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: save page updateTreeData error #839

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 30, 2024

Conversation

chilingling
Copy link
Member

@chilingling chilingling commented Sep 30, 2024

English | 简体中文

PR

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

  • The commit message follows our Commit Message Guidelines
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • Built its own designer, fully self-validated

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Code style update (formatting, local variables)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
  • Build related changes
  • CI related changes
  • Documentation content changes
  • Other... Please describe:

Background and solution

What is the current behavior?

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No

Other information

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Enhanced error handling in the page update process to prevent runtime errors when calling update functions.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 30, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the handlePageUpdate function in the packages/controller/js/http.js file by incorporating an optional chaining operator (?.) in the call to pageSettingState.updateTreeData(). This adjustment ensures that the function only attempts to invoke updateTreeData if it is defined, thereby avoiding potential runtime errors. The overall functionality related to page updates, notifications, and breadcrumb management remains unchanged.

Changes

File Change Summary
packages/controller/js/http.js Updated handlePageUpdate to use optional chaining for updateTreeData() call.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

bug, ready_for_review

Suggested reviewers

  • hexqi

Poem

In the code where rabbits play,
A change was made to save the day.
With a chain that’s optional, oh so neat,
No more errors, just a smooth feat!
Hopping along, our functions thrive,
Thanks to the tweak, we’re all alive! 🐇✨


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.

@chilingling chilingling added bug Something isn't working ready_for_review This PR requires more reviews labels Sep 30, 2024
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: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/controller/js/http.js (2)

64-65: Approve the change with a suggestion for improved clarity.

The addition of the optional chaining operator ?. is a good fix for the updateTreeData error mentioned in the PR objectives. It prevents potential runtime errors if the method is not available.

However, to improve code clarity and maintainability, consider adding a comment explaining why updateTreeData might be undefined:

Consider adding a brief comment explaining the scenario where updateTreeData might be undefined:

 // 更新页面管理的列表,如果不存在,说明还没有打开过页面管理面板
+// Use optional chaining as updateTreeData may be undefined if the page management panel hasn't been opened
 pageSettingState.updateTreeData?.()

This comment will help future developers understand the reasoning behind the optional chaining usage.


Line range hint 38-83: Consider refactoring for improved maintainability and error handling.

While the current change addresses the immediate issue, there are opportunities to improve the overall structure and robustness of the handlePageUpdate function:

  1. Error Handling: Enhance the error message in the catch block to provide more context about the failed operation.
  2. Function Size: The function is handling multiple responsibilities. Consider breaking it down into smaller, more focused functions.
  3. Environment-Specific Logic: The VSCode-specific code could be extracted into a separate function for better separation of concerns.

Here's a suggested refactoring approach:

  1. Improve error handling:
.catch((err) => {
  useNotify({ 
    title: '保存失败', 
    message: `Failed to update page ${pageId}: ${err?.message || 'Unknown error'}`, 
    type: 'error' 
  })
  throw err; // Re-throw to allow caller to handle the error if needed
})
  1. Extract VSCode-specific logic:
function handleVSCodeUpdate(pageId, params, routerChange) {
  generatePage({
    id: pageId,
    name: params.name,
    page_content: params.page_content
  })

  if (routerChange) {
    generateRouter({
      pageId,
      componentsTree: params
    })
  }
}
  1. Simplify the main function:
export const handlePageUpdate = (pageId, params, routerChange, isCurEditPage) => {
  return http
    .post(`/app-center/api/pages/update/${pageId}`, params)
    .then((res) => {
      if (isVsCodeEnv) {
        handleVSCodeUpdate(pageId, params, routerChange)
      }
      updatePageState(params, isCurEditPage)
      return res
    })
    .catch(handleUpdateError)
}

function updatePageState(params, isCurEditPage) {
  const { pageSettingState } = usePage()
  const { setSaved } = useCanvas()
  
  pageSettingState.updateTreeData?.()
  pageSettingState.isNew = false
  useNotify({ message: '保存成功!', type: 'success' })
  setSaved(true)

  if (isCurEditPage) {
    const { setBreadcrumbPage } = useBreadcrumb()
    setBreadcrumbPage([params.name])
  }
}

function handleUpdateError(err) {
  useNotify({ 
    title: '保存失败', 
    message: `Failed to update page: ${err?.message || 'Unknown error'}`, 
    type: 'error' 
  })
  throw err;
}

These changes would make the code more modular, easier to test, and maintain.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between aa79110 and 560088e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • packages/controller/js/http.js (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/controller/js/http.js (1)

Line range hint 1-83: Summary of review for packages/controller/js/http.js

  1. The primary change (adding optional chaining to updateTreeData call) effectively addresses the reported error and improves code robustness.
  2. Suggestions for improvement include:
    • Adding a clarifying comment for the optional chaining usage.
    • Enhancing error handling with more informative messages.
    • Refactoring the handlePageUpdate function for better modularity and separation of concerns.
  3. These changes, if implemented, would significantly improve the maintainability and readability of the code.

Overall, the fix achieves its goal, and the suggested improvements would further enhance the quality of the codebase.

@hexqi hexqi merged commit 8507b65 into opentiny:develop Sep 30, 2024
1 check passed
chilingling added a commit to chilingling/tiny-engine that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2024
kevinmoch pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working ready_for_review This PR requires more reviews
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants