Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

chore(j-s): remove the option to set a reviewer when a decision has been taken #17299

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 19, 2024

Conversation

thorhildurt
Copy link
Member

@thorhildurt thorhildurt commented Dec 19, 2024

What

  • Asana tasks
  • Remove the option to set riksak for review when a decision has already been taken from previous review

Why

  • User shouldn't have the option to set a reviewer when a case has been reviewed by someone

Screenshots / Gifs

Attach Screenshots / Gifs to help reviewers understand the scope of the pull request

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • Formatting passes locally with my changes
  • I have rebased against main before asking for a review

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Conditional rendering for the indictment reviewer selection section, now displayed only when applicable.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Ensured the functionality for selecting a reviewer remains intact despite the conditional rendering changes.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the Overview component for indictments in the judicial system web application. The key change is introducing a conditional rendering mechanism for the reviewer selection section. Now, the section will only be displayed when workingCase.indictmentReviewDecision is falsy (undefined, null, or false). This ensures that the reviewer selection UI is shown only when a review decision has not yet been made, potentially improving the user interface's clarity and preventing unnecessary interactions.

Changes

File Change Summary
apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx Added conditional rendering for reviewer selection section based on workingCase.indictmentReviewDecision

Suggested labels

automerge

Suggested reviewers

  • unakb
  • gudjong

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@thorhildurt thorhildurt changed the title chore(j-s): remove the option to set a reviewer when a decision has b… chore(j-s): remove the option to set a reviewer when a decision has been taken Dec 19, 2024
@thorhildurt thorhildurt marked this pull request as ready for review December 19, 2024 14:45
@thorhildurt thorhildurt requested a review from a team as a code owner December 19, 2024 14:45
Copy link
Member

@oddsson oddsson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Neato 🙌

@oddsson oddsson added the automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass label Dec 19, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx (3)

124-124: Improve type safety and clarity of the conditional check

Consider making the condition more explicit and type-safe:

-{!workingCase.indictmentReviewDecision && (
+{!workingCase?.indictmentReviewDecision && (

Also consider adding a comment explaining what constitutes a "decision" for better maintainability.


148-157: Simplify the Select value prop logic

The nested ternary expression can be simplified for better readability:

-value={
-  selectedIndictmentReviewer
-    ? selectedIndictmentReviewer
-    : workingCase.indictmentReviewer
-    ? {
-        label: workingCase.indictmentReviewer.name || '',
-        value: workingCase.indictmentReviewer.id,
-      }
-    : undefined
-}
+value={
+  selectedIndictmentReviewer ?? 
+  (workingCase.indictmentReviewer && {
+    label: workingCase.indictmentReviewer.name || '',
+    value: workingCase.indictmentReviewer.id,
+  })
+}

Line range hint 184-189: Extract complex disable condition into a variable

Consider extracting the next button disable logic into a descriptive variable for better maintainability:

+const isNextButtonDisabled = 
+  !selectedIndictmentReviewer ||
+  selectedIndictmentReviewer.value === workingCase.indictmentReviewer?.id ||
+  isLoadingWorkingCase;

<FormFooter
  nextButtonIcon="arrowForward"
  previousUrl={constants.CASES_ROUTE}
  nextIsLoading={isLoadingWorkingCase}
-  nextIsDisabled={
-    !selectedIndictmentReviewer ||
-    selectedIndictmentReviewer.value ===
-      workingCase.indictmentReviewer?.id ||
-    isLoadingWorkingCase
-  }
+  nextIsDisabled={isNextButtonDisabled}
  onNextButtonClick={assignReviewer}
  nextButtonText={fm(core.continue)}
/>
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 72a8ce9 and 8647a5c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx (1)

Pattern apps/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:

  • NextJS best practices, including file structure, API routes, and static generation methods.
  • Efficient state management and server-side rendering techniques.
  • Optimal use of TypeScript for component and utility type safety."
📓 Learnings (1)
apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx (4)
Learnt from: oddsson
PR: island-is/island.is#16731
File: apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/Shared/IndictmentOverview/IndictmentOverview.tsx:172-186
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:20.157Z
Learning: In `IndictmentOverview.tsx`, since the defendants data does not change, using `useMemo` to memoize the filtering logic is unnecessary.
Learnt from: thorhildurt
PR: island-is/island.is#17198
File: apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/Prison/IndictmentOverview/IndictmentOverview.tsx:42-50
Timestamp: 2024-12-11T14:25:44.741Z
Learning: In `IndictmentOverview.tsx`, when updating the punishment type, update the UI state before making the API call to immediately reflect the change.
Learnt from: gudjong
PR: island-is/island.is#16863
File: apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/Prosecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx:194-200
Timestamp: 2024-11-27T14:34:38.028Z
Learning: In `Overview.tsx`, the `defendant.subpoenas` array never contains null or undefined `subpoena` objects, so additional null checks are not needed.
Learnt from: unakb
PR: island-is/island.is#15378
File: apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/Court/Indictments/Summary/Summary.tsx:86-100
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T15:15:11.835Z
Learning: User unakb prefers explicit case handling in switch statements for key functionalities like `getRulingDecisionTagColor` to ensure clarity and avoid assumptions that a case was overlooked.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/judicial-system/web/src/routes/PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx (1)

124-167: Implementation successfully prevents reviewer assignment after decision

The changes effectively implement the requirement to prevent reviewer assignment after a decision has been made. The code is well-structured and maintains the existing functionality while adding the new restriction.

@thorhildurt thorhildurt self-assigned this Dec 19, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 35.70%. Comparing base (f31b613) to head (25fbcfc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx 0.00% 9 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17299      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   35.70%   35.70%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        6923     6923              
  Lines      148597   148599       +2     
  Branches    42450    42452       +2     
==========================================
  Hits        53058    53058              
- Misses      95539    95541       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
judicial-system-backend 55.97% <ø> (ø)
judicial-system-message 66.60% <ø> (ø)
judicial-system-message-handler 48.33% <ø> (ø)
judicial-system-scheduler 71.15% <ø> (ø)
judicial-system-web 27.74% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...PublicProsecutor/Indictments/Overview/Overview.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f31b613...25fbcfc. Read the comment docs.

@datadog-island-is
Copy link

Datadog Report

All test runs 6890515 🔗

9 Total Test Services: 0 Failed, 9 Passed
➡️ Test Sessions change in coverage: 12 no change

Test Services
Service Name Failed Known Flaky New Flaky Passed Skipped Total Time Code Coverage Change Test Service View
judicial-system-api 0 0 0 61 0 5.39s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-backend 0 0 0 21015 0 18m 5.12s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-formatters 0 0 0 38 0 4.89s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-message 0 0 0 39 0 9.42s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-message-handler 0 0 0 4 0 3.21s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-scheduler 0 0 0 4 0 3.83s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-types 0 0 0 23 0 6.06s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-web 0 0 0 332 0 57.03s 1 no change Link
judicial-system-xrd-api 0 0 0 6 0 4.88s 1 no change Link

@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot merged commit 53fccb6 into main Dec 19, 2024
37 checks passed
@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot deleted the j-s/remove-prosecutor-update-option-when-reviewed branch December 19, 2024 15:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants