add bank_transaction_id in ALLOWED_FIELDS #654
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent modifications enhance the data handling capabilities of the application by introducing Changes
Poem
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? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- apps/fyle/models.py (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
apps/fyle/models.py (1)
20-20: LGTM! Verify the usage of the new field.The addition of
'bank_transaction_id'toALLOWED_FIELDSlooks good.However, ensure that this new field is correctly integrated and used within the codebase.
Verification successful
The new field
bank_transaction_idis correctly integrated and used within the codebase.The field is present in models, migrations, and test files, confirming its proper usage.
apps/fyle/models.py: Multiple references, including model definition and usage in functions.apps/fyle/migrations/0037_auto_20240625_1035.py: Field added in migrations.tests/test_fyle/test_models.py: Referenced in multiple test cases.tests/test_fyle/fixtures.py: Included in test data fixtures.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the new field `bank_transaction_id` in the codebase. # Test: Search for the usage of `bank_transaction_id`. Expect: Proper integration and usage. rg --type python -A 5 $'bank_transaction_id'Length of output: 74
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of the new field `bank_transaction_id` in the codebase. # Test: Search for the usage of `bank_transaction_id`. Expect: Proper integration and usage. rg --type py -A 5 'bank_transaction_id'Length of output: 16077
anishfyle
had a problem deploying
to
CI Environment
GitHub Actions
Failure
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- tests/test_fyle/fixtures.py (4 hunks)
- tests/test_fyle/test_models.py (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (6)
tests/test_fyle/test_models.py (2)
391-391: LGTM! But verify the impact of the changes.The inclusion of
bank_transaction_idin the grouping criteria is correct and enhances functionality.However, ensure that the changes do not break existing workflows by verifying the impact on the codebase.
397-398: LGTM! But verify the impact of the changes.The inclusion of
bank_transaction_idin the grouping criteria is correct and enhances functionality.However, ensure that the changes do not break existing workflows by verifying the impact on the codebase.
Verification successful
Verified Impact of Changes
The inclusion of
bank_transaction_idin the grouping criteria is well-covered by existing tests intests/test_fyle/test_models.py. These tests ensure that the changes do not break existing workflows.
tests/test_fyle/test_models.py: Multiple instances of_group_expenseswith different grouping criteria, includingbank_transaction_id.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of including `bank_transaction_id` in the grouping criteria. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: No breaking changes. rg --type python -A 5 $'_group_expenses'Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the impact of including `bank_transaction_id` in the grouping criteria. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: No breaking changes. rg --glob '*.py' -A 5 '_group_expenses'Length of output: 6139
tests/test_fyle/fixtures.py (4)
1147-1148: LGTM!The addition of
bank_transaction_idandfund_sourcefields is consistent with the PR objective.
1199-1200: LGTM!The addition of
bank_transaction_idandfund_sourcefields is consistent with the PR objective.
1248-1249: LGTM!The addition of
bank_transaction_idandfund_sourcefields is consistent with the PR objective.
1300-1301: LGTM!The addition of
bank_transaction_idandfund_sourcefields is consistent with the PR objective.
anishfyle
had a problem deploying
to
CI Environment
GitHub Actions
Failure
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- tests/test_fyle/fixtures.py (6 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- tests/test_fyle/fixtures.py
* add bank_transaction_id in ALLOWED_FIELDS * updated fixtures and test * updated fixtures * updated fixtures
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
'bank_transaction_id', enhancing data tracking and processing capabilities for bank transactions.fund_sourcekey and refined existing fields, improving the data model for financial transaction tracking.Bug Fixes
bank_transaction_id, improving accuracy in expense categorization and computations.