refactor(actions): conditional assignments #147
Conversation
|
|
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces changes to two files: Changes
Possibly related PRs
Warning Rate limit exceeded@yamadashy has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 36 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/cli/actions/initAction.ts(1 hunks)src/cli/actions/remoteAction.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/cli/actions/initAction.ts (2)
40-40: Clean refactor of configPath assignment!
The simplified path resolution is more readable while maintaining the same functionality. This is a good example of reducing complexity in conditional assignments.
40-40: Verify path sanitization for security
The code creates files using user-provided paths. While path.resolve helps normalize paths, we should ensure rootDir is properly sanitized to prevent path traversal attacks.
Let's verify the path handling:
Also applies to: 109-109
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about how rootDir is obtained and validated before being used.
Let me check how the CLI arguments are processed and how rootDir is initially set.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Path handling appears secure with appropriate safeguards
The code's path handling is secure because:
rootDiris obtained directly fromprocess.cwd()in the CLI execution contextpath.resolve()is used to normalize paths and handle relative paths safely- The global directory path is obtained through a controlled function
getGlobalDirectory() - File operations are confined to the current working directory or the global config directory
The risk of path traversal is mitigated since:
- User input for directory is defaulted to '.' if not provided
- Paths are resolved relative to the current working directory
- No direct string concatenation of paths is performed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if rootDir is sanitized before reaching this code
rg -A 5 "rootDir.*=|function.*rootDir" src/
Length of output: 3238
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how rootDir is obtained from CLI args and if there's any validation
ast-grep --pattern 'function $_(rootDir: string$_) {
$$$
}'
# Check for any path validation utilities
rg -A 3 "validatePath|sanitizePath|isValidPath|normalizePath" src/
Length of output: 132
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check CLI argument handling
rg -A 5 "program\.argument|options\.argument" src/
# Check where rootDir is first assigned
rg -A 5 "process\.cwd\(\)|__dirname" src/
# Look for any path-related utility functions
ast-grep --pattern 'function $name($_) {
$$$
path.$_($$$)
$$$
}'
Length of output: 874
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/cli/actions/initAction.ts(3 hunks)src/cli/actions/remoteAction.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/cli/actions/remoteAction.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
src/cli/actions/initAction.ts
[error] 78-78: Expected an expression but instead found ')'.
Expected an expression here.
(parse)
[error] 92-92: Expected an expression but instead found ')'.
Expected an expression here.
(parse)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/cli/actions/initAction.ts (1)
39-39: LGTM! Clean refactoring of the path resolution.
The simplified configPath assignment using path.resolve is more concise while maintaining the same functionality.
Update remoteAction.ts Update initAction.ts Update initAction.ts # Conflicts: # src/cli/actions/initAction.ts
|
Thanks for the nice improvements @samir-byte! These small refactorings help keep the code clean. I made a few minor adjustments to fix some lint issues, but otherwise looks good. Merging this in! |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #147 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 76.50% 76.84% +0.33%
==========================================
Files 35 35
Lines 1873 1861 -12
Branches 318 317 -1
==========================================
- Hits 1433 1430 -3
+ Misses 440 431 -9 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
No description provided.