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

feat: add utility method for running all the validators #97

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2024

Conversation

mlopezFC
Copy link
Member

@mlopezFC mlopezFC commented Jun 25, 2024

Closes #74

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Enhanced validation capabilities with a new method to validate specific types of validators and their associated inputs.

@mlopezFC mlopezFC requested a review from javier-godoy June 25, 2024 22:39
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 25, 2024

Walkthrough

The ValidationSupport interface now includes a new method validate that streamlines the validation process by automating the execution of specific validators for a given input. This enhancement improves code efficiency and readability by eliminating redundant code patterns.

Changes

File Change Summary
backend-core-model/src/main/java/.../ValidationSupport.java Added a new method validate(Class<Validator<T>> validatorType, T t) for simplified and unified validation execution.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant ValidationSupport
    participant Validator

    Client->>ValidationSupport: validate(Class<Validator<T>> validatorType, T t)
    ValidationSupport->>Validator: getValidators(validatorType)
    Validator->>ValidationSupport: List<Validator<T>>
    ValidationSupport->>Validator: validate(t)
    Validator-->>ValidationSupport: Stream<ErrorDescription>
    ValidationSupport-->>Client: List<ErrorDescription>
Loading

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Utility method for running validators (#74)

Amidst the code where bugs may gleam,
A method rises with a gleam,
Simplified checks, no more to dread,
Validators run, error descriptions are read,
Validation’s joy from start to end,
Our code's new friend, a validation trend.


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>.
    • 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 generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @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 as 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.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration 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.

Copy link

@javier-godoy
Copy link
Member

@coderabbitai review

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 26, 2024

Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

@javier-godoy javier-godoy self-requested a review June 26, 2024 03:38
Copy link

@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: 2

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6c23b71 and c2e41aa.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • backend-core-model/src/main/java/com/flowingcode/backendcore/validation/ValidationSupport.java (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
backend-core-model/src/main/java/com/flowingcode/backendcore/validation/ValidationSupport.java (1)

22-22: Review of imports

The import statements are correctly added to support the new functionalities. The use of ErrorDescription and Collectors is appropriate for the operations performed in the methods.

Comment on lines +35 to +38
default List<ErrorDescription> validate(Class<Validator<T>> validatorType, T t) {
List<Validator<T>> validators = ((ValidationSupport<T>) this).getValidators(validatorType);
return validators.stream().flatMap(val -> val.validate(t).stream()).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Add utility method for running all validators

The newly added validate method effectively encapsulates the validation logic, making it more maintainable and reusable. This method adheres to the objectives outlined in the linked issue and PR description by simplifying the validation process.

However, there's a potential type safety issue with the unchecked cast in line 36. It's generally safe here because this is an instance of ValidationSupport<T>, but it's still a good practice to avoid explicit casts when possible, as they can lead to ClassCastException if assumptions about types are incorrect.

- List<Validator<T>> validators = ((ValidationSupport<T>) this).getValidators(validatorType);
+ List<Validator<T>> validators = this.getValidators(validatorType);
Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
default List<ErrorDescription> validate(Class<Validator<T>> validatorType, T t) {
List<Validator<T>> validators = ((ValidationSupport<T>) this).getValidators(validatorType);
return validators.stream().flatMap(val -> val.validate(t).stream()).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
default List<ErrorDescription> validate(Class<Validator<T>> validatorType, T t) {
List<Validator<T>> validators = this.getValidators(validatorType);
return validators.stream().flatMap(val -> val.validate(t).stream()).collect(Collectors.toList());
}

Comment on lines +30 to +33
default List<Validator<T>> getValidators(
@SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") Class<? extends Validator> validatorType) {
return getValidators().stream().filter(validatorType::isInstance).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Refinement of getValidators method

The method getValidators(Class<? extends Validator> validatorType) is a good addition for filtering validators of a specific type. This implementation uses Java's streams effectively. However, consider using Class<? extends Validator<T>> instead of Class<? extends Validator> for better type safety and to ensure that the validators are compatible with the generic type T.

-  default List<Validator<T>> getValidators(
-      @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") Class<? extends Validator> validatorType) {
+  default List<Validator<T>> getValidators(
+      Class<? extends Validator<T>> validatorType) {
    return getValidators().stream().filter(validatorType::isInstance).collect(Collectors.toList());
  }
Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
default List<Validator<T>> getValidators(
@SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") Class<? extends Validator> validatorType) {
return getValidators().stream().filter(validatorType::isInstance).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
default List<Validator<T>> getValidators(
Class<? extends Validator<T>> validatorType) {
return getValidators().stream().filter(validatorType::isInstance).collect(Collectors.toList());
}

Copy link
Member

@javier-godoy javier-godoy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This PR introduces a new feature, but it does not increment the minor version.

@javier-godoy javier-godoy self-requested a review July 1, 2024 17:08
@javier-godoy javier-godoy merged commit 37b1f93 into master Jul 1, 2024
1 of 2 checks passed
@javier-godoy javier-godoy deleted the issue-74 branch July 1, 2024 17:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Improve Validation code
2 participants