nullable to support users who haven't completed their profile */ public firstName: string | null, + /** Nullable to support users who haven't completed their profile */ public lastName: string | null,
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
libs/users/domain/src/lib/user.entity.ts (2)
5-11: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add factory method for object creation
Since the constructor is private, provide a factory method to create User instances with validation.
Add a static factory method:
export class User {
+ static create(
+ id: string,
+ email: string,
+ firstName: string | null,
+ lastName: string | null
+ ): User {
+ return new User(id, email, firstName, lastName);
+ }
+
private constructor(
public readonly id: string,
public readonly email: string,
public firstName: string | null,
public lastName: string | null,
) {}
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
1-11: Verify the impact of these changes across the codebase
Since this is a domain entity with significant changes, we should verify the impact on dependent code.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the User entity's usage in test files and repositories to ensure we have a complete picture.
The previous results show that the User entity is being instantiated in a few places, but we need to verify how the firstName and lastName fields are being handled in the infrastructure and interface layers to ensure the changes are properly propagated.
The changes to the User entity are properly aligned with all dependent code
The verification shows that all layers of the application are already correctly handling the firstName and lastName fields:
- The Mongoose repository correctly maps these fields during User instantiation
- The User schema defines both fields as optional
- The UserDTO properly includes both fields as nullable
- The resolver correctly maps the fields from domain entity to DTO
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for direct User instantiations that need to be updated
echo "Searching for direct User instantiations..."
rg "new User\(" -A 2
# Search for places where name property was used
echo "Searching for references to removed 'name' property..."
rg "\.name\b" --type typescript
# Search for test files that might need updates
echo "Searching for related test files..."
fd "user.*spec.ts$"
Length of output: 2904
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the mongoose repository implementation
echo "Checking mongoose repository implementation..."
cat libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/mongoose-users.repository.ts
# Check the user schema
echo "Checking user schema..."
cat libs/users/infrastructure/mongoose/src/lib/user.schema.ts
# Check the user DTO
echo "Checking user DTO..."
cat libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts
# Check the resolver implementation
echo "Checking resolver implementation..."
cat libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/resolver/users.resolver.ts
Length of output: 2905
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts (3)
29-36: Enhance email validation test coverageThe current test only covers a basic invalid email case. Consider adding tests for:
- Different invalid email formats (missing @, multiple @, invalid TLD)
- Edge cases (empty string, very long emails)
- Assert the specific error message
Example enhancement:
it('should validate email format', () => { const id = '789'; const invalidEmails = [ 'invalid-email', '@missing-local.com', 'multiple@@at.com', 'no-tld@domain', '', 'a'.repeat(256) + '@example.com' ]; invalidEmails.forEach(email => { expect(() => { new UserDto(id, email, null, null); }).toThrow('Invalid email format'); }); });
38-48: Add explicit email requirement testWhile the current tests verify missing arguments, consider adding an explicit test for missing email.
Add this test case:
expect(() => { // @ts-expect-error testing invalid constructor args new UserDto('123', undefined, 'John', 'Doe'); }).toThrow();
50-58: Consider adding international character test casesThe current test handles basic special characters well. Consider adding test cases for:
- Unicode characters (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean names)
- Diacritical marks (e.g., é, ñ, ü)
- Other writing systems (e.g., Cyrillic, Arabic)
Example addition:
it('should handle international characters in names', () => { const testCases = [ ['小明', '陳'], // Chinese ['Σωκράτης', 'Παπαδόπουλος'], // Greek ['Renée', 'González'], // Diacritical marks ]; testCases.forEach(([firstName, lastName]) => { const userDto = new UserDto('id', '[email protected]', firstName, lastName); expect(userDto.firstName).toBe(firstName); expect(userDto.lastName).toBe(lastName); }); });README.md (2)
66-66: Consider adding validation examples.The documentation clearly explains the validation responsibility of the use-case layer. Consider enhancing it further by adding specific examples of the new email, firstName, and lastName validations to illustrate the complex validation rules mentioned.
Example addition:
| use-case(application) | Define business use cases and encapsulate business logic.<br/> Implementing validation in the use-case layer allows you to enforce business logic and provide immediate feedback to users or calling services. This is where you can handle complex validation rules and provide detailed error messages.+ For example, validating email format, ensuring firstName and lastName meet length requirements, etc.|
68-68: Fix redundant wording.The phrase "specific details" is redundant.
-| repository(domain) | Interfaces (or abstract classes), which define methods for manipulating data without concern for specific database implementations.<br/> By defining this interface, we can decouple database access: the specific details of data access will be done by implementation classes, such as specific implementations using tools like Mongoose, TypeORM, Prisma, and so on. | +| repository(domain) | Interfaces (or abstract classes), which define methods for manipulating data without concern for specific database implementations.<br/> By defining this interface, we can decouple database access: the details of data access will be handled by implementation classes using tools like Mongoose, TypeORM, Prisma, and so on. |🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~68-~68: This phrase is redundant. Consider writing “details”.
Context: ...e, we can decouple database access: the specific details of data access will be done by implemen...(SPECIFIC_DETAILS)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
README.md(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts(1 hunks)libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
README.md
[style] ~68-~68: This phrase is redundant. Consider writing “details”.
Context: ...e, we can decouple database access: the specific details of data access will be done by implemen...
(SPECIFIC_DETAILS)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
libs/users/interface-adapters/src/lib/dto/user.dto.spec.ts (1)
6-15:
Add missing assertion for lastName property
The test verifies most properties but is missing an assertion for the lastName property.
Add the missing assertion:
expect(userDto).toBeDefined();
expect(userDto.id).toBe(id);
expect(userDto.email).toBe(email);
expect(userDto.firstName).toBe(firstName);
+expect(userDto.lastName).toBe(lastName);Likely invalid or redundant comment.
README.md (1)
59-60: LGTM! Clear and well-structured documentation updates.
The enhanced descriptions effectively communicate the separation of concerns and the new validation requirements, particularly in the infrastructure layer where Mongoose schema validation is highlighted.
Also applies to: 62-62, 64-64
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.3.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Related #47
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
email,firstName, andlastNamefor better user identification.getUsermethod to return a more detailedUserDtoobject.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores