fix: permissions.some #142
Conversation
WalkthroughThe modification involves a refinement in how permissions are accessed within the Changes
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 Configration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/frontend/KindeBrowserClient.js (1 hunks)
Additional comments (2)
src/frontend/KindeBrowserClient.js (2)
- 196-196: The change to access
state.permissions.permissionscorrectly addresses the issue described. However, ensure that thestateobject's structure, especially after data fetching, consistently supports this nestedpermissionsaccess pattern.Verification successful
To further verify the structure of the
stateobject and how permissions are handled, a broader search approach is needed. The following script will search for any references topermissionswithin thesrc/frontend/directory to understand how it's structured and assigned.
The broad search for references to
permissionswithin thesrc/frontend/directory confirms the use of a nestedpermissionsstructure within the state object, as indicated by the presence ofstate.permissions.permissions.some(...)in bothKindeBrowserClient.jsandAuthProvider.jsx. This supports the change made in the code under review and confirms the accuracy of the review comment regarding the nested access pattern. The initial inability to find directsetStateassignments might be due to different state management patterns or locations not covered by the initial search. The review comment is validated by the new context.* 193-199: > 📝 **NOTE** > This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [11-20]Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify that the state object is structured to support nested permissions access. # This script checks for the assignment to state.permissions in the fetchData function. rg --type js "setState\(\{.*permissions:" src/frontend/Length of output: 57
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Broad search for references to `permissions` within the src/frontend/ directory. rg --type js "permissions" src/frontend/Length of output: 644
Consider enhancing error handling in the
fetchDatafunction to cover scenarios such as network errors and non-200 response statuses. This improvement would make the application more resilient to failures.
fix: permissions.some
Explain your changes
getPermissionsfromuseBrowserClientSuppose there is a related issue with enough detail for a reviewer to understand your changes fully. In that case, you can omit an explanation and instead include either “Fixes #XX” or “Updates #XX” where “XX” is the issue number.
Checklist
🛟 If you need help, consider asking for advice over in the Kinde community.
Summary by CodeRabbit