Productpro4 #60
Productpro4 #60
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
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: 14
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (1)
Line range hint
1-1231: Overall assessment of feature map changesThe changes to the feature map introduce significant enhancements to vendor capabilities, particularly in the areas of EU compliance, product addons, and RMA (Return Merchandise Authorization) management. These additions will likely improve the platform's functionality for vendors operating in the EU market and those offering customizable products with various warranty options.
Key points:
- EU compliance data management for products has been added, which is crucial for vendors selling in the EU.
- Product addon features have been introduced, allowing for greater product customization.
- RMA options have been expanded, both at the product level and store-wide, giving vendors more control over their return and warranty policies.
However, there is a duplication of product addon features that should be addressed to maintain code clarity and prevent potential confusion in the future.
Recommendation:
- Remove the duplicate product addon entries (lines 800-803).
- Ensure that all new features have corresponding implementation in the codebase (as verified by the shell scripts in previous comments).
- Consider adding tests for these new features to ensure they work as expected.
To further improve the system:
- Implement a caching mechanism for frequently accessed EU compliance and RMA data to improve performance.
- Consider creating a separate module for EU compliance features to make it easier to maintain and update as regulations change.
- Develop a user guide or documentation for vendors explaining how to use these new features effectively.
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productAddons.spec.ts (2)
15-15: Consider renamingvendor1to improve clarity.Using
vendor1as a variable name may cause confusion with the existingvendorvariable. Consider renaming it to something more descriptive likevendorProductsPageto clearly indicate its purpose.Also applies to: 35-35
96-98: Avoid reassigningproductNameto prevent confusion.In lines 96 and 101,
productNameis reassigned with new values within different test scopes. This could lead to confusion or unintended side effects. Consider using unique variable names for each new product, such asnewProductNameortestProductName.Also applies to: 101-103
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (2)
418-420: Address the TODO comment about duplicate testsThe comment on line 419 indicates that there's a duplicate test from
euCompliance. To maintain a clean and efficient test suite, consider resolving the duplication either by removing redundant tests or refactoring to eliminate overlaps.Would you like assistance in consolidating these tests to avoid redundancy?
433-435: Resolve the TODO comment about duplicate addon testsThe comment on line 434 suggests that there are duplicate tests related to product addons. To maintain clarity and efficiency in your test suite, consider reviewing and refactoring these tests to eliminate duplication.
Do you need help identifying and merging duplicate tests?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (3 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productAddons.spec.ts (4 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (9)
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (3)
439-442: New RMA settings for vendorsThese features allow vendors to set store-wide RMA settings, including various warranty options. This complements the product-specific RMA options added earlier.
Let's verify the integration of these store-wide RMA settings:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify store-wide RMA settings implementation # Test: Search for store-wide RMA setting functions rg --type php "function.*set_rma_settings" # Test: Check for any new database tables or columns for store-wide RMA settings rg --type php "CREATE TABLE.*store_rma_settings" rg --type php "ALTER TABLE.*ADD COLUMN.*store_rma_settings"
197-201: New RMA (Return Merchandise Authorization) options for vendorsThese features allow vendors to set various RMA options for their products, including different warranty types. This is crucial for managing product returns and warranties.
Let's verify the implementation of these RMA features:
193-196: New product addon features for vendorsThese features enable vendors to manage product addons, including adding, importing, exporting, and removing them. This enhances product customization options.
Let's verify the implementation of these features:
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productAddons.spec.ts (3)
3-3: Import statement is correct and necessary.The addition of
import { ProductsPage } from '@pages/productsPage';is appropriate for utilizing theProductsPageclass in the new test cases.
20-20: VariableproductNameis appropriately declared.Declaring
productNameto store the product's name enhances code readability and facilitates its use in subsequent test cases.
39-39: Product creation line is correctly implemented.The line correctly creates a product and assigns its name to
productName, which will be used in the product addon tests.tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (1)
421-431:⚠️ Potential issueEnable the skipped EU compliance tests
The tests for adding, updating, and removing EU compliance data (lines 421-423, 425-427, and 429-431) are currently marked as skipped using
test.skip. Skipped tests reduce test coverage and may hide potential issues. Once the functionality is ready, please enable these tests to ensure complete test coverage.tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (2)
1435-1435: Verify the Purpose of CheckingexcludeAddonsIn the
addProductAddonmethod, the lineawait this.check(productsVendor.addon.excludeAddons);may not be necessary for all addons. Ensure that this action aligns with the intended functionality.Would you like to double-check if
excludeAddonsshould be conditionally checked based on theaddonproperties?
1500-1503: Handle Potential Asynchronous Issues withrefundReasonIsVisibleThe variable
refundReasonIsVisibleis assigned the result of an asynchronous operation, but its usage doesn't account for potential timing issues. Ensure that the visibility state is correctly awaited and handled.Run the following script to check for any unresolved promises or asynchronous issues:
✅ Verification successful
Asynchronous Handling with
refundReasonIsVisibleis Properly ManagedThe usage of
refundReasonIsVisiblecorrectly awaits the asynchronous operation usingawait this.isVisible. No unresolved promises or asynchronous issues detected.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for all instances where the result of an asynchronous function is used without proper handling. # Test: Look for patterns where `await` might be missing or improperly used. ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern '$_ = $_' --json | jq '.[] | select(.value | test("await this.isVisible")).location'Length of output: 206
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for all instances where the result of `this.isVisible` is used without proper `await`. # Improved pattern to specifically match assignments without `await`. ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern 'const $_ = this.isVisible($_);' --json | jq '.[] | select(.value != null and (.value | type == "string") and (.value | test("this\\.isVisible"))) | .location' # Additionally, search for `if` statements that use `refundReasonIsVisible` without awaiting its assignment. ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern 'if ($_){ $$$ }' --json | jq '.[] | select(.value != null and (.value | type == "string") and (.value | test("refundReasonIsVisible"))) | .location'Length of output: 386
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml
Outdated
| vendor can add product addon: true | ||
| vendor can import product addon: true | ||
| vendor can export product addon: true | ||
| vendor can remove product addon: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Duplicate product addon features
These features for adding, importing, exporting, and removing product addons are duplicates of the ones added earlier (lines 193-196). This redundancy should be removed to maintain code clarity and prevent confusion.
Remove these duplicate entries:
- vendor can add product addon: true
- vendor can import product addon: true
- vendor can export product addon: true
- vendor can remove product addon: true📝 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.
| vendor can add product addon: true | |
| vendor can import product addon: true | |
| vendor can export product addon: true | |
| vendor can remove product addon: true |
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml
Outdated
| vendor can add product EU compliance data: true | ||
| vendor can update product EU compliance data: true | ||
| vendor can remove product EU compliance data: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
EU compliance data features are not fully implemented
The feature flags for EU compliance data are present in feature-map.yml, but there are no corresponding PHP or JavaScript implementations, and the related tests are currently skipped. This indicates that the EU compliance data features are not yet integrated into the codebase.
🔗 Analysis chain
New EU compliance data features for vendors
These new features allow vendors to manage EU compliance data for their products. This is a valuable addition for businesses operating in the EU market.
Let's verify if these features are properly integrated:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if EU compliance data features are properly integrated
# Test: Search for EU compliance data related functions in PHP files
rg --type php "function.*EU.*compliance.*data"
# Test: Check if there are any new database tables or columns for EU compliance data
rg --type php "CREATE TABLE.*eu_compliance"
rg --type php "ALTER TABLE.*ADD COLUMN.*eu_compliance"
Length of output: 201
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Further verify EU compliance data features by searching in JavaScript and configuration files
# Test: Search for EU compliance data related functions in JavaScript files
rg --type js "function.*EU.*compliance.*data"
# Test: Check for references to EU compliance in configuration files (YAML, JSON)
rg --type yaml "eu_compliance"
rg --type json "eu_compliance"
# Test: Search for usage of the feature flags in application code
rg "vendor can (add|update|remove) product EU compliance data"
Length of output: 1537
| test('vendor can add product addon', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { | ||
| await vendor1.addProductAddon(productName, data.product.productInfo.addon); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('vendor can import product addon', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { | ||
| const addon = payloads.createProductAddon(); | ||
| await vendor1.importAddon(productName, serialize([addon]), addon.name); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('vendor can export product addon', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { | ||
| const [responseBody, , productName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(payloads.createProduct(), [payloads.createProductAddon()], payloads.vendorAuth); | ||
| await vendor1.exportAddon(productName, serialize(apiUtils.getMetaDataValue(responseBody.meta_data, '_product_addons'))); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('vendor can remove product addon', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { | ||
| const [, , productName, addonName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(payloads.createProduct(), [payloads.createProductAddon()], payloads.vendorAuth); | ||
| await vendor1.removeAddon(productName, addonName[0] as string); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring to reduce code duplication in test cases.
The test cases for adding, importing, exporting, and removing product addons have similar setup and teardown processes. Refactoring common code into helper functions or utility methods can improve maintainability and reduce repetition.
|
|
||
| test('vendor can remove product addon', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { | ||
| const [, , productName, addonName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(payloads.createProduct(), [payloads.createProductAddon()], payloads.vendorAuth); | ||
| await vendor1.removeAddon(productName, addonName[0] as string); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Type assertion might be unnecessary or risky.
Using addonName[0] as string assumes that addonName is an array with at least one element. Ensure that addonName is an array and contains elements before accessing and casting. Consider adding checks to prevent runtime errors.
Apply this diff to add a check:
const [, , productName, addonName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(payloads.createProduct(), [payloads.createProductAddon()], payloads.vendorAuth);
- await vendor1.removeAddon(productName, addonName[0] as string);
+ if (addonName && addonName.length > 0) {
+ await vendor1.removeAddon(productName, addonName[0]);
+ } else {
+ throw new Error('AddonName array is empty or undefined.');
+ }📝 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.
| await vendor1.removeAddon(productName, addonName[0] as string); | |
| const [, , productName, addonName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(payloads.createProduct(), [payloads.createProductAddon()], payloads.vendorAuth); | |
| if (addonName && addonName.length > 0) { | |
| await vendor1.removeAddon(productName, addonName[0]); | |
| } else { | |
| throw new Error('AddonName array is empty or undefined.'); | |
| } |
| const [responseBody, , productName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(payloads.createProduct(), [payloads.createProductAddon()], payloads.vendorAuth); | ||
| await vendor.exportAddon(productName, serialize(apiUtils.getMetaDataValue(responseBody.meta_data, '_product_addons'))); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve code clarity by avoiding skipped indices in destructuring
In line 446, the destructuring assignment skips elements using commas:
const [responseBody, , productName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(...);Skipping indices can reduce code readability and may lead to errors if the returned array structure changes. Consider returning an object from createProductWithAddon and using object destructuring for better clarity.
Apply this refactor to enhance readability:
-const [responseBody, , productName] = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(...);
+const { responseBody, productId, productName } = await apiUtils.createProductWithAddon(...);Adjust the createProductWithAddon function to return an object with named properties to support this change.
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| await this.toBeChecked(productsVendor.addon.excludeAddons); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // export addon |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incorrect Comment Above importAddon Method
The comment above the importAddon method incorrectly reads // export addon. It should be // import addon to accurately describe the method's functionality.
Apply this diff to correct the comment:
- // export addon
+ // import addon📝 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.
| // export addon | |
| // import addon |
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.addon.formatTitle, addon.formatTitle); | ||
| await this.check(productsVendor.addon.addDescription); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.descriptionInput, addon.addDescription); | ||
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.requiredField); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use check Instead of click for Checkbox Interaction
When interacting with a checkbox like requiredField, it's clearer to use await this.check() instead of await this.click() to denote the action explicitly.
Apply this diff to improve code clarity:
- await this.click(productsVendor.addon.requiredField);
+ await this.check(productsVendor.addon.requiredField);📝 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.
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.requiredField); | |
| await this.check(productsVendor.addon.requiredField); |
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | ||
| await this.saveProduct(); | ||
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Redundant Visibility Check in removeAddon Method
In the removeAddon method, the visibility check for addonRow is performed both before and after calling saveProduct(). This redundancy can be removed to streamline the code.
Consider removing the first visibility check:
- await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName));
await this.saveProduct();
await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName));📝 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.
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | |
| await this.saveProduct(); | |
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | |
| await this.saveProduct(); | |
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); |
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| await this.check(productsVendor.addon.addDescription); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.descriptionInput, addon.addDescription); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Conditional Handling of addDescription Checkbox
Currently, the addDescription checkbox is always checked regardless of the addon.addDescription value. It's better to conditionally check or uncheck this box based on the actual value.
Modify the code to reflect the addon.addDescription state:
- await this.check(productsVendor.addon.addDescription);
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.descriptionInput, addon.addDescription);
+ if (addon.addDescription) {
+ await this.check(productsVendor.addon.addDescription);
+ } else {
+ await this.uncheck(productsVendor.addon.addDescription);
+ }📝 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.
| await this.check(productsVendor.addon.addDescription); | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.descriptionInput, addon.addDescription); | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.descriptionInput, addon.addDescription); | |
| if (addon.addDescription) { | |
| await this.check(productsVendor.addon.addDescription); | |
| } else { | |
| await this.uncheck(productsVendor.addon.addDescription); | |
| } |
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| if (rma.type === 'included_warranty') { | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.length, rma.length); | ||
| if (rma.length === 'limited') { | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.lengthValue, rma.lengthValue); | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.lengthDuration, rma.lengthDuration); | ||
| } | ||
| } else if (rma.type === 'addon_warranty') { | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonCost, rma.addon.cost); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationLength, rma.addon.durationLength); | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationType, rma.addon.durationType); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add an else Clause to Handle Unexpected rma.type Values
The current implementation checks for 'included_warranty' and 'addon_warranty' types but doesn't handle other possible values of rma.type. Adding an else clause would improve robustness.
Consider adding an else clause:
} else if (rma.type === 'addon_warranty') {
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonCost, rma.addon.cost);
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationLength, rma.addon.durationLength);
await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationType, rma.addon.durationType);
+ } else {
+ throw new Error(`Unsupported rma.type: ${rma.type}`);
}📝 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.
| if (rma.type === 'included_warranty') { | |
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.length, rma.length); | |
| if (rma.length === 'limited') { | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.lengthValue, rma.lengthValue); | |
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.lengthDuration, rma.lengthDuration); | |
| } | |
| } else if (rma.type === 'addon_warranty') { | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonCost, rma.addon.cost); | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationLength, rma.addon.durationLength); | |
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationType, rma.addon.durationType); | |
| } | |
| if (rma.type === 'included_warranty') { | |
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.length, rma.length); | |
| if (rma.length === 'limited') { | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.lengthValue, rma.lengthValue); | |
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.lengthDuration, rma.lengthDuration); | |
| } | |
| } else if (rma.type === 'addon_warranty') { | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonCost, rma.addon.cost); | |
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationLength, rma.addon.durationLength); | |
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationType, rma.addon.durationType); | |
| } else { | |
| throw new Error(`Unsupported rma.type: ${rma.type}`); | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (2)
1417-1454: LGTM! Consider enhancing error handling.The
addProductAddonfunction is well-implemented, covering all necessary steps to add a product addon with proper assertions. The use oftoPassfor error handling is good.Consider adding more specific error handling:
await this.toPass(async () => { await this.clickAndWaitForResponse(data.subUrls.ajax, productsVendor.addon.addField); await this.toBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonForm); +}, 'Failed to add addon field or addon form not visible');
1457-1463: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The
importAddonfunction is concise and effectively imports an addon for a specified product. The verification step ensures the addon was imported successfully.Consider adding error handling and a more descriptive success message:
async importAddon(productName: string, addon: string, addonTitle: string): Promise<void> { await this.goToProductEdit(productName); - await this.click(productsVendor.addon.import); - await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.importInput, addon); - await this.saveProduct(); + try { + await this.click(productsVendor.addon.import); + await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.addon.importInput, addon); + await this.saveProduct(); + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`Failed to import addon: ${error.message}`); + } await this.toBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonTitle)); + console.log(`Successfully imported addon: ${addonTitle}`); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/requestForQuotationsPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts
🧰 Additional context used
| @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ export class RequestForQuotationsPage extends AdminPage { | |||
| await this.clearAndType(requestForQuotationAdmin.quoteRules.addNewQuoteRule.hidePriceText, rule.hidePriceText); | |||
| } else { | |||
| if (rule.hideAddToCartButton) await this.click(requestForQuotationAdmin.quoteRules.addNewQuoteRule.hideAddToCartButton); | |||
| if (rule.hideAddToCartButton) await this.click(requestForQuotationAdmin.quoteRules.addNewQuoteRule.keepBothAddToCartAndQuoteButton); | |||
| if (rule.keepBothCartQuoteButton) await this.click(requestForQuotationAdmin.quoteRules.addNewQuoteRule.keepBothAddToCartAndQuoteButton); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Multiple References Found! Ensure all instances of hideAddToCartButton are updated consistently.
The hideAddToCartButton property is used in multiple files across selectors, interfaces, and test data. To maintain consistency and prevent potential issues:
- Update all occurrences of
hideAddToCartButtontokeepBothCartQuoteButton. - Review related interfaces and test data for compatibility.
- Run comprehensive tests to verify that the changes integrate smoothly.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM! Verify impact on related code.
The change from rule.hideAddToCartButton to rule.keepBothCartQuoteButton appears to be a logical improvement, making the condition more descriptive and potentially more accurate. However, it's important to ensure that this change doesn't break any existing functionality or assumptions in other parts of the codebase.
Let's verify if there are any other occurrences of hideAddToCartButton that might need to be updated:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other occurrences of 'hideAddToCartButton' in the codebase
rg --type typescript --type javascript 'hideAddToCartButton'
Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other occurrences of 'hideAddToCartButton' in TypeScript and JavaScript files
rg --glob "*.ts" --glob "*.js" 'hideAddToCartButton'
Length of output: 566
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| async addProductRmaOptions(productName: string, rma: vendor['rma']): Promise<void> { | ||
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | ||
| await this.check(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.label, rma.label); | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.type, rma.type); | ||
|
|
||
| if (rma.type === 'included_warranty') { | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.length, rma.length); | ||
| if (rma.length === 'limited') { | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.lengthValue, rma.lengthValue); | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.lengthDuration, rma.lengthDuration); | ||
| } | ||
| } else if (rma.type === 'addon_warranty') { | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonCost, rma.addon.cost); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationLength, rma.addon.durationLength); | ||
| await this.selectByValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationType, rma.addon.durationType); | ||
| } | ||
| const refundReasonIsVisible = await this.isVisible(productsVendor.rma.refundReasonsFirst); | ||
| if (refundReasonIsVisible) { | ||
| await this.checkMultiple(productsVendor.rma.refundReasons); | ||
| } | ||
| await this.typeFrameSelector(productsVendor.rma.rmaPolicyIframe, productsVendor.rma.rmaPolicyHtmlBody, rma.refundPolicy); | ||
|
|
||
| await this.saveProduct(); | ||
|
|
||
| await this.toBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.rma.label, rma.label); | ||
| await this.toHaveSelectedValue(productsVendor.rma.type, rma.type); | ||
| if (rma.type === 'included_warranty') { | ||
| await this.toHaveSelectedValue(productsVendor.rma.length, rma.length); | ||
| if (rma.length === 'limited') { | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.rma.lengthValue, rma.lengthValue); | ||
| await this.toHaveSelectedValue(productsVendor.rma.lengthDuration, rma.lengthDuration); | ||
| } | ||
| } else if (rma.type === 'addon_warranty') { | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.rma.addonCost, rma.addon.cost); | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationLength, rma.addon.durationLength); | ||
| await this.toHaveSelectedValue(productsVendor.rma.addonDurationType, rma.addon.durationType); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (refundReasonIsVisible) { | ||
| await this.toBeCheckedMultiple(productsVendor.rma.refundReasons); | ||
| } | ||
| await this.toContainTextFrameLocator(productsVendor.rma.rmaPolicyIframe, productsVendor.rma.rmaPolicyHtmlBody, rma.refundPolicy); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance error handling and reduce code duplication.
The addProductRmaOptions function comprehensively handles various RMA scenarios, but it can be improved with better error handling and by reducing code duplication.
Consider the following improvements:
- Add error handling:
async addProductRmaOptions(productName: string, rma: vendor['rma']): Promise<void> {
await this.goToProductEdit(productName);
+ try {
// ... (existing code)
await this.saveProduct();
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to add RMA options for ${productName}: ${error.message}`);
+ }
// ... (verification steps)
}- Reduce code duplication by creating a helper method for verifications:
private async verifyRmaOptions(rma: vendor['rma']): Promise<void> {
await this.toBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings);
await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.rma.label, rma.label);
await this.toHaveSelectedValue(productsVendor.rma.type, rma.type);
// ... (other common verifications)
}
async addProductRmaOptions(productName: string, rma: vendor['rma']): Promise<void> {
// ... (existing code)
await this.verifyRmaOptions(rma);
}These changes will improve error handling and make the code more maintainable.
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| async exportAddon(productName: string, addon: string): Promise<void> { | ||
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | ||
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.export); | ||
| await this.toContainText(productsVendor.addon.exportInput, addon); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clarify function purpose and add export functionality.
The exportAddon function doesn't actually perform an export operation. It only checks if the addon is present in the export input field.
Consider renaming the function and adding actual export functionality:
-async exportAddon(productName: string, addon: string): Promise<void> {
+async verifyAddonExportable(productName: string, addon: string): Promise<void> {
await this.goToProductEdit(productName);
await this.click(productsVendor.addon.export);
await this.toContainText(productsVendor.addon.exportInput, addon);
}
+async exportAddon(productName: string, addon: string): Promise<void> {
+ await this.verifyAddonExportable(productName, addon);
+ // Add actual export functionality here
+ // For example:
+ // await this.click(productsVendor.addon.exportButton);
+ // await this.waitForDownload(productsVendor.addon.exportDownloadLink);
+}Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| async removeProductRmaOptions(productName: string): Promise<void> { | ||
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | ||
| await this.uncheck(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | ||
| await this.saveProduct(); | ||
| await this.notToBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling and success message.
The removeProductRmaOptions function is concise and effectively removes RMA options. However, it can be improved with error handling and a success message.
Consider the following improvements:
async removeProductRmaOptions(productName: string): Promise<void> {
await this.goToProductEdit(productName);
- await this.uncheck(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings);
- await this.saveProduct();
- await this.notToBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings);
+ try {
+ await this.uncheck(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings);
+ await this.saveProduct();
+ await this.notToBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings);
+ console.log(`Successfully removed RMA options for product: ${productName}`);
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to remove RMA options for ${productName}: ${error.message}`);
+ }
}These changes will improve error handling and provide feedback on successful operations.
📝 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.
| async removeProductRmaOptions(productName: string): Promise<void> { | |
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | |
| await this.uncheck(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | |
| await this.saveProduct(); | |
| await this.notToBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | |
| } | |
| async removeProductRmaOptions(productName: string): Promise<void> { | |
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | |
| try { | |
| await this.uncheck(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | |
| await this.saveProduct(); | |
| await this.notToBeChecked(productsVendor.rma.overrideDefaultRmaSettings); | |
| console.log(`Successfully removed RMA options for product: ${productName}`); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to remove RMA options for ${productName}: ${error.message}`); | |
| } | |
| } |
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts
Outdated
| async removeAddon(productName: string, addonName: string): Promise<void> { | ||
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | ||
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.removeAddon(addonName)); | ||
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.confirmRemove); | ||
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | ||
| await this.saveProduct(); | ||
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve error handling and remove redundant check.
The removeAddon function effectively removes an addon, but it can be improved with better error handling and by removing a redundant check.
Consider the following improvements:
async removeAddon(productName: string, addonName: string): Promise<void> {
await this.goToProductEdit(productName);
- await this.click(productsVendor.addon.removeAddon(addonName));
- await this.click(productsVendor.addon.confirmRemove);
- await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName));
- await this.saveProduct();
- await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName));
+ try {
+ await this.click(productsVendor.addon.removeAddon(addonName));
+ await this.click(productsVendor.addon.confirmRemove);
+ await this.saveProduct();
+ await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName));
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to remove addon ${addonName}: ${error.message}`);
+ }
+ console.log(`Successfully removed addon: ${addonName}`);
}📝 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.
| async removeAddon(productName: string, addonName: string): Promise<void> { | |
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | |
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.removeAddon(addonName)); | |
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.confirmRemove); | |
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | |
| await this.saveProduct(); | |
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | |
| } | |
| async removeAddon(productName: string, addonName: string): Promise<void> { | |
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | |
| try { | |
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.removeAddon(addonName)); | |
| await this.click(productsVendor.addon.confirmRemove); | |
| await this.saveProduct(); | |
| await this.notToBeVisible(productsVendor.addon.addonRow(addonName)); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to remove addon ${addonName}: ${error.message}`); | |
| } | |
| console.log(`Successfully removed addon: ${addonName}`); | |
| } |
All Submissions:
Changes proposed in this Pull Request:
Related Pull Request(s)
Closes
How to test the changes in this Pull Request:
Changelog entry
Title
Detailed Description of the pull request. What was previous behaviour
and what will be changed in this PR.
Before Changes
Describe the issue before changes with screenshots(s).
After Changes
Describe the issue after changes with screenshot(s).
Feature Video (optional)
Link of detailed video if this PR is for a feature.
PR Self Review Checklist:
FOR PR REVIEWER ONLY:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests