fix: reschedule issue when limited booking is enabled in the event settings.

[ShashwatPS]

What does this PR do?

• Fixes Issue when rescheduling #23588
• Fixes Rescheduling with booker active booking limit not working #24317
• Fixes CAL-6370

Visual Demo (For contributors especially)

https://www.loom.com/share/f6ccbf8762c44ff89fe0e4f147c39eff?sid=eb19374d-409b-4f74-86ab-6eec60d650fa

Mandatory Tasks (DO NOT REMOVE)

• I have self-reviewed the code (A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected).
• N/A
• I confirm automated tests are in place that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.

How should this be tested?

• Set up the project locally.
• Set the booker’s active booking limit in the Advanced tab for the created event type.
• Book an event.
• Then try booking another event of the same type.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide
• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have checked that my changes generate no new warnings

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Adds a new setter setRescheduleUid to the Booker store (interface and initializer) and includes the same mock setter in the BookerStore test utilities. Updates the useBookings hook to call setRescheduleUid and setBookingData (per-field setters) instead of a single setState batched update in the BookerLimitExceededReschedule error path. No other state shape, exported signatures, or logic changes were introduced.

Possibly related PRs

• fix: incorrect slot duration when rescheduling bookings #23290: Modifies Booker store reschedule handling, overlapping with this PR’s addition of setRescheduleUid and related update flow.
• fix: ensure seated event reschedules send proper reschedule emails #22849: Alters behavior conditioned on rescheduleUid, intersecting with this PR’s new setter that manages the same state.

Pre-merge checks (5 passed)

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title succinctly describes the main change by highlighting the fix for the rescheduling issue under limited booking settings and directly corresponds to the code modifications made in the hook and store. It is concise and clearly informs reviewers of the primary purpose of the pull request.
Linked Issues Check	✅ Passed	The code changes introduce a dedicated setter for reschedule identifiers in the store and update the hook to correctly set both the reschedule UID and booking data, thereby restoring the intended “Offer to reschedule last active booking” flow and fulfilling the linked issues' requirements.
Out of Scope Changes Check	✅ Passed	All modifications are focused on implementing the rescheduling fix by extending the store API, adjusting the hook logic, and updating tests, with no unrelated or extraneous changes introduced in this pull request.
Description Check	✅ Passed	The pull request description clearly outlines the issues being fixed, references the linked issue numbers, provides a visual demonstration and testing instructions that relate directly to the changeset, confirming its relevance to the modifications made.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues Check	✅ Passed	The code changes introduce a dedicated setter for reschedule identifiers in the store and update the hook to correctly set both the reschedule UID and booking data, thereby restoring the intended “Offer to reschedule last active booking” flow and fulfilling the linked issues' requirements.
Out of Scope Changes Check	✅ Passed	All modifications are focused on implementing the rescheduling fix by extending the store API, adjusting the hook logic, and updating tests, with no unrelated or extraneous changes introduced in this pull request.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and succinctly summarizes the primary change by indicating a fix for the reschedule issue in the context of limited booking settings, matching the pull request’s focus.
Description Check	✅ Passed	The description clearly outlines the issues being fixed, references related tickets, provides a demo link, lists testing steps and mandatory tasks, and directly relates to the changes in the pull request.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[vercel]

@ShashwatPS is attempting to deploy a commit to the cal Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts (1)

349-359: Remove duplicate rescheduleUid store update
Drop the direct useBookerStore.setState({ rescheduleUid }) call—only invoke setRescheduleUid(error.data?.rescheduleUid) to avoid double updates and extra renders. To prevent transient inconsistent isRescheduling, consider adding a store action that sets both rescheduleUid and bookingData together atomically.

-        useBookerStore.setState({
-          rescheduleUid: error.data?.rescheduleUid,
-        });
-        setRescheduleUid(error.data?.rescheduleUid);
+        setRescheduleUid(error.data?.rescheduleUid);

🧹 Nitpick comments (4)

packages/features/bookings/Booker/__tests__/test-utils.tsx (1)

54-55: Make the mock setter mutate state to better reflect real behavior.

Right now setRescheduleUid is a no-op vi.fn(). If tests assert on store state after the error path, they may miss regressions. Mirror the pattern used for setMonth.

-    setRescheduleUid: vi.fn(),
+    setRescheduleUid: vi.fn((uid: string | null) => {
+      state.rescheduleUid = uid;
+    }),

packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts (1)

354-358: Avoid unsafe type coercion; pass a typed shape or relax the setter type.

as unknown as GetBookingType defeats type safety and may hide shape mismatches. Either accept Partial<GetBookingType> in the store setter or construct a properly typed minimal object.

Example minimal change (store API):

// store.ts
setBookingData: (bookingData: Partial<GetBookingType> | null | undefined) => void;

Then remove the unknown as cast here.

packages/features/bookings/Booker/store.ts (2)

140-144: Clarify the docstring to match the field name.

“ReferenceID” is vague. Use “Reschedule UID” to align with the state key and domain language.

-  /**
-   * Method used to set ReferenceID
-   */
+  /**
+   * Set the reschedule UID used during rescheduling flows.
+   */

---

300-401: Optional: provide an atomic updater for reschedule context.

To prevent intermediate UI states when both rescheduleUid and bookingData must change together, consider a helper like setRescheduleContext(uid, data) that updates both in a single set call.

Example:

// Add to BookerStore
setRescheduleContext: (uid: string, data: Partial<GetBookingType>) => void;

// In createBookerStore:
setRescheduleContext: (uid, data) => {
  set({ rescheduleUid: uid ?? null, bookingData: (data as GetBookingType) ?? null });
},

Then replace the two separate calls in the hook with one.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

💡 Knowledge Base configuration:

• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d908403 and 07b138d.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/__tests__/test-utils.tsx (1 hunks)
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts (2 hunks)
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/store.ts (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (4)

**/*.ts

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

**/*.ts: For Prisma queries, only select data you need; never use include, always use select
Ensure the credential.key field is never returned from tRPC endpoints or APIs

Files:

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/store.ts

**/*.{ts,tsx}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

Flag excessive Day.js use in performance-critical code; prefer native Date or Day.js .utc() in hot paths like loops

Files:

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/store.ts
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/__tests__/test-utils.tsx

**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}

⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file

Flag default exports and encourage named exports. Named exports provide better tree-shaking, easier refactoring, and clearer imports. Exempt main components like pages, layouts, and components that serve as the primary export of a module.

Files:

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/store.ts
• packages/features/bookings/Booker/__tests__/test-utils.tsx

**/*.tsx

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (.cursor/rules/review.mdc)

Always use t() for text localization in frontend code; direct text embedding should trigger a warning

Files:

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/__tests__/test-utils.tsx

🧠 Learnings (2)

📚 Learning: 2025-08-29T22:57:31.407Z

Learnt from: bandhan-majumder
PR: calcom/cal.com#23454
File: packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/EventMeta.tsx:16-16
Timestamp: 2025-08-29T22:57:31.407Z
Learning: In Cal.com's Booker architecture, components become client-side through BookerStoreProvider.tsx which has "use client". Any component using useBookerStoreContext automatically runs on the client and should use client-appropriate utilities like markdownToSafeHTMLClient, regardless of whether they have explicit "use client" directives.

Applied to files:

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts

📚 Learning: 2025-07-15T12:59:34.389Z

Learnt from: eunjae-lee
PR: calcom/cal.com#22106
File: packages/features/insights/components/FailedBookingsByField.tsx:65-71
Timestamp: 2025-07-15T12:59:34.389Z
Learning: In the FailedBookingsByField component (packages/features/insights/components/FailedBookingsByField.tsx), although routingFormId is typed as optional in useInsightsParameters, the system automatically enforces a routing form filter, so routingFormId is always present in practice. This means the data always contains only one entry, making the single-entry destructuring approach safe.

Applied to files:

• packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts (1)

packages/features/bookings/Booker/BookerStoreProvider.tsx (1)

• useBookerStoreContext (24-35)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 180000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Detect changes

🔇 Additional comments (2)

packages/features/bookings/Booker/components/hooks/useBookings.ts (1)

148-150: Good move: consume dedicated setters via context.

Selecting setBookingData and setRescheduleUid from the store improves cohesion and testability.

packages/features/bookings/Booker/store.ts (1)

413-415: Setter implementation looks correct.

Normalizing undefined to null avoids tri-state issues and keeps selectors simple.

[kart1ka]

Looks good to me. Thanks for the PR.

[github-actions]

E2E results are ready!

• Workflow #82205.1 latest results

[anikdhabal]

Don't get the fix. I don’t see in the attached video that you rescheduled a booking

[ShashwatPS]

Don't get the fix. I don’t see in the attached video that you rescheduled a booking

@anikdhabal Actually, a booking was already there for the same event type. I just made another booking for the same event type. The warning that pops up ( attached a ss showing the same ) when I try to make the booking basically shows whether I’m crossing the per-person limit for that event type or not. Then, when I click confirm, it reschedules the last meeting.

[github-actions]

This PR is being marked as stale due to inactivity.

stale

[anikdhabal]

Looks good