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

use SimpleFin pending flag for cleared status #494

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 9, 2024

Conversation

matt-fidd
Copy link
Contributor

Looking at the SimpleFin docs, posted === 0 is not always a reliable indicator of transaction cleared status. We should prefer the pending flag if present.

image

@actual-github-bot actual-github-bot bot changed the title use SimpleFin pending flag [WIP] use SimpleFin pending flag Nov 2, 2024
@matt-fidd matt-fidd changed the title [WIP] use SimpleFin pending flag use SimpleFin pending flag for cleared status Nov 2, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 3, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces modifications to the getAccountResponse function in the app-simplefin.js file, specifically altering how transactions are categorized as pending or booked. The logic now uses a nullish coalescing operator to evaluate the trans.pending and trans.posted values, allowing for more flexible transaction state determination. Additionally, the error handling for the /transactions endpoint has been enhanced. It now verifies that both accountId and startDate are either arrays or strings and checks for matching lengths if both are arrays, throwing errors as necessary. The error handling in the getTransactions function has also been refined to distinguish between 'Forbidden' errors and other types of errors, invoking appropriate functions based on the error type. These changes collectively enhance input validation and error handling within the application.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

:sparkles: Merged


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.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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.

@matt-fidd
Copy link
Contributor Author

matt-fidd commented Nov 3, 2024

@psybers I'd appreciate your eyes on this just to check it works reliably across providers

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/app-simplefin/app-simplefin.js (2)

Line range hint 82-91: Improve error handling and remove debug logging.

While the validation logic is correct, there are a few improvements that could be made:

  1. The console.log statements should not be in production code
  2. Error messages could be more descriptive by including the actual types received

Consider this improved implementation:

     if (Array.isArray(accountId) != Array.isArray(startDate)) {
-      console.log(accountId, startDate);
       throw new Error(
-        'accountId and startDate must either both be arrays or both be strings',
+        `Type mismatch: accountId is ${Array.isArray(accountId) ? 'array' : typeof accountId} while startDate is ${Array.isArray(startDate) ? 'array' : typeof startDate}. Both must be of the same type.`
       );
     }
     if (Array.isArray(accountId) && accountId.length !== startDate.length) {
-      console.log(accountId, startDate);
       throw new Error(
-        'accountId and startDate arrays must be the same length'
+        `Length mismatch: accountId has ${accountId.length} elements while startDate has ${startDate.length} elements`
       );
     }

Line range hint 1-450: Consider implementing a consistent error handling strategy.

The current implementation mixes different error handling approaches:

  1. Some errors are handled via utility functions (invalidToken, serverDown)
  2. Others are thrown directly and caught by handleError middleware
  3. Some errors are accumulated in the results.errors object

Consider implementing a consistent error handling strategy:

  1. Define an error type hierarchy for different error cases
  2. Centralize error response formatting
  3. Use consistent error handling patterns across all routes

Example approach:

// Define error types
class SimplefinError extends Error {
  constructor(type, code, reason) {
    super(reason);
    this.error_type = type;
    this.error_code = code;
  }
}

class InvalidTokenError extends SimplefinError {
  constructor() {
    super('INVALID_ACCESS_TOKEN', 'INVALID_ACCESS_TOKEN',
      'Invalid SimpleFIN access token. Reset the token and re-link any broken accounts.');
  }
}

// Centralized error handler
function handleSimplefinError(error, res) {
  res.send({
    status: 'ok',
    data: {
      error_type: error.error_type,
      error_code: error.error_code,
      status: 'rejected',
      reason: error.message
    }
  });
}

Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track this architectural improvement?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b5f8aa4 and c10021a.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • upcoming-release-notes/494.md is excluded by !**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/app-simplefin/app-simplefin.js (1 hunks)

src/app-simplefin/app-simplefin.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@psybers
Copy link
Contributor

psybers commented Nov 3, 2024

@matt-fidd I can say that with my banks, posted: 0 always also has a pending: true on the transaction. So for my data, this would change nothing and it seems reasonable. Note that I only have two banks that report pending at all, my other banks just don't report pending transactions.

image

@matt-fidd matt-fidd requested a review from MatissJanis November 4, 2024 20:32
@matt-fidd matt-fidd merged commit 266de16 into actualbudget:master Nov 9, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants