feat: implemented Reply functionality for chat #2584
Conversation
…into chat-feature
…o reply-functionality
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessWe have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team. Testing Your CodePlease make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if these conditions occur:
The process helps maintain the overall reliability of the code base and is a prerequisite for getting your PR approved. Assigned reviewers regularly review the PR queue and tend to focus on PRs that are passing. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
WalkthroughThe changes implemented in this pull request enhance the messaging functionality within the application by introducing support for replying to messages in both direct and group chats. Key updates include modifications to the GraphQL schema to add a Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2584 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 98.58% 98.59%
========================================
Files 356 357 +1
Lines 18061 18059 -2
Branches 2411 2409 -2
========================================
- Hits 17806 17805 -1
+ Misses 252 251 -1
Partials 3 3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Hi @palisadoes, I have updated the PRs. |
|
Please fix the conflicting 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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (31)
src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.ts (2)
5-9: Enhance JSDoc comment for clarity and completeness.While the current JSDoc comment provides a good overview, consider the following improvements:
- Specify the exact return type (e.g.,
GroupChatMessage | null).- Mention that the function may throw a
NotFoundError.- Clarify that the 'parent' parameter is of type
GroupChatMessage.Here's a suggested revision:
/** * This resolver function fetches and returns the replied-to message in a group chat from the database. * * @param parent - The parent GroupChatMessage object containing the replyTo field. * @returns {Promise<GroupChatMessage | null>} The replied-to message object, or null if no reply exists. * @throws {NotFoundError} If the replied-to message is not found in the database. */
10-28: LGTM: Well-implemented resolver with room for minor enhancements.The resolver function is well-structured and handles different scenarios appropriately. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:
- Add type annotations to the function parameters and return type for better type safety.
- Consider using optional chaining (
?.) for accessingparent.replyToto make the code more concise.Here's a suggested refactor incorporating these improvements:
export const replyTo: GroupChatMessageResolvers["replyTo"] = async ( parent: GroupChatMessage ): Promise<GroupChatMessage | null> => { if (parent.replyTo) { const result = await GroupChatMessage.findOne({ _id: parent.replyTo, }).lean(); if (result) { return result; } throw new errors.NotFoundError( requestContext.translate(MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE), MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.CODE, MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.PARAM ); } return null; };This refactor adds type annotations and slightly restructures the code for better readability.
src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts (2)
5-9: Enhance JSDoc comment for clarity and completeness.While the JSDoc comment provides a good overview, consider the following improvements:
- Be more specific about the
parentparameter, mentioning it's aDirectChatMessageobject.- Provide more details about the return type, including the possibility of returning
null.- Add information about the potential
NotFoundErrorthat can be thrown.Here's a suggested improvement:
/** * This resolver function fetches and returns the reply to message of the Direct chat from the database. * @param parent - The parent DirectChatMessage object containing the replyTo field. * @returns The replied-to DirectChatMessage object if found, null if no replyTo field exists, or throws a NotFoundError if the message is not found. * @throws {NotFoundError} If the replied-to message is not found in the database. */
10-30: LGTM: Well-implemented resolver with proper error handling.The resolver function is well-structured and handles all cases appropriately. Good use of
lean()for performance optimization. The error handling is implemented correctly using theerrorslibrary.Consider adding a try-catch block around the database query to handle potential database errors:
try { const result = await DirectChatMessage.findOne({ _id: parent.replyTo, }).lean(); if (result) { return result; } else { throw new errors.NotFoundError( requestContext.translate(MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE), MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.CODE, MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.PARAM, ); } } catch (error) { // Log the error or handle it appropriately throw new errors.InternalServerError( requestContext.translate("INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR"), "INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR", error ); }This addition would make the resolver more robust by handling potential database errors.
src/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToDirectChat.ts (2)
51-51: LGTM! Consider adding validation forreplyTo.The addition of the
replyTofield to theDirectChatMessagecreation is correct. However, consider adding validation to ensure that thereplyTofield, if provided, references a valid message within the same chat.Here's a suggested implementation for validation:
if (args.replyTo) { const replyToMessage = await DirectChatMessage.findOne({ _id: args.replyTo, directChatMessageBelongsTo: directChat._id }); if (!replyToMessage) { throw new errors.ValidationError( requestContext.translate("INVALID_REPLY_TO_MESSAGE"), "INVALID_REPLY_TO_MESSAGE", "replyTo" ); } }Add this check before creating the new message to ensure the
replyTomessage exists and belongs to the same chat.
Line range hint
1-51: Update function documentation to includereplyToparameter.The function's documentation should be updated to reflect the new
replyToparameter in the function signature.Update the comment block as follows:
/** * This function enables to send message to direct chat. * @param _parent - parent of current request * @param args - payload provided with the request * @param args.chatId - ID of the direct chat * @param args.messageContent - Content of the message * @param args.replyTo - Optional ID of the message being replied to * @param context - context of entire application * @remarks The following checks are done: * 1. If the direct chat exists. * 2. If the user exists * @returns Direct chat message. */tests/helpers/groupChat.ts (1)
71-83: New createGroupChatMessage function looks good, minor typo notedThe addition of
createGroupChatMessagefunction is a good improvement. It enhances the modularity and reusability of the code. The implementation is correct and straightforward.There's a minor typo in the variable name:
const directChatMessage = await GroupChatMessage.create({ // ... });Should be changed to:
const groupChatMessage = await GroupChatMessage.create({ // ... });This change would make the variable name consistent with the type of message being created.
src/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToGroupChat.ts (2)
67-67: LGTM! Consider a minor improvement for consistency.The addition of the
replyTofield in theGroupChatMessage.createcall successfully implements the reply functionality for group chat messages. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and integrates seamlessly with the existing code structure.For consistency with the rest of the codebase, consider using object shorthand notation if
args.replyTois meant to be used directly:- replyTo: args.replyTo, + replyTo,This assumes that the
argsobject uses the same property name. If not, the current implementation is correct.
Line range hint
82-84: IncludereplyToin the subscription payload.The subscription event
MESSAGE_SENT_TO_GROUP_CHATis published after creating the new message. However, the newreplyTofield is not explicitly included in the payload. To ensure consistency and provide complete information to subscribers, consider modifying the subscription payload to include thereplyTofield:context.pubsub.publish("MESSAGE_SENT_TO_GROUP_CHAT", { - messageSentToGroupChat: createdGroupChatMessage.toObject(), + messageSentToGroupChat: { + ...createdGroupChatMessage.toObject(), + replyTo: createdGroupChatMessage.replyTo + }, });This change ensures that subscribers receive the complete message information, including the
replyTofield when applicable.src/models/DirectChatMessage.ts (2)
49-53: LGTM: Schema update for reply functionality with a minor suggestionThe addition of the
replyTofield to thedirectChatMessageSchemais well-implemented and correctly corresponds to the interface change. The field is appropriately set as optional, which is suitable for this use case.Consider adding a comment to explain the purpose of the
replyTofield, similar to other fields in the schema. This would enhance code readability and maintainability. For example:replyTo: { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: "DirectChatMessage", required: false, + // Reference to the original message if this message is a reply },
15-15: Consider additional improvements for robust reply functionalityWhile the current implementation provides a solid foundation for reply functionality, consider the following suggestions to enhance robustness and usability:
- Validation: Add a custom validator to ensure that a message cannot reply to itself.
- Indexing: If you expect frequent queries involving the
replyTofield, consider adding an index to improve query performance.- Cascading Deletes: Implement a strategy for handling replies when the original message is deleted.
- Depth Limitation: Consider implementing a maximum depth for nested replies to prevent potential issues with deeply nested conversations.
Would you like assistance in implementing any of these suggestions?
Also applies to: 49-53
src/models/GroupChatMessage.ts (3)
16-16: LGTM! Consider makingreplyTooptional.The addition of the
replyToproperty to theInterfaceGroupChatMessageinterface is correct and aligns with the PR objective of implementing reply functionality. The typePopulatedDoc<InterfaceGroupChatMessage & Document>is appropriate for referencing another group chat message.Consider making the
replyToproperty optional by adding a?after the property name. This would allow for messages that are not replies:replyTo?: PopulatedDoc<InterfaceGroupChatMessage & Document>;This change would make the interface more flexible and consistent with the schema definition where
replyTois not required.
43-47: LGTM! Consider adding an index for performance.The addition of the
replyTofield to thegroupChatMessageSchemais correct and consistent with the interface change. The field type, reference, and optional nature are all appropriate for implementing the reply functionality.To potentially improve query performance when fetching replies, consider adding an index to the
replyTofield:replyTo: { type: Schema.Types.ObjectId, ref: "GroupChatMessage", required: false, index: true, // Add this line },This can help optimize queries that filter or sort based on the
replyTofield, which might be common in a threaded conversation view.
Issues Found: Update Required in Multiple Files
The addition of the
replyTofield to theInterfaceGroupChatMessageinterface and thegroupChatMessageSchemaimpacts several parts of the codebase. Please review and update the following files to ensure compatibility and prevent potential issues:
Tests:
tests/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToGroupChat.spec.tstests/resolvers/Mutation/removeUserFromGroupChat.spec.tstests/resolvers/Subscription/messageSentToGroupChat.spec.tstests/resolvers/GroupChat/messages.spec.ts- (and others as listed in the shell script output)
Resolvers:
src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.tssrc/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/sender.tssrc/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToGroupChat.ts- (and others as listed in the shell script output)
Type Definitions:
src/typeDefs/types.tssrc/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.tsEnsure that all references to
GroupChatMessageand related fields are updated to accommodate the newreplyTofield, including any necessary adjustments in tests, resolvers, and type definitions.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-85: Overall changes look good and consistent.The modifications to add the
replyTofield to both theInterfaceGroupChatMessageinterface and thegroupChatMessageSchemaare consistent with each other and align well with the PR objectives. These changes enable the implementation of reply functionality for group chat messages without introducing breaking changes to the existing code structure.The rest of the file, including the logging middleware and model creation logic, remains unchanged, which is appropriate for this feature addition.
To ensure that these changes don't have unintended consequences, please run the following verification script:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the GroupChatMessage model is used consistently across the codebase # Test: Check for any usages of GroupChatMessage that might need updating echo "Checking for GroupChatMessage usages:" rg --type typescript "GroupChatMessage" -g "!src/models/GroupChatMessage.ts" # Test: Verify that there are no hardcoded references to the old schema structure echo "Checking for potential hardcoded schema references:" rg --type typescript "groupChatMessageBelongsTo|sender|messageContent|status" -g "!src/models/GroupChatMessage.ts" # Note: Review the output to ensure that no updates are needed in other parts of the codebaseLength of output: 461
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the GroupChatMessage model is used consistently across the codebase # Test: Check for any usages of GroupChatMessage that might need updating echo "Checking for GroupChatMessage usages:" rg "GroupChatMessage" --glob "!src/models/GroupChatMessage.ts" --glob "*.ts" # Test: Verify that there are no hardcoded references to the old schema structure echo "Checking for potential hardcoded schema references:" rg "groupChatMessageBelongsTo|sender|messageContent|status" --glob "!src/models/GroupChatMessage.ts" --glob "*.ts" # Note: Review the output to ensure that no updates are needed in other parts of the codebaseLength of output: 35557
tests/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.spec.ts (5)
1-23: LGTM! Consider adding type annotation for MONGOOSE_INSTANCE.The imports, setup, and teardown logic are well-structured and follow best practices. The use of helper functions for database operations and test data creation is commendable.
Consider adding a type annotation for
MONGOOSE_INSTANCE:-let MONGOOSE_INSTANCE: typeof mongoose; +let MONGOOSE_INSTANCE: mongoose.Mongoose;This provides more precise typing and aligns with the return type of the
connect()function.
25-38: LGTM! Consider adding more robust type checking.This test case effectively validates the happy path for the
replyToresolver. The use oflean()for the database query is a good performance consideration.To improve type safety, consider adding a type guard for the
replyToResolver:- const replyToPayload = await replyToResolver?.(parent, {}, {}); + if (typeof replyToResolver !== 'function') { + throw new Error('replyToResolver is not a function'); + } + const replyToPayload = await replyToResolver(parent, {}, {});This ensures that
replyToResolveris definitely a function before calling it, providing better type safety and clearer error messages if the resolver is unexpectedly undefined.
39-62: LGTM! Consider using a more explicit type assertion for the error.This test case effectively validates the error handling when a reply message is not found. The mocking of the translation function is well-implemented.
To improve type safety and readability, consider using a more explicit type assertion for the caught error:
- } catch (error: unknown) { - expect(spy).toBeCalledWith(MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE); - expect((error as Error).message).toEqual(MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE); + } catch (error) { + if (!(error instanceof Error)) { + throw new Error('Unexpected error type'); + } + expect(spy).toBeCalledWith(MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE); + expect(error.message).toEqual(MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE);This approach provides better type checking and makes the error handling more robust.
64-79: LGTM! Consider consistent error handling for undefined resolver.This test case effectively validates the behavior when there's no reply message. The null check for the resolver function is a good practice.
For consistency with the previous test, consider handling the case where
replyToResolveris undefined:- if (replyToResolver) { - const replyToPayload = await replyToResolver(parent, {}, {}); - expect(replyToPayload).toEqual(null); - } + if (typeof replyToResolver !== 'function') { + throw new Error('replyToResolver is not a function'); + } + const replyToPayload = await replyToResolver(parent, {}, {}); + expect(replyToPayload).toEqual(null);This approach ensures consistent error handling across all test cases and provides a clear error message if the resolver is unexpectedly undefined.
1-79: Great test coverage! Consider adding edge cases.The test suite for the
replyToresolver is well-structured and covers the main scenarios effectively. The use of Vitest features, including setup/teardown hooks and mocking, is commendable.To further enhance the test coverage, consider adding the following test cases:
- Test with invalid input types (e.g., non-string
replyToID).- Test the behavior when the database operation fails (e.g., connection error).
- Test with a very large
replyToID to ensure proper handling of potential overflow.These additional tests would help ensure the resolver's robustness in edge cases and error scenarios.
tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.spec.ts (2)
25-44: LGTM: Well-structured test for the happy path scenario.The test case effectively verifies the
replyToresolver's functionality for a valid scenario. The checks for the parent object and resolver function existence add robustness.Consider adding a more descriptive error message in the expect statement:
expect(replyToPayload).toEqual(replyTo, "Resolver should return the correct direct chat message");This will provide more context if the test fails.
45-89: LGTM: Comprehensive error handling and edge case testing.Both test cases effectively cover important scenarios: error handling for non-existent messages and the behavior when there's no reply message. The error handling test properly mocks the translation function and verifies the correct error message.
Consider the following improvements:
- Extract the repeated checks for parent object and resolver function existence into a separate helper function to reduce code duplication. For example:
function ensureValidTestSetup(parent: any, resolver: any) { if (!parent) { throw new Error("Parent object is undefined."); } if (typeof resolver !== "function") { throw new Error("Resolver is not a function."); } }Then, call this function at the beginning of each test case.
In the error handling test, consider using
expect.assertions(2)at the beginning of the test to ensure that both expectations within the catch block are called.For consistency, consider using arrow functions for all test cases.
These changes will improve code maintainability and test reliability.
tests/helpers/directChat.ts (1)
57-57: LGTM with suggestion: Reply functionality implementedThe addition of the
replyTofield successfully implements the reply functionality. The updated return statement aligns with the new non-nullable TestDirectChatMessageType.Consider adding a comment explaining why an empty object is returned when testDirectChat or testUser is falsy. This would improve code readability and maintainability. For example:
} else { // Return an empty object when test data creation fails // to maintain consistency with the non-nullable TestDirectChatMessageType return [ testUser, testOrganization, testDirectChat, {} as TestDirectChatMessageType, ]; }Also applies to: 62-67
src/typeDefs/mutations.ts (2)
250-252: LGTM! Consider adding documentation.The addition of the
replyTo: IDparameter to thesendMessageToDirectChatmutation is well-implemented and aligns with the PR objective of adding reply functionality. The parameter is correctly defined as optional and uses the appropriateIDtype.Consider adding a brief comment above the mutation to explain the purpose of the
replyToparameter, e.g.:# Sends a message to a direct chat. If replyTo is provided, the message is treated as a reply to the specified message ID. sendMessageToDirectChat( chatId: ID! messageContent: String! replyTo: ID ): DirectChatMessage! @authThis would improve the self-documentation of the schema.
256-258: LGTM! Consider adding documentation.The addition of the
replyTo: IDparameter to thesendMessageToGroupChatmutation is well-implemented and consistent with the changes made to the direct chat mutation. This aligns with the PR objective of adding reply functionality to both direct and group chats.Similar to the suggestion for the direct chat mutation, consider adding a brief comment above this mutation to explain the purpose of the
replyToparameter, e.g.:# Sends a message to a group chat. If replyTo is provided, the message is treated as a reply to the specified message ID. sendMessageToGroupChat( chatId: ID! messageContent: String! replyTo: ID ): GroupChatMessage! @authThis would improve the self-documentation of the schema and maintain consistency with the direct chat mutation.
src/typeDefs/types.ts (2)
392-392: LGTM: Consistent implementation of reply functionality for GroupChatMessageThe addition of the
replyTofield to theGroupChatMessagetype is well-implemented and provides consistent reply functionality across both direct and group chats. This enhancement will significantly improve the user experience in group conversations.For consistency, consider adding a brief comment above both
replyTofields (inDirectChatMessageandGroupChatMessage) to explain their purpose, similar to other fields in the schema. For example:# The message this message is replying to, if any replyTo: GroupChatMessageThis would improve the schema's readability and self-documentation.
196-196: Overall Impact: Successful implementation of reply functionalityThe addition of
replyTofields to bothDirectChatMessageandGroupChatMessagetypes successfully implements the reply functionality for both direct and group chats, as per the PR objectives. These changes enhance the chat system without introducing breaking changes to the existing schema.Future considerations:
- Implement resolvers and mutations to handle the creation and querying of reply chains.
- Consider adding a
depthfield to messages to easily track and potentially limit the nesting level of replies.- Update the frontend to display threaded conversations effectively.
- Consider implementing a notification system for replied messages.
Great job on this clean and effective implementation!
Also applies to: 392-392
schema.graphql (3)
1171-1171: LGTM: sendMessageToDirectChat mutation update with a minor suggestionThe update to the
sendMessageToDirectChatmutation is well-implemented. The addition of the nullablereplyToparameter of typeIDcorrectly allows for the new reply functionality while maintaining backwards compatibility.Consider reordering the parameters to group required parameters first:
sendMessageToDirectChat(chatId: ID!, messageContent: String!, replyTo: ID): DirectChatMessage!This order puts the optional
replyToparameter at the end, which is a common convention in many APIs.
1172-1172: LGTM: sendMessageToGroupChat mutation update with a minor suggestionThe update to the
sendMessageToGroupChatmutation is well-implemented. The addition of the nullablereplyToparameter of typeIDcorrectly allows for the new reply functionality while maintaining backwards compatibility. The implementation is consistent with thesendMessageToDirectChatmutation, which is good for maintaining code consistency.Similar to the suggestion for
sendMessageToDirectChat, consider reordering the parameters to group required parameters first:sendMessageToGroupChat(chatId: ID!, messageContent: String!, replyTo: ID): GroupChatMessage!This order puts the optional
replyToparameter at the end, which is a common convention in many APIs.
570-570: Summary: Successful implementation of reply functionalityThe changes in this PR successfully implement the reply functionality for both direct and group chat messages as requested. The modifications include:
- Adding a
replyTofield to bothDirectChatMessageandGroupChatMessagetypes.- Updating the
sendMessageToDirectChatandsendMessageToGroupChatmutations to include areplyToparameter.These changes are well-implemented, consistent across different types and mutations, and maintain backwards compatibility. The new functionality allows users to reply to specific messages in both direct and group chats, enhancing the communication experience within the chat application.
To ensure smooth integration of this new feature:
- Update the resolvers for these mutations to handle the new
replyToparameter.- Modify the frontend to utilize the new
replyTofield when displaying messages and the updated mutations when sending replies.- Consider adding a migration script if there's an existing database with chat messages to ensure compatibility with the new schema.
Also applies to: 954-954, 1171-1172
src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (2)
1764-1767: LGTM! Consider adding a descriptive comment for thereplyToparameter.The addition of the
replyToparameter to the sendMessageToDirectChat mutation is consistent with the type changes and enables the implementation of the reply feature for direct chats.Consider adding a brief comment to describe the purpose of the
replyToparameter, such as:""" The ID of the message being replied to, if this message is a reply. """ replyTo?: InputMaybe<Scalars['ID']['input']>;This would enhance code readability and self-documentation.
1771-1774: LGTM! Consider adding a descriptive comment for thereplyToparameter.The addition of the
replyToparameter to the sendMessageToGroupChat mutation completes the implementation of the reply feature across both direct and group chats. This change is consistent with the sendMessageToDirectChat mutation and the earlier type modifications.As suggested for the sendMessageToDirectChat mutation, consider adding a brief comment to describe the purpose of the
replyToparameter:""" The ID of the message being replied to, if this message is a reply. """ replyTo?: InputMaybe<Scalars['ID']['input']>;This would maintain consistency and improve code readability across both mutations.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (26)
- eslint.config.mjs (0 hunks)
- schema.graphql (3 hunks)
- src/constants.ts (1 hunks)
- src/models/DirectChatMessage.ts (2 hunks)
- src/models/GroupChatMessage.ts (2 hunks)
- src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/index.ts (1 hunks)
- src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts (1 hunks)
- src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/index.ts (1 hunks)
- src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.ts (1 hunks)
- src/resolvers/Mutation/index.ts (0 hunks)
- src/resolvers/Mutation/removeGroupChat.ts (0 hunks)
- src/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToDirectChat.ts (1 hunks)
- src/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToGroupChat.ts (1 hunks)
- src/typeDefs/mutations.ts (1 hunks)
- src/typeDefs/types.ts (2 hunks)
- src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (5 hunks)
- tests/helpers/directChat.ts (2 hunks)
- tests/helpers/groupChat.ts (2 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/directChatMessageBelongsTo.spec.ts (0 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/receiver.spec.ts (0 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/sender.spec.ts (0 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/groupChatMessageBelongsTo.spec.ts (0 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/sender.spec.ts (0 hunks)
- tests/resolvers/Mutation/removeGroupChat.spec.ts (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (9)
- eslint.config.mjs
- src/resolvers/Mutation/index.ts
- src/resolvers/Mutation/removeGroupChat.ts
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/directChatMessageBelongsTo.spec.ts
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/receiver.spec.ts
- tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/sender.spec.ts
- tests/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/groupChatMessageBelongsTo.spec.ts
- tests/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/sender.spec.ts
- tests/resolvers/Mutation/removeGroupChat.spec.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (28)
src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/index.ts (3)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement forreplyTois correct.The import statement for
replyTois properly added and consistent with the existing code style.
9-9: LGTM:replyToresolver added correctly toGroupChatMessageobject.The
replyToresolver is properly added to theGroupChatMessageobject, consistent with the existing structure and the new import.
Line range hint
1-11: Verify the implementation of thereplyToresolver.The changes look good and align with the PR objective. To ensure completeness, it would be beneficial to verify the implementation of the
replyToresolver in its separate file.Let's check the contents of the
replyTo.tsfile:✅ Verification successful
replyToResolver Implementation VerifiedThe
replyToresolver is correctly implemented and aligns with the PR objectives. No issues found.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of the replyTo resolver # Test: Check if the replyTo.ts file exists and display its contents cat src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.tsLength of output: 1041
src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/index.ts (3)
4-4: LGTM: Import statement forreplyToresolver.The import statement for the
replyToresolver is correctly added and follows the existing pattern in the file. This change aligns with the PR objective of implementing reply functionality for chat messages.
Line range hint
1-13: Summary: Changes align with PR objectives and enhance reply functionality.The modifications to this file successfully implement the reply functionality for direct chat messages as outlined in the PR objectives. The addition of the
replyToresolver enhances theDirectChatMessageobject, allowing for the handling of message replies. These changes are consistent with the AI-generated summary and contribute to the overall goal of implementing reply functionality for both direct and group chat messages.
11-11: LGTM: Addition ofreplyToresolver to DirectChatMessage.The
replyToresolver is correctly added to theDirectChatMessageobject, consistent with other resolver exports. This change implements the reply functionality for direct chat messages as outlined in the PR objectives.To ensure the
replyToresolver is properly implemented, let's verify its definition:✅ Verification successful
Verified:
replyToresolver is properly implemented.The
replyToresolver is correctly defined and exported insrc/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts. This ensures the reply functionality for direct chat messages operates as intended.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of the replyTo resolver # Test: Check if the replyTo resolver is defined rg --type typescript 'export const replyTo' src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.tsLength of output: 123
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of the replyTo resolver # Test: Check if the replyTo resolver is defined rg --type ts 'export const replyTo' src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.tsLength of output: 150
src/resolvers/GroupChatMessage/replyTo.ts (1)
1-4: LGTM: Imports are well-organized and relevant.The import statements are logically ordered and include all necessary dependencies for the resolver function.
src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts (2)
1-4: LGTM: Imports are well-organized and relevant.The import statements are logically ordered and include all necessary dependencies for the resolver function.
1-30: Overall: Well-implemented resolver for reply functionality.This new file successfully implements the reply functionality for direct chat messages, aligning with the PR objectives. The code is well-structured, follows GraphQL resolver patterns, and includes proper error handling. The minor suggestions provided earlier will further enhance its robustness and documentation.
To ensure this implementation is consistent with other parts of the codebase, let's verify the usage of
DirectChatMessageand error handling patterns:This script will help us ensure that the implementation is consistent with other parts of the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Verification Successful: Resolver Implementation is Consistent.
The
replyTo.tsresolver correctly implements the reply functionality for direct chat messages, aligning seamlessly with existing patterns in the codebase. The use ofDirectChatMessage.find().lean()is consistent and appropriate, and the error handling adheres to the established practices usingerrors.NotFoundErrorandrequestContext.translate.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent usage of DirectChatMessage and error handling # Test 1: Check for consistent use of lean() with DirectChatMessage echo "Checking for consistent use of lean() with DirectChatMessage:" rg --type typescript "DirectChatMessage\.find.*\.lean\(\)" -g '!src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts' # Test 2: Check for consistent error handling patterns echo "Checking for consistent error handling patterns:" rg --type typescript "new errors\.(NotFoundError|InternalServerError)" -g '!src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts' # Test 3: Check for other resolvers using requestContext.translate echo "Checking for other resolvers using requestContext.translate:" rg --type typescript "requestContext\.translate" -g 'src/resolvers/**/*.ts' -g '!src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts'Length of output: 834
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent usage of DirectChatMessage and error handling with correct TypeScript file type # Test 1: Check for consistent use of lean() with DirectChatMessage echo "Checking for consistent use of lean() with DirectChatMessage:" rg --type ts "DirectChatMessage\.find.*\.lean\(\)" -g '!src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts' # Test 2: Check for consistent error handling patterns echo "Checking for consistent error handling patterns:" rg --type ts "new errors\.(NotFoundError|InternalServerError)" -g '!src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts' # Test 3: Check for other resolvers using requestContext.translate echo "Checking for other resolvers using requestContext.translate:" rg --type ts "requestContext\.translate" -g 'src/resolvers/**/*.ts' -g '!src/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.ts'Length of output: 77094
src/resolvers/Mutation/sendMessageToDirectChat.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-1: Verify GraphQL schema and generated types updates.The addition of the
replyTofield likely requires updates to the GraphQL schema and generated types. Please ensure these have been updated accordingly.Run the following script to verify the GraphQL schema and generated types:
✅ Verification successful
GraphQL schema and generated types correctly include the
replyTofield for thesendMessageToDirectChatmutation.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify GraphQL schema and generated types for sendMessageToDirectChat mutation # Test 1: Check if replyTo field is present in the mutation input type echo "Checking GraphQL schema for replyTo field in sendMessageToDirectChat input:" rg --type graphql 'input.*SendMessageToDirectChat.*\{' -A 10 # Test 2: Check if replyTo field is present in the generated types echo "Checking generated types for replyTo field in SendMessageToDirectChatInput:" rg --type typescript 'export type SendMessageToDirectChatInput = \{' -A 10 # Test 3: Check if MutationResolvers type includes replyTo in sendMessageToDirectChat echo "Checking MutationResolvers type for replyTo in sendMessageToDirectChat:" rg --type typescript 'export type MutationResolvers = \{' -A 50 | rg 'sendMessageToDirectChat'Length of output: 811
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify GraphQL schema and generated types for sendMessageToDirectChat mutation # Test 1: Check if replyTo field is present in the mutation input type echo "Checking GraphQL schema for replyTo field in SendMessageToDirectChat input:" rg --glob "*.graphql" 'input\s+SendMessageToDirectChat\s*\{' -A 10 # Test 2: Check if replyTo field is present in the generated types echo "Checking generated types for replyTo field in SendMessageToDirectChatInput:" rg --glob "*.ts" 'export\s+type\s+SendMessageToDirectChatInput\s*=\s*\{' -A 10 # Test 3: Check if MutationResolvers type includes replyTo in sendMessageToDirectChat echo "Checking MutationResolvers type for replyTo in sendMessageToDirectChat:" rg --glob "*.ts" 'export\s+type\s+MutationResolvers\s*=\s*\{' -A 50 | rg 'sendMessageToDirectChat'Length of output: 723
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Comprehensive search for 'replyTo' field in GraphQL schema and generated TypeScript types # Test 1: Search for 'replyTo' field in all .graphql files echo "Searching for 'replyTo' field in GraphQL schema (.graphql files):" rg --glob "*.graphql" "replyTo" -n # Test 2: Search for 'replyTo' field in all generated TypeScript types (.ts files) echo "Searching for 'replyTo' field in generated TypeScript types (.ts files):" rg --glob "*.ts" "replyTo" -n # Test 3: Specifically search within 'sendMessageToDirectChat' mutation resolver in TypeScript files echo "Searching for 'replyTo' within 'sendMessageToDirectChat' resolver in TypeScript files:" rg --glob "*.ts" "sendMessageToDirectChat" -A 5 | rg "replyTo" -nLength of output: 6504
tests/helpers/groupChat.ts (1)
15-16: Improved type safety for TestGroupChatMessageTypeThe update to
TestGroupChatMessageTypeto be non-nullable enhances type safety. This change ensures that the type always represents a valid document, which aligns well with the implementation ofcreateTestGroupChatMessage. Good job on improving the consistency and reliability of the type system.src/models/DirectChatMessage.ts (2)
15-15: LGTM: Interface update for reply functionalityThe addition of the
replyToproperty to theInterfaceDirectChatMessageinterface is well-implemented. It correctly uses thePopulatedDoctype to reference anotherDirectChatMessage, which is consistent with the existing pattern for reference fields in this interface.
15-15: Overall assessment: Good implementation with room for enhancementsThe changes to implement reply functionality in the
DirectChatMessagemodel are well-structured and consistent with the existing codebase. The addition of thereplyTofield in both the interface and schema provides a solid foundation for the feature.However, to ensure a robust and scalable implementation, consider the suggestions provided in the previous comments, such as adding validation, indexing, and handling edge cases like cascading deletes and nested reply depth.
These enhancements would contribute to a more comprehensive and production-ready feature implementation.
Also applies to: 49-53
tests/resolvers/DirectChatMessage/replyTo.spec.ts (3)
1-10: LGTM: Imports are comprehensive and relevant.The imports cover all necessary dependencies for the test suite, including application code, test helpers, and the Vitest testing framework. The import of
MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERRORindicates proper error handling testing.
12-23: LGTM: Proper setup and teardown for database tests.The
beforeAllandafterAllhooks effectively manage the database connection and test data creation. This approach ensures a clean test environment for each test run.
1-89: Overall, excellent test coverage for thereplyToresolver.This test file provides comprehensive coverage for the
replyToresolver, including happy path, error handling, and edge cases. The structure is clear, and the tests are well-written. The minor suggestions provided earlier will further enhance code quality and maintainability.Great job on implementing these tests! They will significantly contribute to the reliability of the reply functionality in both direct and group chats.
tests/helpers/directChat.ts (3)
47-51: LGTM: Preparation for reply functionalityThe introduction of the
directChatMessagevariable sets the stage for implementing reply functionality. The use of optional chaining is a good practice to handle potential null values.
Line range hint
1-124: Overall assessment: Well-implemented reply functionalityThe changes in this file successfully implement the reply functionality for direct chat messages and improve type safety. The modifications align well with the PR objectives and maintain code quality. The use of TypeScript features like optional chaining demonstrates good defensive programming practices.
To further enhance the code:
- Consider adding comments to explain the logic behind returning an empty object in the else clause of
createTestDirectChatMessage.- Ensure that all parts of the codebase that interact with
TestDirectChatMessageTypeare updated to handle its new non-nullable nature.Great job on implementing this feature!
15-16: Improved type safety for TestDirectChatMessageTypeThe removal of the nullable aspect from TestDirectChatMessageType enhances type safety and provides more precise type information. This change aligns with TypeScript best practices.
To ensure this change doesn't introduce issues elsewhere in the codebase, please run the following script:
If the script returns any results, please review those occurrences to ensure they're updated to handle the non-nullable TestDirectChatMessageType correctly.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Removal of Nullable from TestDirectChatMessageType
The changes to
TestDirectChatMessageTypehave been successfully verified. No usages expectingnullor null checks related toTestDirectChatMessageTypewere found, ensuring that making it non-nullable does not introduce any issues.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential issues caused by TestDirectChatMessageType change # Test: Search for usages of TestDirectChatMessageType that might expect null rg --type typescript -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*\|.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*\?.*" # Test: Search for null checks on TestDirectChatMessageType rg --type typescript -e "if.*TestDirectChatMessageType.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*===.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*!==.*null"Length of output: 318
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential issues caused by TestDirectChatMessageType change # Test: Search for usages of TestDirectChatMessageType that might expect null rg --type ts -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*\|.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*\?.*" # Test: Search for null checks on TestDirectChatMessageType rg --type ts -e "if.*TestDirectChatMessageType.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*===.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*!==.*null"Length of output: 232
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential issues caused by TestDirectChatMessageType change # Test: Search for usages of TestDirectChatMessageType that might expect null rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" "TestDirectChatMessageType.*\|.*null" # Test: Search for null checks on TestDirectChatMessageType rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" "if.*TestDirectChatMessageType.*null" "TestDirectChatMessageType.*===.*null" "TestDirectChatMessageType.*!==.*null"Length of output: 359
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential issues caused by TestDirectChatMessageType change # Test: Search for usages of TestDirectChatMessageType that might expect null rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType.*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType\?.*" # Test: Search for null checks on TestDirectChatMessageType rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "if\s*\(.*TestDirectChatMessageType.*null.*\)" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType\s*===\s*null" -e "TestDirectChatMessageType\s*!==\s*null"Length of output: 261
src/typeDefs/mutations.ts (2)
Line range hint
1-358: Summary of changes in mutations.tsThe changes implemented in this file successfully add support for replying to messages in both direct and group chats, which aligns with the PR objectives. The
replyToparameter has been correctly added to bothsendMessageToDirectChatandsendMessageToGroupChatmutations.Key points:
- Reply functionality has been implemented consistently for both direct and group chats.
- The new
replyToparameter is optional and of typeID, which is appropriate for this use case.- Minor suggestions for improving documentation have been made.
- The removal of the
removeGroupChatmutation requires clarification, as it wasn't mentioned in the PR objectives and could have implications for the system's functionality.Overall, the changes appear to be well-implemented and achieve the stated goals of the PR. Once the question about the
removeGroupChatmutation is addressed, this file should be ready for approval.
Line range hint
1-358: Clarify the removal ofremoveGroupChatmutation.The AI-generated summary mentions that the
removeGroupChatmutation has been commented out, but this change is not visible in the provided code snippet. This suggests the mutation was removed in a previous commit.Could you please clarify:
- Was the removal of
removeGroupChatmutation intentional?- If so, what is the rationale behind this change?
- Are there any plans to replace this functionality or handle group chat removal differently?
This change wasn't mentioned in the PR objectives or linked issues. Understanding the context and implications of this removal would be helpful for a comprehensive review.
To verify the removal and its impact, please run the following script:
This script will help us confirm the removal of the mutation and identify any potential areas in the codebase that might still be referencing it.
src/typeDefs/types.ts (1)
196-196: LGTM: Excellent addition of reply functionality to DirectChatMessageThe addition of the
replyTofield to theDirectChatMessagetype is a well-implemented feature that enables threaded conversations in direct chats. This self-referential structure allows for flexible and potentially unlimited nesting of replies, which greatly enhances the chat functionality.src/constants.ts (1)
67-72: LGTM! New constant follows established patterns.The new
MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERRORconstant is well-implemented. It follows the existing pattern of usingObject.freeze()for immutability and includes all the necessary properties (DESC, CODE, MESSAGE, PARAM) with appropriate values. The naming convention and structure are consistent with other error constants in the file.schema.graphql (2)
570-570: LGTM: DirectChatMessage type updateThe addition of the
replyTofield to theDirectChatMessagetype is well-implemented. It correctly uses a self-referential relationship and is nullable, allowing for the new reply functionality while maintaining compatibility with existing messages.
954-954: LGTM: GroupChatMessage type updateThe addition of the
replyTofield to theGroupChatMessagetype is well-implemented. It correctly uses a self-referential relationship and is nullable, allowing for the new reply functionality while maintaining compatibility with existing messages. The implementation is consistent with the DirectChatMessage update, which is good for maintaining code consistency.src/types/generatedGraphQLTypes.ts (3)
647-647: LGTM! Great addition for improved chat functionality.The new
replyTofield in the DirectChatMessage type is a valuable enhancement. It enables threaded conversations in direct chats, which will significantly improve user experience by making it easier to follow and maintain context in complex discussions.
1040-1040: LGTM! Consistent implementation across chat types.The addition of the
replyTofield to the GroupChatMessage type mirrors the changes made to DirectChatMessage. This consistency ensures that the reply functionality is available in both direct and group chats, providing a uniform and improved user experience across different chat contexts.
Line range hint
1-4415: Overall, excellent implementation of the reply functionality!The changes in this file consistently implement a reply feature for both direct and group chats. The modifications to the DirectChatMessage and GroupChatMessage types, along with the updates to the sendMessageToDirectChat and sendMessageToGroupChat mutations, provide a solid foundation for threaded conversations.
These enhancements will significantly improve the user experience by allowing more structured and context-aware discussions within the application. The consistency in implementation across different chat types ensures a uniform user experience.
Great job on this feature implementation!
| const message = await createGroupChatMessage( | ||
| testUser?._id, | ||
| testGroupChat._id.toString(), | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Modularization improvement and potential logic issue
The introduction of createGroupChatMessage is a good step towards more modular and reusable code. However, there's a potential logic issue:
const message = await createGroupChatMessage(
testUser?._id,
testGroupChat._id.toString(),
);
// ... other fields ...
replyTo: message?._id,Setting replyTo to the ID of the message just created seems unusual. Typically, a reply would reference a different, existing message. This might not accurately represent real-world usage of the reply functionality.
Consider either:
- Creating two messages, where the second one replies to the first, or
- Removing the
replyTofield if it's not necessary for this test helper.
Also applies to: 57-57
| return [ | ||
| testUser, | ||
| testOrganization, | ||
| testGroupChat, | ||
| {} as TestGroupChatMessageType, | ||
| ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reconsider empty object return for error case
The change from returning null to an empty object cast as TestGroupChatMessageType aligns with the updated type definition. However, this approach has potential drawbacks:
- It might mask errors by returning an object that doesn't actually represent a valid group chat message.
- It could lead to unexpected behavior if the calling code assumes all fields of a
TestGroupChatMessageTypeare present.
Consider the following alternatives:
- Throw an error when
testGroupChatortestUseris not available, clearly indicating the failure to create a test message. - Return a
Maybe<TestGroupChatMessageType>or use a discriminated union to explicitly handle the error case.
Example of option 2:
type TestGroupChatMessageResult =
| { success: true, message: TestGroupChatMessageType }
| { success: false, error: string };
// In the function:
if (testGroupChat && testUser) {
// ... create message ...
return { success: true, message: testGroupChatMessage };
} else {
return { success: false, error: "Failed to create test group chat or user" };
}This approach provides more type safety and explicit error handling.
| @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ export const sendMessageToGroupChat: MutationResolvers["sendMessageToGroupChat"] | |||
| sender: context.userId, | |||
| createdAt: new Date(), | |||
| messageContent: args.messageContent, | |||
| replyTo: args.replyTo, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding validation for the replyTo field.
While the implementation of the reply functionality is correct, it might benefit from additional validation to ensure data integrity and prevent potential misuse. Consider adding checks to verify that:
- The
replyTomessage exists. - The
replyTomessage belongs to the same group chat.
This could be implemented before creating the new message, for example:
if (args.replyTo) {
const replyToMessage = await GroupChatMessage.findOne({
_id: args.replyTo,
groupChatMessageBelongsTo: groupChat._id
});
if (!replyToMessage) {
throw new errors.NotFoundError(
requestContext.translate(REPLY_TO_MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.MESSAGE),
REPLY_TO_MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.CODE,
REPLY_TO_MESSAGE_NOT_FOUND_ERROR.PARAM
);
}
}This additional check would ensure that users can only reply to existing messages within the same group chat.
|
Hi @palisadoes Updated the PR, |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Issue Number:
Fixes #2416
Did you add tests for your changes?
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
Summary
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
replyTofeature for both direct and group chat messages, enabling users to reference previous messages in their replies.replyToparameter.Bug Fixes
Deprecation
removeGroupChatmutation, indicating it is no longer supported.