Skip to content

Comments

fix: random reply count in mail list#714

Merged
MrgSub merged 1 commit intoMail-0:stagingfrom
kotaikehara:fix/replies-count
Apr 18, 2025
Merged

fix: random reply count in mail list#714
MrgSub merged 1 commit intoMail-0:stagingfrom
kotaikehara:fix/replies-count

Conversation

@kotaikehara
Copy link
Contributor

@kotaikehara kotaikehara commented Apr 18, 2025

Description

  • Fixed the random reply count display logic in mail-list.tsx to:
    • Dsiplay integer-based (1~10) reply count instead of floating point
    • Maintain consistent count between tooltip trigger and content

Type of Change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • 🎨 UI/UX improvement

Areas Affected

Please check all that apply:

  • User Interface/Experience

Testing Done

Describe the tests you've done:

  • Manual testing performed

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix/feature works

Additional Notes

Add any other context about the pull request here.

Screenshots/Recordings

Before

CleanShot 2025-04-18 at 11 37 16@2x

After

CleanShot 2025-04-18 at 11 36 08@2x


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the project's license.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Ensured that the reply count and tooltip display a consistent random value in the demo content of the mail thread list.

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Apr 18, 2025

@kotaikehara is attempting to deploy a commit to the Zero Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 18, 2025

Walkthrough

The update modifies the logic for rendering a tooltip with a random reply count in the Thread component's demo content. Instead of generating multiple random numbers for the count and tooltip text, the code now generates a single random integer between 1 and 10 using an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE). This ensures consistency between the displayed count and the tooltip. Additionally, the conditional rendering logic is simplified from a ternary operator to a logical AND expression.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
apps/mail/components/mail/mail-list.tsx Refactored tooltip rendering to use a single random count via IIFE and simplified conditional logic.

Poem

In the mailbox, numbers danced anew,
No more random counts out of the blue!
With a single roll, replies align,
Tooltip and number—now they rhyme.
Consistent counts, a coder’s delight,
The inbox glows with logic bright!
🐇✨

Tip

⚡💬 Agentic Chat (Pro Plan, General Availability)
  • We're introducing multi-step agentic chat in review comments and issue comments, within and outside of PR's. This feature enhances review and issue discussions with the CodeRabbit agentic chat by enabling advanced interactions, including the ability to create pull requests directly from comments and add commits to existing pull requests.

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f701da7 and 29d83e9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • apps/mail/components/mail/mail-list.tsx (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/mail/components/mail/mail-list.tsx (1)

223-238: Good improvement to the random reply count logic!

This change nicely resolves the issue with inconsistent reply counts. Using an IIFE to generate a single random integer ensures the same count value is used in both the visible number and the tooltip content. The implementation correctly:

  1. Generates an integer between 1-10 instead of potentially displaying floating-point numbers
  2. Maintains consistency between the trigger display and tooltip text
  3. Uses a cleaner logical AND expression for conditional rendering
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ 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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this 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.

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Apr 18, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
0 ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Apr 18, 2025 3:04am

@MrgSub MrgSub changed the base branch from main to staging April 18, 2025 03:04
@MrgSub MrgSub merged commit b3e5e62 into Mail-0:staging Apr 18, 2025
4 checks passed
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2025
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.

2 participants