Re-applying Airtable usability changes #15015
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 3 Skipped Deployments
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@GTFalcao has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 5 minutes and 0 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. ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces comprehensive updates to the Airtable OAuth component across multiple files. The changes primarily focus on improving documentation, clarifying descriptions, updating version numbers, and enhancing user guidance. Key modifications include refining property descriptions, adding informative alerts, updating version numbers, and introducing new properties like Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (12)
components/airtable_oauth/actions/delete-record/delete-record.mjs (1)
Line range hint
42-42: Consider refactoring the export summary for better readability.The export summary string construction mixes template literals with multiple ternary operations. Consider extracting a helper function to handle label resolution.
- $.export("$summary", `Deleted record "${this.recordId?.label || recordId}" from ${this.baseId?.label || baseId}: [${this.tableId?.label || tableId}](https://airtable.com/${baseId}/${tableId})`); + const getLabel = (prop, fallback) => prop?.label || fallback; + $.export("$summary", `Deleted record "${getLabel(this.recordId, recordId)}" from ${getLabel(this.baseId, baseId)}: [${getLabel(this.tableId, tableId)}](https://airtable.com/${baseId}/${tableId})`);components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs (2)
6-7: Documentation improvements look good!The description is now clearer and the addition of the API documentation link is helpful. The version bump is appropriate for these documentation changes.
Consider standardizing the documentation link format across all Airtable OAuth components for consistency.
26-26: Consider enhancing the comment property documentation.While the description is clearer, it would be helpful to add information about:
- Whether markdown formatting is supported
- Any character limits that might apply
- Examples of valid comments
- description: "The text comment to create", + description: "The text comment to create. Supports plain text up to X characters.",components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-table/create-table.mjs (1)
29-33: Consider enhancing input validation and user feedbackWhile the implementation is functional, consider these improvements:
- Add validation for the table name (e.g., character limits, forbidden characters)
- Enhance the fields parsing with better error messages for invalid JSON
- Include more details in the success message (e.g., table name)
Example enhancement for the fields parsing:
const fields = []; for (const field of this.fields) { + try { const fieldObj = typeof field === "object" ? field : JSON.parse(field); + if (!fieldObj.name || !fieldObj.type) { + throw new Error("Field must have 'name' and 'type' properties"); + } fields.push(fieldObj); + } catch (err) { + throw new Error(`Invalid field configuration: ${err.message}`); + } }And for the success message:
- $.export("$summary", `Successfully created table with ID ${response.id}.`); + $.export("$summary", `Successfully created table "${this.name}" (ID: ${response.id}).`);Also applies to: 35-43
components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs (2)
Line range hint
24-25: Consider enhancing the Field ID descriptionThe current description "The field to update" could be more specific.
- description: "The field to update", + description: "The ID of the field to update. This ID can be found in the field's API documentation or through the List Fields endpoint.",
40-43: Consider adding a warning about field name changesField name changes could impact existing automations or integrations. Consider adding a warning alert to inform users about potential consequences.
async run({ $ }) { if (!this.name && !this.description) { throw new ConfigurationError("At least one of `Name` or `Description` must be provided."); } + if (this.name) { + $.alert('warning', 'Changing a field name might impact existing automations or integrations that reference this field.'); + }components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (2)
19-19: Consider enhancing the tableId description with format guidance.While the current description is clearer, it would be helpful to include the expected format for manual table ID input.
- description: "Select a table to watch for field updates, or provide a table ID.", + description: "Select a table to watch for field updates, or provide a table ID (e.g., tblXXXXXXXXXXXXXX).",
Line range hint
31-52: Consider enhancing error handling and rate limiting.While the core logic is functional, consider these improvements for production robustness:
- Add try-catch blocks around API calls
- Implement rate limiting for Airtable API compliance
- Add field structure validation
- Consider atomic operations for state updates
Example implementation for error handling:
async run() { + try { const prevFields = this._getPrevFields(); const { tables } = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId, }); const { fields } = tables.find(({ id }) => id === this.tableId); + if (!fields) { + throw new Error(`No fields found for table ${this.tableId}`); + } for (const field of fields) { // ... existing logic ... } this._setPrevFields(prevFields); + } catch (error) { + console.error('Error in new-or-modified-field source:', error); + throw error; + } },components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs (1)
13-17: LGTM! Consider minor enhancement to the warning message.The warning alert is well-placed and provides crucial guidance about custom expressions. The message is clear and properly formatted.
Consider slightly rewording for additional clarity:
- content: "**Note:** if using a custom expression to specify the `Base` (e.g. `{{steps.mydata.$return_value}}`) you should also use a custom expression for the `Table`, and any other props that depend on it.", + content: "**Note:** When using a custom expression to specify the `Base` (e.g. `{{steps.mydata.$return_value}}`), you must also use custom expressions for the `Table` and any other dependent properties to ensure proper functionality.",components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (1)
39-46: LGTM! Consider aligning event summary with component name.The code refactoring improves readability by using destructuring.
Consider updating the event summary to match the component name:
- summary: `New field: '${field.name}'`, + summary: `Field created: '${field.name}'`,components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-multiple-records/create-multiple-records.mjs (1)
52-63: Improved error handling for JSON parsingThe enhanced error handling now provides more specific feedback by including the index of the problematic record. However, consider adding validation for the parsed fields object structure.
if (typeof fields === "string") { try { fields = JSON.parse(fields); } catch (err) { throw new ConfigurationError(`Error parsing record (index ${index}) as JSON: ${err.message}`); } } +if (!fields || typeof fields !== "object") { + throw new ConfigurationError(`Invalid record structure at index ${index}. Expected an object.`); +} return { fields, };components/airtable_oauth/common/utils.mjs (1)
73-73: LGTM! Consider improving template literal readability.The use of nullish coalescing operator to provide a default description is a good practice. However, the template literal could be more readable.
Consider adding line breaks to improve readability:
- description: field.description ?? `Field type: \`${field.type}\`. Field ID: \`${field.id}\``, + description: field.description ?? `Field type: \`${field.type}\`\nField ID: \`${field.id}\``,
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (23)
components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-multiple-records/create-multiple-records.mjs(3 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-or-update-record/create-or-update-record.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-table/create-table.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/delete-record/delete-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record/get-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records-in-view/list-records-in-view.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records/list-records.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/search-records/search-records.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-comment/update-comment.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-table/update-table.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs(5 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/common/actions.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/common/utils.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/package.json(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs(3 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs(3 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs(7 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records/list-records.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record/get-record.mjs
🔇 Additional comments (37)
components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-comment/update-comment.mjs (2)
6-7: LGTM! Clear description improvement and appropriate version bump.
The description now better emphasizes that a record needs to be selected first, which improves user understanding. The version bump follows semantic versioning for documentation changes.
39-39: LGTM! More precise property description.
The updated description better clarifies that this field is for specifying the new content that will replace the existing comment.
components/airtable_oauth/package.json (2)
20-20: Verify the impact of removed dependencies
The removal of lodash and moment dependencies while retaining specific lodash utilities is a good optimization. However, we should verify that these dependencies aren't used in the codebase anymore.
Let's verify there are no remaining usages:
3-3: Version bump follows semver conventions
The increment from 0.3.1 to 0.4.0 appropriately reflects significant changes in functionality.
Let's verify the changelog entries for this version:
✅ Verification successful
Dependencies have been properly optimized
The codebase shows proper migration from full lodash package to specific utility imports:
lodash.isemptyis used in airtable_oauth.app.mjslodash.chunkis used in create-multiple-records.mjs- Both utilities are correctly listed in package.json dependencies
The version bump to 0.4.0 is justified by these dependency optimizations. While no changelog was found, the changes are self-documenting through package.json.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for changelog entries corresponding to version 0.4.0
# Look for changelog files in common locations
fd -i -g 'change*' -g 'history*' -g 'release*' components/airtable_oauth/ -x cat {}
Length of output: 197
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify if the removed dependencies (lodash and moment) are still being used in the codebase
# Search for any imports or requires of lodash (full package)
echo "=== Checking for lodash usage ==="
rg -l "require\(['\"](lodash|moment)['\"]" components/airtable_oauth/
rg -l "from ['\"](lodash|moment)['\"]" components/airtable_oauth/
# Search for specific lodash utility imports to verify migration
echo -e "\n=== Checking for lodash utility imports ==="
rg "require\(['\"](lodash\.|@lodash/)" components/airtable_oauth/
rg "from ['\"](lodash\.|@lodash/)" components/airtable_oauth/
# Check package.json to see current dependencies
echo -e "\n=== Current dependencies ==="
cat components/airtable_oauth/package.json
Length of output: 1796
components/airtable_oauth/actions/delete-record/delete-record.mjs (1)
7-7: LGTM! Description update improves clarity.
The updated description better emphasizes the user interaction flow by referring to a "selected record" rather than the technical "record ID", making it more user-friendly.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-table/update-table.mjs (3)
6-7: LGTM! Documentation and version updates are appropriate.
The description update maintains clarity while adopting a more consistent command-style format, and the version bump follows semantic versioning for documentation changes.
Line range hint 25-42: LGTM! Implementation handles optional updates properly.
The run method correctly:
- Conditionally includes only provided fields in the update
- Provides clear success feedback with table identification
- Maintains proper error propagation
14-14: LGTM! Property descriptions are more precise.
The updated descriptions better reflect that these fields are for modifying existing values, which improves clarity for users.
Let's verify the implementation handles these optional props correctly:
Also applies to: 20-20
✅ Verification successful
Props are correctly handled in the implementation
The verification shows that both name and description props are properly handled in the update-table.mjs implementation:
- Props are optional and only included in the request data when provided
- The implementation follows a consistent pattern used across other Airtable components
- The props are directly mapped to their corresponding fields in the API request data
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify proper handling of optional props across Airtable components
# Look for consistent patterns in handling optional name/description updates
# Check for similar update patterns across other Airtable components
rg -A 5 "if \(this\.(name|description)\)" components/airtable_oauth/
# Verify error handling for these props
ast-grep --pattern 'if (this.$_) {
data.$_ = this.$_;
}'
Length of output: 9043
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs (1)
Line range hint 10-28: Verify integration with common warning alerts.
The AI summary mentions new warningAlert properties in common.mjs. Let's verify that this component properly inherits and displays these warnings.
✅ Verification successful
No integration issues found - common warning alerts are properly inherited
The code in components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-comment/create-comment.mjs correctly inherits from components/airtable_oauth/actions/common/common.mjs, which includes the warningAlert property. The common props are properly spread using ...common.props and the component will display the warning alert as expected.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the common warning alerts are properly integrated
rg -A 5 "warningAlert" components/airtable_oauth/common/common.mjs
Length of output: 150
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the correct path for common.mjs
fd common.mjs
# Then check the content of the common file
fd common.mjs --exec cat {}
Length of output: 65794
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's find the correct path for the airtable_oauth common file
fd -t f common.mjs components/airtable_oauth/
# Then check its content
fd -t f common.mjs components/airtable_oauth/ --exec cat {}
Length of output: 2029
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-table/create-table.mjs (3)
20-20: LGTM! Description improvements enhance clarity
The updated property descriptions are more precise and the documentation link is better formatted. These changes improve the overall usability of the component.
Also applies to: 25-25, 31-31
Line range hint 3-5: Verify API endpoint compatibility
The component references Airtable's API documentation. Let's verify that the endpoint and documentation links are current and valid.
✅ Verification successful
API endpoint references are current and consistent
All Airtable API endpoint references in the codebase point to the current developer documentation at airtable.com/developers/web/api/. The create-table component and its related documentation link are correctly aligned with Airtable's current API structure, matching the pattern used consistently across all other components in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any other Airtable API endpoint references that might need updating
rg -A 2 "airtable\.com/developers/web/api" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 9279
7-7: Verify version bump rationale
The version has been incremented from 0.0.7 to 0.0.8. While the changes appear to be non-breaking documentation updates, let's verify there are no other functional changes that would justify this version bump.
✅ Verification successful
Version bump is consistent with component-wide update
The version bump from 0.0.7 to 0.0.8 is part of a coordinated update across multiple Airtable OAuth components. The changes in create-table.mjs are documentation improvements, making descriptions clearer and adding proper documentation links. These changes align with similar documentation updates across the component collection, justifying the consistent version increment across all components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any functional changes in the Airtable OAuth component
rg -l "version.*0\.0\.[78]" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 1310
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the git history for changes in the create-table.mjs file
git diff HEAD~1 HEAD -- components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-table/create-table.mjs
# Also check if other components are being updated to the same version
rg "version.*0\.0\.8" components/airtable_oauth/ -A 1 -B 1
Length of output: 6347
components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs (2)
7-8: Documentation improvements look great!
Good additions:
- Including the API documentation link helps users understand the underlying API
- Version bump follows semantic versioning for documentation changes
- Description style is now more consistent with command-form naming
30-30: Property descriptions are now clearer!
The updated descriptions better indicate that these are the new values to be set.
Also applies to: 36-36
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (2)
5-5: LGTM! Documentation and version updates are appropriate.
The enhanced description with API documentation link improves user guidance, and the version bump correctly reflects these minor changes.
Also applies to: 7-7
Line range hint 31-52: Verify consistency with other source implementations.
Let's check how other sources handle error handling and rate limiting.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another verification script with corrected syntax:
Let me try one final verification to check for error handling patterns with a different command:
Error handling and rate limiting are properly implemented at the app level
Based on the verification results, I can conclude that:
- Error handling is centrally implemented in the
airtable_oauth.app.mjsthrough methods likethrowFormattedErrorand try-catch blocks in prop definitions - Rate limiting is properly handled using Bottleneck with 4 requests per second limit
- The source implementation follows the common pattern where API calls are made through the app's methods which already include these safeguards
The implementation is consistent with other sources in the codebase and leverages the error handling and rate limiting provided by the app layer.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for error handling patterns in other source files
echo "Checking error handling patterns in other sources:"
rg -A 3 "try\s*{" "components/airtable_oauth/sources"
echo "\nChecking rate limiting implementations:"
rg -A 3 "rateLimiting|rateLimit" "components/airtable_oauth"
Length of output: 961
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for error handling patterns in other source files
echo "Checking error handling patterns in other sources:"
rg "try {" "components/airtable_oauth/sources" -A 3
echo "\nChecking similar source implementations:"
rg "async run\(\)" "components/airtable_oauth/sources" -A 10
Length of output: 6273
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for error handling in the app and sources
echo "Checking error handling in app.mjs:"
fd "airtable_oauth.app.mjs" -x cat {}
echo "\nChecking source implementations with error handling:"
fd "new-or-modified-field.mjs" -x cat {}
Length of output: 14150
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-or-update-record/create-or-update-record.mjs (3)
29-29: LGTM! Description improvements enhance usability
The updated description provides clearer guidance on record ID usage and better explains the create/update behavior.
Line range hint 45-52: LGTM! Implementation aligns with documentation
The core logic correctly implements the documented behavior:
- Creates a new record when recordId is not provided
- Updates an existing record when recordId is present
7-9: Verify if version bump follows semantic versioning
The metadata changes improve clarity and documentation. However, the version bump from 0.0.8 to 0.1.0 suggests a minor feature addition. Let's verify if this aligns with semantic versioning guidelines.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/list-records-in-view/list-records-in-view.mjs (2)
7-7: LGTM! Documentation and version updates are appropriate.
The description is more concise and includes a helpful link to official documentation. Version increment follows semantic versioning for minor changes.
Also applies to: 9-9
12-16: LGTM! Enterprise requirement alert is well-placed.
The alert effectively informs users about the Enterprise account requirement and provides a documentation link for more information.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (1)
4-5: LGTM! Documentation updates improve clarity.
The name, description, and property documentation changes make the component's purpose clearer. Version increment is appropriate.
Also applies to: 7-7, 19-19
components/airtable_oauth/actions/get-record-or-create/get-record-or-create.mjs (1)
8-9: LGTM! Documentation and version updates look good.
The description update improves clarity by adding a documentation link, and the version bump follows semantic versioning for minor changes.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs (1)
12-33: Great improvement to props structure!
The refactoring of props into individual fields (name, type, description, options) with clear labels and descriptions significantly improves usability. The documentation links and type constraints will help users better understand the available options.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs (2)
17-28: Good improvement to change type labels!
The conversion of CHANGE_TYPES to objects with clear labels improves UI readability while maintaining backward compatibility through the value property.
72-107: Verify FIELD_TYPES completeness
The FIELD_TYPES list appears comprehensive, but let's verify against Airtable's API documentation to ensure no field types are missing.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search showed references to field types and a FieldType enum in constants.mjs. Let's verify the actual enum definition to compare it with our FIELD_TYPES array.
Field types list is complete and matches the enum
After comparing the FIELD_TYPES array with the FieldType enum in the same file, I can confirm that all field types are properly included. The array matches exactly with the enum values, including the recently added aiText type. The list is comprehensive and aligns with Airtable's API documentation referenced in the code comments.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any other field type references in the codebase
rg -i 'field.*type' components/airtable_oauth/
# Check if there are any field types mentioned in comments or documentation
rg -i 'field.*type' --type md components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 6646
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual field type definitions in the codebase
cat components/airtable_oauth/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 1584
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-multiple-records/create-multiple-records.mjs (2)
11-12: Documentation and version update looks good!
The description now includes a helpful link to the API documentation and the version bump is appropriate for the feature additions.
22-30: Well-structured guidance for custom expressions
The new customExpressionInfo property provides clear examples and guidance for users on how to:
- Use object literals in expressions
- Reference previous step outputs
- Work with arrays
This is a good usability improvement.
components/airtable_oauth/common/actions.mjs (1)
26-26: Verify customExpressionInfo propDefinition
The addition of customExpressionInfo to manual table input props is consistent with the improvements in create-multiple-records.mjs. However, let's verify its definition in the app file.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for the definition of customExpressionInfo in the app file.
Let me try searching in the entire directory for the definition:
Now I found the correct app file path. Let me search for the propDefinitions and customExpressionInfo:
✓ customExpressionInfo prop is properly defined
The customExpressionInfo prop is correctly defined in the app file as an info alert type prop that provides guidance about custom expressions usage. Its addition to the manual table input props is consistent with the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if customExpressionInfo is properly defined in the app file
rg -A 5 "customExpressionInfo.*propDefinitions" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 609
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for customExpressionInfo definition in app.mjs
rg -A 5 "customExpressionInfo.*=" components/airtable_oauth/app.mjs
Length of output: 143
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for customExpressionInfo definition in all files
rg -A 5 "customExpressionInfo.*=" components/airtable_oauth/ || true
# Also search for propDefinitions to locate the app file
fd "app" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 154
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for propDefinitions and customExpressionInfo in the app file
rg -A 10 "propDefinitions\s*=|customExpressionInfo" components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs
Length of output: 508
components/airtable_oauth/actions/search-records/search-records.mjs (2)
7-8: Documentation improvements and version bump look good
The description is now more concise and includes a link to the API documentation. Version bump is appropriate for documentation changes.
35-35: Excellent formula documentation with practical example
The search formula description now includes:
- A direct link to the formula reference documentation
- A practical example showing how to search Tags
- Clear explanation of the syntax
This is a great usability improvement.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (3)
31-47: LGTM! Great improvements to user guidance.
The addition of info boxes and the new changeTypes property significantly improves user guidance and configuration flexibility. The alerts provide clear context about the available options and their implications.
Line range hint 74-126: LGTM! Clear and consistent description updates.
The description updates across multiple properties maintain consistency in terminology and provide clearer explanations of each property's purpose.
6-9: Verify version bump implications.
The version has been bumped from 0.0.2 to 0.1.0, which typically indicates breaking changes or significant new features. Please ensure all breaking changes are documented.
components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs (3)
223-228: LGTM! Helpful custom expression guidance.
The new customExpressionInfo property provides clear examples and guidance for using custom expressions, which will help users understand how to properly format their inputs.
21-21: LGTM! Clear and consistent documentation updates.
The description updates across multiple properties improve clarity and maintain consistency in terminology.
Also applies to: 47-47, 66-66, 89-89, 184-184, 190-190, 198-198, 204-204, 210-210, 215-215, 221-221
208-210: Verify the impact of records type change.
The type of records property has changed from string to string[], which could be a breaking change.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
The records type change is safe and consistent with its usage
The records property type change from string to string[] in airtable_oauth.app.mjs is actually a correction to match its actual usage in the codebase. The property is used in the create-multiple-records action where it's explicitly expected to be an array of records, and the code already handles both string (which gets parsed as JSON array) and array inputs through:
let data = this.records;
if (!Array.isArray(data)) {
data = JSON.parse(data);
}This type change improves type safety by correctly declaring the expected type without breaking existing functionality.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of the records property
ast-grep --pattern 'records: $_'
Length of output: 34
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of records property in a more comprehensive way
rg -l "records" --type js --type mjs
# For files that contain "records", show the context
rg "records" --type js --type mjs -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 136
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for files containing "records" without file type restriction
rg -l "records"
# For files containing "records", show the context
rg "records" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 66367
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of the records property in the specific file and its related files
rg "records" components/airtable_oauth/ -B 2 -A 2
# Search for the specific property type change
rg "type.*string\[\].*records" components/airtable_oauth/ -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 26966
| description: "Delete a record from a table by record ID. [See the documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/delete-record)", | ||
| version: "0.0.7", | ||
| description: "Delete a selected record from a table. [See the documentation](https://airtable.com/developers/web/api/delete-record)", | ||
| version: "0.0.8", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Version inconsistency detected across Airtable OAuth components
The version numbers are not consistent across the components:
- Most action components use version "0.0.8" (including delete-record.mjs)
- Some action components have higher versions:
- get-record.mjs and get-record-or-create.mjs: "0.0.9"
- search-records.mjs: "0.0.10"
- create-field.mjs and create-or-update-record.mjs: "0.1.0"
- Source components have varying versions from "0.0.7" to "0.1.0"
Consider aligning the versions or documenting the reason for version differences.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify version consistency across Airtable OAuth components.
The version bump to "0.0.8" is appropriate for the description change. However, we should ensure version consistency across related Airtable OAuth components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check version numbers across Airtable OAuth components
# Expected: All components should have the same version number
echo "Checking version numbers in Airtable OAuth components..."
rg -g '*.mjs' '"version":\s*"[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+"' components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 205
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different pattern that matches the version format in the file
echo "Checking version numbers in Airtable OAuth components..."
rg -g '*.mjs' 'version: "[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+"' components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 2498
| optional: true, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| async run({ $ }) { | ||
| if (!this.name && !this.description) { | ||
| throw new ConfigurationError("At least one of `name` or `description` must be provided."); | ||
| throw new ConfigurationError("At least one of `Name` or `Description` must be provided."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Error message formatting is inconsistent with codebase patterns
Looking at the error messages across the Airtable OAuth components, the standard pattern is to use backticks only for dynamic values or technical identifiers (e.g., true, base IDs, table IDs). Other error messages use plain text for field names when referring to UI elements. For consistency, the error message should not wrap "Name" and "Description" in backticks.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/update-field/update-field.mjs: Change to "At least one of Name or Description must be provided."
🔗 Analysis chain
Error message formatting improvement
The updated error message now matches the UI field labels, making it more user-friendly.
Let's check for consistency with other error messages in the codebase:
Let me search for more error messages to get a better understanding of the error message formatting patterns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar error messages in other Airtable OAuth components
rg -g "components/airtable_oauth/**" "must be provided" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 555
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for ConfigurationError messages in Airtable OAuth components
rg -g "components/airtable_oauth/**" "ConfigurationError" -B 1 -A 1
# Also search for error messages with backticks
rg -g "components/airtable_oauth/**" '`\w+`' -B 1 -A 1
Length of output: 6457
| const { | ||
| description, name, options, type, | ||
| } = this; | ||
| const response = await this.airtable.createField({ | ||
| baseId: this.baseId.value, | ||
| tableId: this.tableId.value, | ||
| data, | ||
| data: { | ||
| name, | ||
| type, | ||
| description, | ||
| options: typeof options === "string" | ||
| ? JSON.parse(options) | ||
| : options, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Add error handling for JSON parsing to match existing patterns
Looking at the codebase, other Airtable components (like create-multiple-records) implement proper JSON parsing error handling with try-catch blocks and specific error messages. The create-field action should follow the same pattern for consistency and robustness.
components/airtable_oauth/actions/create-field/create-field.mjs: Add try-catch block for JSON parsing of options
options: typeof options === "string"
- ? JSON.parse(options)
+ ? (() => {
+ try {
+ return JSON.parse(options);
+ } catch (err) {
+ throw new ConfigurationError(`Error parsing options as JSON: ${err.message}`);
+ }
+ })()
: options,🔗 Analysis chain
Verify options parsing safety
The code safely handles options parsing, but consider adding error handling for malformed JSON input.
Consider adding try-catch for JSON parsing:
options: typeof options === "string"
- ? JSON.parse(options)
+ ? (() => {
+ try {
+ return JSON.parse(options);
+ } catch (e) {
+ throw new Error(`Invalid JSON in options: ${e.message}`);
+ }
+ })()
: options,🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for error handling patterns in similar Airtable actions
rg -A 5 'JSON.parse.*try' components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 54
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for any JSON.parse usage in Airtable components to understand error handling patterns
rg -A 5 'JSON\.parse' components/airtable_oauth/
# Also search for similar field creation patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'createField({
$$$
data: {
$$$
}
})'
Length of output: 2411
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (4)
50-83: Add error handling for webhook creation
Currently, the activate() hook does not explicitly catch errors raised by createWebhook. If the Airtable API call fails, it might cause the source to remain in a partially activated state.Consider wrapping the createWebhook call in a try/catch block, logging or handling any errors to provide clear debugging info and ensure the source does not remain misconfigured.
84-92: Gracefully handle webhook deletion errors
Similar to the activate() hook, if deleteWebhook fails, the code does not catch exceptions. This could leave stale webhooks on Airtable’s side.Surround await deleteWebhook() with a try/catch block to gracefully handle errors, log them, and reduce stale webhook entries.
101-103: Consider implementing or removing placeholder method
The getSpecificationOptions() method throws an unimplemented error. If there's no near-term plan to implement it, consider removing the placeholder or documenting how and when it will be completed.Need help preparing an implementation or creating a follow-up ticket?
116-117: Fix ESLint trailing comma warning
According to the static analysis hints, there's a missing trailing comma in this code block.Here’s a diff to fix it:
getChangeTypes() { return this.changeTypes; } -} +},🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 116-117: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (1)
22-28: Consider adding a default valueThe
includePreviousFieldDefinitionsproperty is well-defined, but consider adding a default value for better usability. This would make it clearer what behavior to expect when the property is not explicitly set.includePreviousFieldDefinitions: { type: "boolean", label: "Include Previous Field Definitions", description: "If true, include the previous field definition in the event payload", optional: true, + default: false, },components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (2)
14-21: Consider enhancing the changeTypes descriptionWhile the current description is clear, it could be more helpful to list the available update types directly in the description.
- description: "Select the types of record updates that should emit events. If not specified, all updates will emit events.", + description: "Select the types of record updates that should emit events (created, updated, deleted). If not specified, all updates will emit events.",
24-27: Add JSDoc comment for getDataTypes methodThe purpose of this method isn't immediately clear. Consider adding documentation to explain its role and usage.
+ /** + * Specifies the types of data this webhook should receive + * @returns {string[]} Array containing "tableData" to receive table record events + */ getDataTypes() { return ["tableData"]; }🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
[error] 116-117: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
🔇 Additional comments (13)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (3)
6-48: Looks good: verify optional prop usage
Your props definitions (tableId, viewId, and fromSources) are well structured, providing flexible filtering of events from Airtable. However, if the user or child classes don't supply the optional props or supply invalid values, it might lead to unintended behavior.
Please confirm that downstream logic (e.g., references to tableId, viewId) properly handle the absence of these props to avoid unexpected errors.
112-117: Check existence and defaults for dataTypes and changeTypes
Currently, getDataTypes() and getChangeTypes() simply return this.dataTypes and this.changeTypes, but these are not defined here. If they’re expected to be passed in or set by a child component, consider providing defaults or verifying their presence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 116-117: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
118-142: Verify payload structure
In the run() method, we parse payload.timestamp without validating its presence. If the timestamp is missing or invalid, Date.parse(payload.timestamp) may yield NaN.
Ensure that all payloads contain a valid timestamp. If not guaranteed, consider adding error handling or defaulting to Date.now().
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs (4)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are well-structured
The imports correctly reference the OAuth app and common webhook functionality.
4-7: LGTM: Clean extension of common webhook functionality
The code properly extends the common webhook configuration using the spread operator.
35-41: LGTM: Well-structured boolean flag
The includePreviousCellValues property is well-defined with clear purpose and appropriate optionality.
8-34: Consider creating a dedicated field ID selector propDefinition
The current implementation reuses the sortFieldId propDefinition for field selection, which might not be the most semantically appropriate choice. Consider creating a dedicated fieldId propDefinition that's specifically designed for field selection purposes.
- "sortFieldId",
+ "fieldId",Let's verify the field ID implementation in the Airtable app:
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (4)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are well-structured
The imports are correctly organized, importing the necessary dependencies from appropriate relative paths.
4-7: LGTM: Clean inheritance pattern
The object composition using spread operators is well-structured, properly extending the common webhook module while maintaining a clean separation of concerns.
1-30: Verify webhook integration and error handling
Please ensure that:
- The field watching mechanism properly integrates with Airtable's webhook system
- Error handling is consistent when field schemas change or become invalid
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the webhook integration by checking the implementation details.
Webhook integration and error handling are properly implemented
The verification shows that:
- The webhook integration is robust with proper lifecycle management (activate/deactivate hooks)
- Error handling is implemented through:
- Proper webhook creation/deletion in activate/deactivate hooks
- Error throwing for unimplemented methods
- HTTP response handling in the run method
- The field watching mechanism is correctly integrated with Airtable's webhook system through the specification options
The common-webhook-field.mjs extends this base implementation with field-specific watching capabilities, maintaining the established error handling patterns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for error handling patterns in related webhook files
# Search for error handling patterns in webhook-related files
rg -A 5 "try|catch|throw|error" "components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/"
# Check for webhook integration patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'webhook.$$$' "components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/"
Length of output: 737
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the common webhook implementation
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
# Look for webhook handler implementations
rg -l "webhook" components/airtable_oauth/sources/
# Check for any webhook-related test files
fd "test|spec" components/airtable_oauth/sources/
Length of output: 4343
8-21: Verify the appropriate propDefinition reference
The property uses sortFieldId propDefinition from Airtable app, but this might not be the most appropriate choice for field schema watching. Consider verifying if there's a more specific propDefinition available for field selection.
✅ Verification successful
Reusing sortFieldId propDefinition is appropriate in this context
The sortFieldId propDefinition is actually a suitable choice here as it:
- Returns a list of all fields from a table with their IDs as values
- Accepts the same context parameters (baseId and tableId)
- Provides the same field selection interface needed for watching field schemas
The reuse promotes consistency in the API and avoids duplication since both properties need the same field selection capability. The only difference is in the label and description, which are correctly customized for the watchSchemasOfFieldIds use case.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if there are more appropriate field-related propDefinitions in the Airtable app
# Search for field-related propDefinitions in the Airtable app
rg -A 5 "propDefinition.*field" "components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs"
Length of output: 82
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for field-related properties in the Airtable app
rg -i "field" "components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs"
# Also check the actual usage of watchSchemasOfFieldIds
rg -i "watchSchemasOfFieldIds" "components/airtable_oauth/"
# Let's also look at sortFieldId definition since it's being referenced
ast-grep --pattern 'sortFieldId: {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 2513
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (2)
1-6: LGTM! Good modular design
The refactoring to use common modules improves code reusability and maintainability.
7-10: Verify semantic versioning for this update
The version bump from 0.0.2 to 0.1.0 suggests significant functionality changes. Please ensure this aligns with semantic versioning principles:
- MAJOR version (0.x.x): API incompatible changes
- MINOR version (x.1.x): Added functionality in a backward compatible manner
- PATCH version (x.x.2): Backward compatible bug fixes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (2)
6-8: Clarify extensibility of data types.Returning ["tableFields"] alone is fine for your current use case, but consider whether you might need future data types. In that scenario, returning multiple items, or providing a mechanism to add more types, can help extend this component's capabilities without refactoring later.
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 7-7: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 7-7: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
7-7: Address ESLintarray-bracket-newlinewarnings.Static analysis flags the array as requiring line breaks around the brackets. While it's a style preference, confirm if your project’s coding style mandates this rule.
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 7-7: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 7-7: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (1)
11-13: Consolidate methods and fix style
Inheriting common methods with "...common.methods" is a good approach. Additionally, the static analysis tool suggests placing each array element on its own line.Consider adjusting the array style:
- return ["add"] + return [ + "add", + ]🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs (1)
10-15: Indentation, Semicolons, and Optional Trailing Comma
Your new methods block is functionally correct, but ESLint reports style issues (indentation, missing semicolons, bracket newlines, and missing trailing commas). Consider applying these suggested fixes to maintain consistent code style:export default { ...common, name: "New Record(s) Created (Instant)", description: "Emit new event for each new record in a table", key: "airtable_oauth-new-records", version: "1.0.0", type: "source", - methods: { - ...common.methods, - getChangeTypes() { - return ["add"] - } - }, + methods: { + ...common.methods, + getChangeTypes() { + return [ + "add", + ]; + }, + }, };🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 10-10: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
[error] 11-11: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 12-12: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: Expected indentation of 6 spaces but found 8.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-14: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 14-14: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 14-15: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 15-15: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (1)
12-13: Style Nitpick: Array Element NewlineESLint flags suggest adding line breaks inside the array. While purely stylistic, it may be required for passing lint checks:
Apply this diff to conform to the ESLint rule:
getChangeTypes() { - return ["add", "update"]; + return [ + "add", + "update", + ]; }🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs (1)
10-11: Consider updating the record limit in the descriptionThe description mentions support for "tables up to 10,000 records" but doesn't explain what happens beyond this limit. Consider adding a warning or clarifying the behavior when this limit is exceeded.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (1)
24-27: Improve array formatting for better readabilityWhile the logic is correct, let's improve the formatting to match the project's style guide.
- getDataTypes() { - return ["tableData"]; - } + getDataTypes() { + return [ + "tableData", + ]; + }🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/test-event.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs(0 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/test-event.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
[error] 10-10: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
[error] 11-11: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 12-12: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: Expected indentation of 6 spaces but found 8.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-14: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 14-14: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 14-15: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 15-15: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
[error] 7-7: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 7-7: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
[error] 9-9: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 9-9: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs
[error] 10-10: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
[error] 11-11: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 12-12: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: Expected indentation of 6 spaces but found 8.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-14: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 14-14: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 14-15: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 15-15: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
🔇 Additional comments (23)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (2)
11-19: Ensure prop naming is consistent.
The property name “watchSchemasOfFieldIds” is descriptive, but verify any references or calls in the codebase use the same naming convention. Inconsistencies can cause confusion or runtime errors.
25-31: Optional property aligns well with usability goals.
Allowing users to specify whether to include previous field definitions is a clear improvement. This design pattern helps preserve backward compatibility for those who don't need the extra details.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (4)
1-1: Confirm import path correctness and usage
The import path "common-webhook-field.mjs" appears correct if that file exports the expected functionality.
4-4: Ensure order of spread
Spreading "common" at the start is fine, but confirm that all necessary configuration from "common" remains unaffected by subsequent properties of the exported object.
5-6: Descriptive naming and helpful documentation
Good improvement on the name and description. Providing a link to the official docs helps users quickly find relevant information.
8-8: Major version bump
Confirm that introducing a major version "1.0.0" aligns with the project's semantic versioning policy and coordinate with any consumers who rely on the previous version.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs (4)
1-1: Good import reference
Importing the extended common module from "common-webhook-record.mjs" is consistent with the new approach of separating record-based logic into a shared resource. This ensures maintainability and modular design.
4-4: Proper Spread Usage
Spreading “common” preserves the existing configuration and methods from the shared module, which is a clean approach to code reuse.
5-5: Clarified Event Source Name
Renaming the source to “New Record(s) Created (Instant)” is more user-friendly and descriptive, clearly reflecting the event’s purpose.
8-8: Version Bump
Increasing the version to “1.0.0” signals stability. Verify it aligns with any existing versioning strategy for this integration and that downstream references are updated if needed.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs (3)
1-3: Centralized Imports
Importing both the Airtable app module and the shared webhook logic at the top is a clear structure. This pattern promotes modularity by keeping external dependencies well organized.
4-11: Extended Methods with getDataTypes
Spreading “common” and adding “getDataTypes” fosters a clean, layered approach. Returning ["tableData"] clarifies that this source focuses on record-level data. Continue ensuring each new method has comprehensive test coverage.
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 9-9: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 9-9: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
12-49: Granular Control over Watched Fields
Adding props like “watchDataInFieldIds,” “includeCellValuesInFieldIds,” and “includePreviousCellValues” provides powerful and granular event filtering. Confirm the usage logic handles empty arrays or omitted fields gracefully—especially in large bases—to avoid inadvertent omissions or performance bottlenecks.
If edge cases arise, consider defaulting these arrays or adding validations. Let us know if you need help implementing them.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (2)
4-4: Configuration Import Looks Good
Importing spread properties from the new webhook record module is a clear and modular approach. No issues detected here.
7-7: Clearer Documentation
The updated description clarifies that both new and modified records emit events. This improvement in clarity should enhance user understanding.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs (1)
8-8: Clarify the rationale for the major version bump
The version has been incremented from 0.0.7 to 1.0.0, suggesting breaking changes. However, no significant breaking changes are visible in this file. Please clarify if there are breaking changes in related files or behavioral changes that justify this major version increment.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the git diff and package.json inspection, I can now generate a final response:
Major version bump justified by significant architectural changes
The version bump from 0.0.7 to 1.0.0 is justified by several significant architectural changes:
- Migration to a new webhook-based architecture (common-webhook.mjs, common-webhook-record.mjs, common-webhook-field.mjs)
- Improved filtering and event handling with new data types and change types
- Enhanced field type support with standardized constants
- Restructured component properties and descriptions
- More robust error handling and validation
These changes represent a significant architectural improvement that warrants the major version increment, even though they may not be breaking changes from an end-user perspective.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for related changes in other Airtable OAuth files
echo "Checking for changes in related files..."
fd . components/airtable_oauth -t f --exec rg -l "version.*0\.0\.7"
echo "Checking for breaking changes documentation..."
fd . -t f -e md --exec rg -l "BREAKING CHANGES|BREAKING-CHANGES|breaking changes"
Length of output: 347
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check git history for version changes and related commits
echo "Checking git history for version changes in this file..."
git log -p -- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs | grep -A 5 -B 5 "version:"
# Let's check for any recent changes in the component
echo "Checking recent changes in the component..."
fd . components/airtable_oauth -t f -e mjs -e js --exec git diff HEAD~5 -- {} | grep -A 5 -B 5 "^[-+]"
# Let's check package.json for version info
echo "Checking package.json in the component..."
fd package.json components/airtable_oauth -x cat {}
# Let's check for any changelog or release notes
echo "Checking for changelog..."
fd CHANGELOG.md components/airtable_oauth -x cat {}
Length of output: 58737
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (3)
1-4: Verify the common webhook field module exists
The import path has been updated to use common-webhook-field.mjs. Let's verify this module exists and contains the expected functionality.
✅ Verification successful
Import path is valid and module exists with expected functionality
The import path ../common/common-webhook-field.mjs is valid and the module exists. The module provides common webhook field functionality and is properly used by multiple components including new-or-modified-field and new-field. The imported module contains the expected field-watching capabilities and schema-related properties that are needed by the importing components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and exports of the common webhook field module
# Check if the file exists relative to this component
fd -e mjs "common-webhook-field.mjs" components/airtable_oauth
# Check the exports from the common module
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 78018
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the common-webhook-field.mjs module content since we found it exists
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
# Also check if there are any other files importing this module
rg -l "common-webhook-field.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 1169
5-8:
Major version bump (1.0.0) requires documentation of breaking changes
The version has been bumped from 0.0.7 to 1.0.0, which indicates breaking changes according to semantic versioning. Please document these changes in the changelog or PR description.
12-13: Verify supported change types for Airtable fields
Please confirm that "add" and "update" are the only relevant change types for field modifications in Airtable. Consider if "delete" should also be included.
✅ Verification successful
"add" and "update" are the correct change types for this source
Based on the code analysis:
- The constants file shows all possible change types: "add", "remove", and "update"
- This source specifically handles "New or Modified Field" events, so it correctly includes only "add" and "update"
- For deletion events, there's a separate source component, as evidenced by the presence of "new-modified-or-deleted-records" in the file listing
- The "new-field" source only uses "add", further confirming the intentional separation of concerns
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for other change type implementations in Airtable components
# Search for other getChangeTypes implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'getChangeTypes() {
$$$
}'
# Search for references to change types
rg -A 2 'change.*type|event.*type' components/airtable_oauth
Length of output: 112
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find change type implementations and usage
# Search for files containing "change" or "type" in the Airtable component
fd . components/airtable_oauth -t f -x grep -l -i "change\|type" {} \;
# Look for webhook or event handling code
rg -l "webhook|event" components/airtable_oauth
# Try to find the source file content to understand the context better
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
# Search for documentation or schema files
fd . components/airtable_oauth -t f -e md -e json
Length of output: 3916
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the common webhook field implementation and other field-related sources
# Check common webhook field implementation
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
# Check new field source implementation
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs
# Look for any field-related constants
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs
# Search for delete operations in field-related files
rg "delete" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
Length of output: 3764
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 12-12: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: Expected indentation of 6 spaces but found 8.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (4)
1-6: LGTM! Good modularization.
The refactoring to use common modules improves code reusability and maintainability.
14-22: LGTM! Clear property definitions.
The property definitions are well-structured with:
- Proper extension of common props
- Clear labeling and description for update types
- Good use of constants for options
Line range hint 1-31: Consider updating documentation
Given the significant refactoring and property changes, please ensure that:
- The documentation reflects the new component structure
- Migration guides are available for users updating from previous versions
✅ Verification successful
Documentation is up to date, no action required
The documentation is well-maintained and already covers the recent changes:
- The OAuth migration guide (
docs-v2/pages/airtable/oauth-migration-2024-02/index.mdx) thoroughly documents the transition from API Key to OAuth authentication - The component README (
components/airtable_oauth/README.md) reflects the current OAuth-based implementation - The property changes in the component are part of this documented OAuth migration
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for documentation files that might need updates
fd -e md -e mdx . | grep -i "airtable"
Length of output: 131
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check content of the documentation files
echo "=== Checking OAuth migration guide ==="
cat docs-v2/pages/airtable/oauth-migration-2024-02/index.mdx
echo -e "\n=== Checking component README ==="
cat components/airtable_oauth/README.md
Length of output: 5160
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 27-28: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
7-10: Verify version bump rationale
The version bump from 0.0.2 to 0.1.0 suggests a minor feature release. Please confirm if this aligns with semantic versioning guidelines, considering:
- Are these changes backward compatible?
- Do they introduce new functionality?
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the changes between versions to better assess the version bump rationale.
Let me check the actual changes in the component's implementation to understand if there are any breaking changes or new features.
Let me check the common component it extends to understand if there are any breaking changes in the inheritance chain.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Version bump from 0.0.2 to 0.1.0 appears justified
The version bump to 0.1.0 is appropriate as the changes are backward compatible and introduce new functionality:
- Component extends common-webhook-record.mjs without breaking changes
- Adds new optional
changeTypesprop for filtering record update types - Maintains compatibility with existing webhook implementation
- Inherits and preserves all common props and methods
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for breaking changes in the codebase
# Look for removed exports or changed method signatures
# Search for any references to the old name
rg -i "New Modified or Deleted Records \(Instant\)"
# Look for potential usage of removed properties
rg "fromSouces|watchDataInFieldIds|watchSchemasOfFieldIds|includeCellValuesInFieldIds|includePreviousCellValues|includePreviousFieldDefinitions"
Length of output: 1330
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check git history for the specific file to understand changes
git log -p --no-merges components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs | head -n 100
# Look for props.js or similar files that might define the component's interface
fd props.js
fd "props.(ts|mjs)"
# Check for any test files related to this component
fd -e test.js -e spec.js -e test.mjs -e spec.mjs new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant
Length of output: 976
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the component's implementation details
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
}' components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
# Check for any changes in the props or methods
rg -A 5 "props:|methods:" components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
# Check if this component extends or uses common components
rg "extends |import.*from.*common" components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
Length of output: 4786
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the common component it extends
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
}' components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
# Check if there are any breaking changes in the constants
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
}' components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs
# Look for any changes in the webhook implementation
rg -A 5 "getWebhookData|processEvent" components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
Length of output: 5220
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...s/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| methods: { | ||
| ...common.methods, | ||
| getChangeTypes() { | ||
| return ["add", "update"] | ||
| } | ||
| const summary = prevFields[field.id] | ||
| ? `${field.name} Updated` | ||
| : `${field.name} Created`; | ||
| prevFields[field.id] = JSON.stringify(field); | ||
|
|
||
| this.$emit(field, { | ||
| id: field.id, | ||
| summary, | ||
| ts: Date.now(), | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| this._setPrevFields(prevFields); | ||
| }, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Fix indentation and formatting issues
The methods section has inconsistent indentation. Please fix the following:
- Line 10: Reduce indentation to 2 spaces
- Lines 11-14: Adjust nested indentation accordingly
- Add trailing comma after the methods block
Apply this diff to fix the formatting:
- methods: {
- ...common.methods,
- getChangeTypes() {
- return ["add", "update"]
- }
- },
+ methods: {
+ ...common.methods,
+ getChangeTypes() {
+ return ["add", "update"];
+ },
+ },📝 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.
| methods: { | |
| ...common.methods, | |
| getChangeTypes() { | |
| return ["add", "update"] | |
| } | |
| const summary = prevFields[field.id] | |
| ? `${field.name} Updated` | |
| : `${field.name} Created`; | |
| prevFields[field.id] = JSON.stringify(field); | |
| this.$emit(field, { | |
| id: field.id, | |
| summary, | |
| ts: Date.now(), | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| this._setPrevFields(prevFields); | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| methods: { | |
| ...common.methods, | |
| getChangeTypes() { | |
| return ["add", "update"]; | |
| }, | |
| }, |
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 10-10: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
[error] 11-11: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 12-12: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: Expected indentation of 6 spaces but found 8.
(indent)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-13: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 13-13: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 13-14: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 14-14: Expected indentation of 4 spaces but found 6.
(indent)
[error] 14-15: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 15-15: Expected indentation of 2 spaces but found 4.
(indent)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (1)
1-16: Excellent architectural improvementsThe refactoring has significantly improved the code organization by:
- Moving common functionality to a shared module
- Maintaining a clear separation of concerns
- Reducing code duplication
- Providing focused and well-named methods
These changes will make the code more maintainable and easier to understand.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (2)
1-3: Consider adding basic error handling for the create/delete webhook calls.
While it's fine that these are async calls, wrapping them in try/catch blocks can help gracefully handle possible API failures, log relevant errors, and avoid unhandled promise rejections.
101-103: Implement or remove unimplemented method.
This method throws a "not implemented" error. If you have no near-future plans to implement it, consider removing the method to avoid confusion. Otherwise, document expected usage or timeframe.components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (2)
13-26: Check consistency of “watchSchemasOfFieldIds” with your naming conventions.
All references (docs, prop definitions, usage) should consistently name this property. If you plan to watch only schema changes, ensure the logic ignores any other changes in the Airtable response.
27-33: Document potential size constraints.
If a table has many fields and the user sets “includePreviousFieldDefinitions = true,” that might inflate payload size. A small note in the UI or docs might help users optimize.components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs (2)
30-42: Include or rename the property for clarity.
“Include Cell Values in Field Ids” might confuse users. If it’s meant to always retrieve certain fields’ data, consider rewording to “Always Include Fields.” This helps avoid misinterpretation.
43-49: Be mindful of potential data bloat.
If “includePreviousCellValues” is true and a record has many large fields, the payload can grow significantly. Consider advising users or adding an upper limit on the number of prior values.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (17)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (2)
1-1: Verify the common module implementation
The change to use common-webhook-field.mjs instead of common.mjs appears to be part of a modular restructuring. Let's verify the new common module exists and contains the expected functionality.
Also applies to: 4-4
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the common module hierarchy by checking the contents of common-webhook.mjs since it's imported by common-webhook-field.mjs.
Import change is part of a valid modular restructuring
The verification confirms that:
- The new
common-webhook-field.mjsmodule exists and properly extendscommon-webhook.mjs - The module is consistently used by both
new-fieldandnew-or-modified-fieldcomponents - The module hierarchy (
common-webhook-field.mjs→common-webhook.mjs) provides specialized webhook functionality for field-related events - The old
common.mjsreferences are only present in action components, not in source components, indicating a clean separation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and contents of the common module
# Check if the file exists and show its contents
echo "Checking common-webhook-field.mjs contents:"
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs 2>/dev/null || echo "File not found"
# Look for other components using this common module
echo -e "\nChecking other components using this module:"
rg -l "common-webhook-field.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 1384
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the contents of common-webhook.mjs
echo "Checking common-webhook.mjs contents:"
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs 2>/dev/null || echo "File not found"
# Check if there are any references to the old common.mjs
echo -e "\nChecking for references to common.mjs:"
rg -l "common\.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 5059
11-15: Verify consistency of change type handling
The new getChangeTypes() method returns ["add"] for field creation events. Let's verify if this pattern is consistently implemented across other Airtable components.
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the content of these webhook files to understand the change type implementations better.
Change type handling is consistent across components
The implementation is verified to be consistent across the Airtable components:
new-field.mjscorrectly returns["add"]for field creation eventsnew-or-modified-field.mjsreturns["add", "update"]for both new and modified fieldsnew-records.mjsreturns["add"]for new recordsnew-or-modified-records.mjsreturns["add", "update"]for both new and modified records- The common webhook implementation provides the base structure with
getChangeTypes()method
Each component appropriately implements getChangeTypes() based on its specific event monitoring needs, following a consistent pattern throughout the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent implementation of getChangeTypes across components
# Search for other getChangeTypes implementations
echo "Checking other getChangeTypes implementations:"
ast-grep --pattern 'getChangeTypes() {
$$$
}'
# Look for similar webhook components
echo -e "\nChecking other webhook components:"
fd -g "*webhook*.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 481
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check contents of common webhook files for change type patterns
echo "Content of common-webhook-field.mjs:"
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
echo -e "\nContent of common-webhook-record.mjs:"
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
# Also search for any other files with getChangeTypes implementation
echo -e "\nSearching for other files with getChangeTypes:"
rg "getChangeTypes" components/airtable_oauth/ -A 3
Length of output: 4878
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs (2)
1-1: Verify the common webhook record implementation
The shift to using a shared implementation via common-webhook-record.mjs is a good architectural decision. However, we should verify that all necessary functionality from the previous implementation is covered by the common module.
Also applies to: 4-4
✅ Verification successful
Common webhook implementation is properly structured and used correctly
The architectural change to use a shared implementation is well-implemented:
- The common-webhook-record.mjs extends common-webhook.mjs with record-specific functionality
- All three components (new-records, new-or-modified-records, and new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant) properly inherit and customize the common implementation
- Each component correctly specifies its change types through the getChangeTypes() method
- The new-records component specifically focuses on 'add' events as intended
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the common webhook record implementation
# Check if the common module exists and examine its contents
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
# Look for any other files that might be affected by this architectural change
fd -e mjs -e js . components/airtable_oauth/sources/ --exec grep -l "common-webhook-record"
Length of output: 1740
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the common-webhook.mjs file that's being imported
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
# Also check the implementation of the files using this common module
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs
Length of output: 5780
10-15: Verify the removal of other change types
The implementation now only handles the 'add' change type. Please confirm:
- If other change types were supported in the previous version
- If this limitation is intentional
- If users need to be informed about this change
✅ Verification successful
Limitation to 'add' change type is correct for new-records source
Based on the codebase analysis:
- The source is specifically named "new-records", so it's intentionally designed to handle only new record creation events
- Other dedicated sources exist for different change type combinations:
new-or-modified-records: handles both 'add' and 'update'new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant: handles all change types
- This appears to be a focused implementation that aligns with the source's purpose
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for previous change type implementations
# Look for previous versions or references to change types
rg -A 5 "getChangeTypes|changeType" components/airtable_oauth/
# Check for any documentation mentioning supported change types
fd . components/airtable_oauth/ -e md -e mjs --exec grep -l "change.*type"
Length of output: 4294
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the constants file to understand all supported change types
# and check git history for any recent changes to the new-records source
# Check constants file for supported change types
rg -A 5 "CHANGE_TYPES" components/airtable_oauth/
# Check git history for the specific file
git log -p --since="3 months ago" components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs
# Look for any documentation about new-records source
fd . components/airtable_oauth/ -e md -x grep -l "new-records"
Length of output: 1611
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's see the complete content of the constants file to understand all change types
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/constants.mjs
# Also check if there are any other files that specifically handle only 'add' type
rg -B2 -A2 '\["add"\]' components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 2167
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (3)
8-8: Version Update Consistency Check
The version has been updated to "1.0.0". As noted in previous reviews, this version update should be consistently applied across related components.
11-16: LGTM: Clean implementation of change types
The new getChangeTypes method provides a clear definition of supported change types, which aligns well with the component's purpose. The removal of other methods in favor of common implementations helps reduce code duplication.
1-1: Verify the new common module implementation
The import has been changed to use a more specific common module. Let's verify its implementation and exports.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the examination of the codebase, I can now provide the final response:
Import change is valid and properly implemented
The change from common.mjs to common-webhook-record.mjs is a valid refactoring that follows a proper inheritance chain:
common-webhook-record.mjsextendscommon-webhook.mjswith record-specific functionality- The module properly inherits and extends the base webhook functionality
- The implementation includes appropriate props and methods for record-based webhook handling
- Multiple components in the Airtable OAuth integration are using this same pattern
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and exports of the new common module
# Check if the file exists and examine its contents
fd -e mjs "common-webhook-record.mjs" -x cat {}
# Look for other components using this module
rg "common-webhook-record\.mjs"
Length of output: 1833
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the common-webhook.mjs module that's being imported by common-webhook-record.mjs
fd -e mjs "common-webhook.mjs" -x cat {}
# Also check if there are any other files importing common-webhook.mjs
rg "common-webhook\.mjs"
Length of output: 49345
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the common-webhook.mjs file in the airtable_oauth component
fd -e mjs "common-webhook.mjs" -x cat {} | grep -A 50 "components/airtable_oauth"
Length of output: 81
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find and examine the airtable webhook files
fd -e mjs -p "components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/" -x cat {}
Length of output: 9167
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (3)
11-16: LGTM! Verify change types align with Airtable's capabilities
The implementation of getChangeTypes() looks good and the formatting issues from the previous review have been addressed. Let's verify these change types are consistent with other Airtable webhook components.
✅ Verification successful
Change types are consistent with related components
The implementation is verified to be correct and consistent with other field-related components in the codebase:
new-fieldcomponent uses["add"]new-or-modified-fieldappropriately extends this to include both["add", "update"]- The change types are properly integrated with the common webhook infrastructure
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistency of change types across Airtable components
# Search for other getChangeTypes implementations in Airtable components
ast-grep --pattern 'getChangeTypes() {
return $_;
}'
# Look for Airtable webhook documentation references
fd -e md$ -e mjs$ -x grep -l "webhook.*change.*type\|change.*type.*webhook" {} \;
Length of output: 147
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find change type implementations and documentation
# Search for files containing "getChangeTypes" in Airtable components
rg -l "getChangeTypes" components/airtable
# Search for array literals containing change types in Airtable components
rg -A 2 -B 2 '\["(add|update|delete)"' components/airtable
# Look for webhook documentation or configuration
fd . components/airtable -e md -e mjs -x grep -l "webhook" {} \;
Length of output: 398
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching from the root directory with correct paths
# Search for files containing "getChangeTypes" in airtable_oauth components
rg -l "getChangeTypes" components/airtable_oauth
# Search for array literals containing change types
rg -A 2 -B 2 '\["(add|update|delete)"' components/airtable_oauth
# Look for webhook documentation or configuration
fd . components/airtable_oauth -e md -e mjs -x grep -l "webhook" {} \;
Length of output: 1185
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the getChangeTypes implementations in related files
# Check getChangeTypes implementation in common-webhook.mjs
rg -A 5 "getChangeTypes" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
# Check implementations in other field-related sources
rg -A 5 "getChangeTypes" components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs
rg -A 5 "getChangeTypes" components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
Length of output: 753
1-1: Verify the common module import and its contents
The import path has changed to use common-webhook-field.mjs. Let's verify this module exists and contains the expected functionality.
Also applies to: 4-4
✅ Verification successful
Import path is valid and module structure is correct
The import path ../common/common-webhook-field.mjs is valid and the module exists with the expected functionality. The module is properly structured as a common base for field-related webhook sources, extending from common-webhook.mjs and adding field-specific properties and methods. The module is correctly used by both new-or-modified-field and new-field components.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and contents of the common module
# Check if the file exists relative to this component
fd -p "components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs$"
# Check the exports from the common module
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 81002
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the existence and contents of the common module specifically
fd -p "components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs$" -x cat {}
# Also check for any references to this module in other files
rg -l "common-webhook-field.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 1199
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the common-webhook.mjs module that's imported by common-webhook-field.mjs
fd -p "components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs$" -x cat {}
# Also check the actual usage in the files that reference common-webhook-field.mjs
rg -A 5 "common-webhook-field.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 5199
5-8: Verify implications of major version bump
The version has been increased from 0.0.7 to 1.0.0, which typically indicates breaking changes. Please ensure:
- This follows semantic versioning principles
- Breaking changes are documented
- Users are notified about migration steps if needed
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (2)
104-109: Verify the format of payload.timestamp.
Using Date.parse() depends on the string being in a recognized format. Confirm that payload.timestamp is always valid or handle potential parsing errors.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for more context about the Airtable webhook payload format.
Let me check the Airtable API client implementation to understand how the webhook payloads are handled.
Let me check the Airtable API documentation or types that might be included in the codebase.
The timestamp format is verified to be ISO 8601 and safe to parse
Based on the test event file (test-event.mjs), we can see that Airtable webhooks use standard ISO 8601 timestamp format (e.g., "2024-03-14T18:42:14.226Z"). This format is guaranteed to be correctly parsed by Date.parse() across all JavaScript environments, so no additional error handling is necessary in this case.
The implementation in common.mjs also shows that timestamps are consistently handled in ISO format throughout the codebase, further confirming the reliability of the format.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Attempt to find references to `timestamp` usage in the codebase.
# This helps confirm if there's consistent format usage / docs about `timestamp`.
rg -A 5 "payload.timestamp"
Length of output: 6044
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any documentation, types, or sample payloads related to Airtable webhooks
rg -i "airtable.*webhook.*payload" -A 5
rg -i "airtable.*timestamp" -A 5
# Also search for any test files that might contain sample payloads
fd -e test.js -e test.mjs -e spec.js -e spec.mjs -X rg -l "timestamp"
Length of output: 672
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for Airtable API client implementation and webhook payload handling
ast-grep --pattern 'listWebhookPayloads'
# Also search for any sample webhook implementations or types
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '!dist' -A 10 'listWebhookPayloads'
Length of output: 1781
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for any type definitions or documentation about the webhook payload format
rg -g '*.d.ts' -g '*.md' -g '*.js' -g '*.mjs' -A 5 'baseTransactionNumber|timestamp' components/airtable_oauth/
# Also check for any sample data or test fixtures
fd -e json -X rg -l "timestamp|baseTransactionNumber" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 2658
49-62: Validate filters before sending to Airtable.
Currently, you pass the filters object directly to Airtable, but if any required property is undefined or malformed, the API call may fail or behave unexpectedly. Consider adding lightweight validation or default values for potential null/undefined fields (e.g., this.viewId, this.tableId).
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (3)
6-10: Good clarity in revising the name, description, and version.
The changes improve discoverability and convey that the source triggers on record creation, modification, or deletion.
24-28: Leverage getDataTypes for future expansion.
Defining a dedicated method to return the data type array is a neat approach. It can be extended if the component grows in complexity. Keep up this modular pattern.
14-22: Validate “changeTypes” handling.
The “changeTypes” prop is optional, but your logic should confirm that it’s properly passed to the webhook or used. If not set by the user, ensure your code handles the default scenario (i.e., all updates).
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about how the changeTypes are handled in the webhook implementation.
Let me check how the changeTypes are used in the webhook implementation.
Let me check how the webhook class handles the changeTypes in the common webhook implementation.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
Proper handling of changeTypes confirmed
The implementation correctly handles the optional changeTypes property. When set, it's passed to the webhook via getChangeTypes() method, and when not set, the base implementation in common-webhook.mjs returns the raw value, allowing all update types. The constants.CHANGE_TYPES provides valid options ["add", "remove", "update"] with proper labels for the user interface.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Searching code references for `changeTypes` usage outside of this file
rg -A 5 "changeTypes"
Length of output: 2029
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the webhook implementation and constants
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ extends $_ {
$$$
getChangeTypes() {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Also check the constants file for CHANGE_TYPES definition
fd -e mjs -e js constants --exec cat {}
Length of output: 99206
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the webhook implementation and constants in the Airtable source
rg -A 10 "CHANGE_TYPES" components/airtable_oauth/
ast-grep --pattern 'getChangeTypes() {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 2620
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the webhook class implementation and how it handles changeTypes
rg -A 10 "class.*extends.*Webhook" components/airtable_oauth/
rg -A 10 "getChangeTypes" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 4704
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (1)
6-10: Nice distinction for field-level data.
Returning ["tableFields"] clarifies that this module deals specifically with field schemas. This separation facilitates maintenance and readability.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs (1)
8-12: Homogenize method naming across files.
Here, getDataTypes() returns ["tableData"]. In common-webhook-field.mjs, it returns ["tableFields"]. This distinction is good, but ensure users or docs fully clarify the difference between each data type.
| getDataTypes() { | ||
| return this.dataTypes; | ||
| }, | ||
| getChangeTypes() { | ||
| return this.changeTypes; | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure that this.dataTypes is defined.
getDataTypes() references this.dataTypes, which may not be defined in this file. Make sure it's guaranteed by a parent mixin or other config.
| async run() { | ||
| this.http.respond({ | ||
| status: 200, | ||
| }); | ||
| // webhook pings source, we then fetch webhook events to emit | ||
| const webhookId = this._getHookId(); | ||
| let hasMore = false; | ||
| const params = {}; | ||
| do { | ||
| const { | ||
| cursor, mightHaveMore, payloads, | ||
| } = await this.airtable.listWebhookPayloads({ | ||
| baseId: this.baseId, | ||
| webhookId, | ||
| params, | ||
| }); | ||
| for (const payload of payloads) { | ||
| const meta = this.generateMeta(payload); | ||
| this.$emit(payload, meta); | ||
| } | ||
| params.cursor = cursor; | ||
| hasMore = mightHaveMore; | ||
| } while (hasMore); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Emit loop might retry indefinitely on large data sets.
Be aware that while (hasMore) can fetch an unbounded amount of data. Consider including a max iteration or limit to avoid accidental infinite loops.
| watchDataInFieldIds: { | ||
| propDefinition: [ | ||
| airtable, | ||
| "sortFieldId", | ||
| (c) => ({ | ||
| baseId: c.baseId, | ||
| tableId: c.tableId, | ||
| }), | ||
| ], | ||
| type: "string[]", | ||
| label: "Watch Data In Field Ids", | ||
| description: | ||
| "Only emit events for updates that modify values in cells in these fields. If omitted, all fields within the table/view/base are watched", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Incorrect usage of sortFieldId propDefinition detected
The sortFieldId prop is specifically designed for sorting functionality with a clear label "Sort by Field" and description about sorting results. However, it's being incorrectly reused for the watchDataInFieldIds prop which serves a completely different purpose - watching for data changes in specific fields. This is a misuse of the prop definition that could lead to confusing UI labels and descriptions for users.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs: ThewatchDataInFieldIdsprop should define its own prop definition or use a more appropriate existing one that returns field IDs for watching/monitoring purposes.
🔗 Analysis chain
Confirm usage of “sortFieldId” propDefinition.
For watchDataInFieldIds, referencing “sortFieldId” might be a mismatch unless you’re intentionally sharing the same logic. Make sure that the user’s intention (selecting fields to watch) is clear versus sorting fields.
Let me check the definition of sortFieldId in the app file to understand its purpose and options.
Let me try a different approach to check the definition of sortFieldId.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Searching for "sortFieldId" usage to confirm if it aligns with watchDataInFieldIds
rg -A 5 "sortFieldId"
Length of output: 4085
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the definition and implementation of sortFieldId in the app file
ast-grep --pattern 'sortFieldId: {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 45
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of the app file to see the sortFieldId definition
cat components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs | grep -A 10 "sortFieldId:"
Length of output: 451
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (2)
122-122: getSpecificationOptions method not implemented
Consider implementing this method or removing it if it's unused. You can provide default or sample implementation to improve maintainability.
139-141: Consider error handling when emitting events
If the payload is malformed (e.g., missing a timestamp field or baseTransactionNumber), calling generateMeta could throw an error or produce invalid event data. Consider adding safe checks.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
🔇 Additional comments (3)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (3)
115-117: Ensure that this.dataTypes is defined
This references a previous comment regarding the same issue. If dataTypes is undefined, getDataTypes() may return undefined, causing issues in activation.
130-145: Infinite loop risk on large data sets
This do-while loop can repeatedly fetch data until the server indicates no more data is available. If the server incorrectly or never sets mightHaveMore to false, the loop could continue indefinitely.
60-61: Verify that watchDataInFieldIds and watchSchemasOfFieldIds are defined or passed correctly.
It's not immediately clear where these properties get their values. If they're undefined at runtime, this may cause invalid webhook configurations.
✅ Verification successful
The search results show that both properties are properly defined in their respective component files:
watchDataInFieldIdsis defined as a prop incomponents/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjswatchSchemasOfFieldIdsis defined as a prop incomponents/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
Let's verify how these props are defined by checking their prop definitions:
Let's try a different approach to get the prop definitions using ripgrep with more context:
Properties are properly defined and safe to use
Both properties are correctly defined as optional array props that reference Airtable field IDs:
watchDataInFieldIdsis defined to watch for data changes in specific fieldswatchSchemasOfFieldIdsis defined to watch for schema changes in specific fields
Both are optional as per their descriptions, defaulting to watching all fields if omitted, making them safe to use in the webhook configuration.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Searching the repository for watchDataInFieldIds and watchSchemasOfFieldIds references to confirm they are defined or assigned.
rg --context 5 "watchDataInFieldIds"
rg --context 5 "watchSchemasOfFieldIds"
Length of output: 4084
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the prop definitions
ast-grep --pattern 'watchDataInFieldIds: {
$$$
}'
ast-grep --pattern 'watchSchemasOfFieldIds: {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 110
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the prop definitions with ripgrep
rg -A 15 "watchDataInFieldIds: \{" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
rg -A 15 "watchSchemasOfFieldIds: \{" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
Length of output: 1195
|
This was already reviewed and QA'd on #14691 , but we needed a new branch due to merge conflicts. Some sources were changed to webhook-based from polling-based, so I'll ask for another round of code review and QA only on the sources (the actions are unchanged from the previous PR) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs (1)
128-128: Add missing newline at end of fileAdd a newline character at the end of the file to comply with standard coding practices.
-}; \ No newline at end of file +}; +🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 128-128: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs (2)
Line range hint
65-78: Consider optimizing timestamp comparisons and error handlingA few suggestions to improve the code:
- Consider replacing moment.js with native Date methods for better performance
- Add try-catch blocks around API calls for better error handling
- Consider adding rate limiting or pagination handling for large record sets
Here's a suggested improvement for the timestamp comparison:
- if (!lastTimestamp || moment(record.createdTime) > moment(lastTimestamp)) { + if (!lastTimestamp || new Date(record.createdTime) > new Date(lastTimestamp)) {
96-96: Add newline at end of fileAdd a newline at the end of the file to comply with linting requirements and improve git diff readability.
}; +🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 96-96: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs (1)
92-92: Add missing newline at end of fileAdd a newline character at the end of the file to comply with standard coding practices.
-}; \ No newline at end of file +};🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 92-92: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
components/airtable_oauth/package.json(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- components/airtable_oauth/package.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs
[error] 128-128: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs
[error] 96-96: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs
[error] 92-92: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs (2)
8-8: LGTM: Version bump is consistent
The version update from 0.0.7 to 0.0.8 aligns with the coordinated versioning across other Airtable OAuth components.
Line range hint 4-11: "(Instant)" suffix in component name is misleading
The component name and description should clarify that this is a polling-based implementation, not a real-time/instant update mechanism. This could confuse users expecting truly instantaneous updates.
Note: There's a separate instant component new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant that uses webhooks for real-time updates.
Consider updating the name and description to be more explicit about the polling nature:
- name: "New, Modified or Deleted Records",
+ name: "New, Modified or Deleted Records (Polling)",
key: "airtable_oauth-new-modified-or-deleted-records",
version: "0.0.8",
type: "source",
- description: "Emit new event each time a record is added, updated, or deleted in an Airtable table. Supports tables up to 10,000 records",
+ description: "Periodically check and emit events for new, modified, or deleted records in an Airtable table (polls every schedule interval). Supports tables up to 10,000 records",components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs (1)
9-9: LGTM: Version bump is consistent with other component updates
The version update from 0.0.7 to 0.0.8 aligns with the coordinated version updates across the Airtable OAuth components.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Hello everyone, I have tested this PR and there're some test cases failed or needed improvement. Please check the test report below for more information |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (7)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs (1)
93-93: Add newline at end of fileAdd a newline character at the end of the file to comply with standard coding practices.
-}; \ No newline at end of file +}; +🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 93-93: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs (2)
Line range hint
63-106: Consider optimizing the record retrieval strategyThe current implementation makes two separate API calls to Airtable:
- First to get modified records
- Then to get all records for deletion detection
This could be inefficient for large tables, especially since the description mentions support for up to 10,000 records. Consider optimizing by:
- Caching the full record list and updating it incrementally
- Using batch operations where possible
- Implementing pagination for large datasets
Would you like me to propose a specific optimization strategy?
129-129: Add newline at end of fileAdd a newline character at the end of the file to comply with standard coding practices.
-}; \ No newline at end of file +}; +🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 129-129: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs (2)
Line range hint
40-96: Consider these improvements to the run methodThe implementation is solid, but here are some suggested improvements:
- Consider using native Date methods or a more modern alternative to moment.js
- Extract the metadata object as a constant
- Use structured logging for better observability
Here's a suggested refactor:
async run(event) { const { baseId, tableId, viewId, } = this; + const METADATA = { + baseId, + tableId, + viewId, + }; const lastTimestamp = this._getLastTimestamp(); const params = { view: viewId, filterByFormula: `LAST_MODIFIED_TIME() > "${lastTimestamp}"`, returnFieldsByFieldId: this.returnFieldsByFieldId || false, }; const records = await this.airtable.listRecords({ baseId, tableId, params, }); if (!records.length) { - console.log("No new or modified records."); + console.log({ + msg: "No new or modified records", + baseId, + tableId, + viewId, + }); return; } let newRecords = 0, modifiedRecords = 0; for (const record of records) { - if (!lastTimestamp || moment(record.createdTime) > moment(lastTimestamp)) { + if (!lastTimestamp || new Date(record.createdTime) > new Date(lastTimestamp)) { record.type = "new_record"; newRecords++; } else { record.type = "record_modified"; modifiedRecords++; } - record.metadata = metadata; + record.metadata = METADATA; this.$emit(record, { summary: `${record.type}: ${JSON.stringify(record.fields)}`, id: record.id, }); } - console.log(`Emitted ${newRecords} new records(s) and ${modifiedRecords} modified record(s).`); + console.log({ + msg: "Records processed", + newRecords, + modifiedRecords, + baseId, + tableId, + viewId, + }); this.updateLastTimestamp(event); },🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 97-97: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
97-97: Add newline at end of fileAdd a newline at the end of the file to comply with coding standards.
- }; + }; +🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 97-97: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (1)
14-17: Add an option for record deletion?You currently return only “add” and “update” as applicable change types. If you plan to also handle record deletion, consider adding "delete". Otherwise, confirm that record deletions are never intended to emit events here.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (1)
13-16: Confirm no other change types are needed.You emit an event only for a field creation scenario ("add"). If you plan to handle field modifications or deletions, add them here. Otherwise, confirm they’re intentionally out of scope for this component.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
- components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records/new-modified-or-deleted-records.mjs
[error] 129-129: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs
[error] 97-97: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs
[error] 93-93: Newline required at end of file but not found.
(eol-last)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records-in-view/new-records-in-view.mjs (1)
9-9: Version inconsistency across Airtable OAuth components
The version bump to "0.0.8" is part of a larger set of components, but there are inconsistencies in versioning across the Airtable OAuth components.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records-in-view/new-or-modified-records-in-view.mjs (2)
9-11: Verify if this component should be transitioned to webhooks
The PR comments mention transitioning from polling to webhooks, but this component still uses a polling approach. Consider if this component should also be updated to use webhooks for consistency with other components.
Would you like assistance in implementing the webhook-based approach?
Line range hint 12-39: LGTM! Props are well-defined and documented.
The props are properly structured, extend from base props, and include clear descriptions.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (2)
63-63: Ensure dataTypes is defined .
This is a repeat of a prior comment: “Ensure that this.dataTypes is defined.” Since getDataTypes() returns this.dataTypes, confirm it’s set somewhere in your codebase to avoid potential runtime errors if it’s undefined.
114-137: Consider robust error handling and preventing indefinite loops .
Previously noted: the loop controlled by hasMore may potentially run indefinitely if changes continue to arrive quickly. In addition, consider wrapping this in try/catch to handle unexpected errors from listWebhookPayloads() gracefully.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (1)
7-8: Confirm version consistency.
You’ve bumped the component version to 1.0.0. Ensure that this major version change is intentional and consistently applied across associated references (e.g., package.json, documentation) so users know it’s a stable release.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-field/new-field.mjs (1)
8-8: Review necessity of major version bump.
Version set to "1.0.0" suggests a stable or breaking-release threshold. Ensure all references in the codebase reflect this major version if it’s genuinely warranted, or realign to a non-major version if no breaking changes were introduced.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-records/new-records.mjs (4)
5-5: Clear and descriptive name change
The updated name "New Record(s) Created (Instant)" better reflects the webhook-based nature of the component.
8-8: Version bump requires documentation of breaking changes
The version bump from 0.0.7 to 1.0.0 needs proper documentation of breaking changes.
1-1: Verify webhook implementation availability
The change from polling to webhook-based approach requires the presence of the webhook implementation.
✅ Verification successful
Webhook implementation is properly structured and available
The webhook implementation is correctly in place with a complete implementation:
- The common webhook base (
common-webhook.mjs) provides core webhook functionality including activation, deactivation, and payload handling - The record-specific implementation (
common-webhook-record.mjs) extends the base with record-specific configurations - The Airtable app (
airtable_oauth.app.mjs) includes the necessary webhook API methods (createWebhook,deleteWebhook,listWebhookPayloads)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the webhook implementation exists and is properly structured
fd "common-webhook-record.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
# Check for webhook-related configurations
rg -A 5 "webhook" components/airtable_oauth/common/
Length of output: 176
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of the webhook implementation
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
# Also check for any webhook-related configurations in the component
rg -l "webhook" components/airtable_oauth/
Length of output: 2073
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the base webhook implementation that's being extended
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
# Also check the app implementation for webhook handling
cat components/airtable_oauth/airtable_oauth.app.mjs
Length of output: 16131
11-17: Verify inherited webhook methods
The component inherits methods from common but only implements getChangeTypes(). Please ensure that all necessary webhook functionality is provided by common.methods.
✅ Verification successful
Webhook functionality is properly implemented in common methods
The common webhook implementation provides all necessary webhook functionality:
- Webhook lifecycle management (activate/deactivate hooks)
- Webhook event processing and emission
- Required methods for webhook configuration
- Database operations for webhook ID management
The component correctly inherits these methods and only needs to specify its getChangeTypes() method to return ["add"] for its specific use case, as all other webhook functionality is properly handled by the common implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the common methods implementation
ast-grep --pattern $'const methods = {
$$$
}' components/airtable_oauth/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
# Look for webhook-related method implementations
rg -A 5 "methods.*=.*{" components/airtable_oauth/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
Length of output: 388
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the correct path for common methods
fd -e mjs -e js common components/airtable_oauth
# Then, let's look for webhook-related method implementations
rg -l "methods.*=" components/airtable_oauth
# Search for exports of methods
rg "export.*methods" components/airtable_oauth
Length of output: 500
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of common-webhook-record.mjs which is likely the correct file
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
# Also check common-webhook.mjs as it might contain the base webhook methods
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
Length of output: 5084
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (1)
142-161: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEmit loop might retry indefinitely on large data sets
The while (hasMore) loop can fetch an unbounded amount of data.
Consider adding a safety limit:
+ const MAX_ITERATIONS = 100; + let iterations = 0; do { + if (iterations++ >= MAX_ITERATIONS) { + console.warn(`Reached maximum iterations (${MAX_ITERATIONS}), stopping`); + break; + } const { cursor, mightHaveMore, payloads, } = await this.airtable.listWebhookPayloads({🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 154-154: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (2)
42-42: Replace delete operation for better performanceUsing the delete operator can impact performance.
Consider using object destructuring or creating a new object:
- delete table.fields; + const { fields, ...tableWithoutFields } = table; + table = tableWithoutFields;🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 42-42: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
45-45: Add null coalescing for field name in summaryThe template literal could potentially include 'undefined' if all name lookups fail.
Consider this safer approach:
- const summary = `Field ${updateType}: ${field.name ?? fieldUpdateInfo?.name ?? field.id}` + const summary = `Field ${updateType}: ${field.name ?? fieldUpdateInfo?.name ?? field.id ?? 'unknown'}`🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 45-46: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (1)
154-154: Use consistent string quotesFor consistency, use double quotes for strings.
- console.log('Error emitting event, defaulting to default emission'); + console.log("Error emitting event, defaulting to default emission");🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 154-154: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
[error] 42-42: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
🪛 eslint
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
[error] 1-1: 'airtable' is defined but never used.
(no-unused-vars)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 15-15: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 15-15: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 15-15: A space is required before '}'.
(object-curly-spacing)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 25-25: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 27-27: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 27-27: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 27-27: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 29-29: Expected newline between test and consequent of ternary expression.
(multiline-ternary)
[error] 29-29: Expected newline between consequent and alternate of ternary expression.
(multiline-ternary)
[error] 33-34: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 36-37: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 40-41: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 45-46: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
[error] 126-127: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 154-154: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
[error] 24-24: 'airtable' is not defined.
(no-undef)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs (4)
11-19: LGTM! Well-structured method implementation
The getChangeTypes method is well-implemented with proper array formatting and clear change type definitions.
4-6: Verify webhook registration and event handling
Since this component has been migrated from polling to webhook-based implementation, ensure all necessary webhook configurations are in place.
✅ Verification successful
Webhook implementation is properly configured
The source component correctly implements webhook-based functionality through:
- Proper webhook registration in the
activatehook - Complete webhook configuration with filters for field changes
- Robust error handling and payload processing
- Proper webhook cleanup in the
deactivatehook - Comprehensive event emission with field-specific data
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for webhook registration and event handling setup
rg -A 10 "registerHook|setupWebhook" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
# Verify error handling for webhook setup
rg -A 5 "try.*setupWebhook|catch.*setupWebhook" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
Length of output: 220
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if the file exists and its content
fd "common-webhook-field.mjs" components/airtable_oauth/
# Let's search for webhook-related code in the component directory
rg -l "webhook|hook" components/airtable_oauth/sources/
# Check the implementation details of the source file
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-field/new-or-modified-field.mjs
Length of output: 1852
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the common webhook field implementation
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
# Also check the base common webhook implementation
cat components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
Length of output: 6175
1-1: Verify webhook implementation compatibility
The change from polling to webhook-based implementation is a significant architectural change. Let's verify the webhook setup in the common module.
✅ Verification successful
Architectural change from polling to webhooks verified
The change from polling to webhooks is correctly implemented:
- The new implementation (
common-webhook-field.mjs) imports fromcommon-webhook.mjswhich uses HTTP interface ($.interface.http) - The old implementation in
common.mjsused timer-based polling ($.interface.timer) - The proper webhook infrastructure files are in place:
common-webhook.mjs: Base webhook implementationcommon-webhook-field.mjs: Field-specific webhook logiccommon-webhook-record.mjs: Record-specific webhook logic
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the webhook implementation in common module
ast-grep --pattern 'export default {
$$$
webhook: true,
$$$
}' components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
Length of output: 136
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if the common-webhook-field.mjs file exists and examine its content
fd "common-webhook-field.mjs" --type f
# If found, let's examine its content
rg -l "export default" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs || true
# Let's also check for any webhook-related configurations in the file
rg "webhook|hooks?" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs || true
# Additionally, let's look for similar files in the common directory
fd . components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/ --type f
Length of output: 750
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of common-webhook.mjs since it's imported in common-webhook-field.mjs
rg -A 5 "export default" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
# Also check the webhook configuration in common-webhook.mjs
rg "webhook:\s*true|type.*webhook" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
# Let's also check if there are any references to the old polling implementation
rg "polling|timer" components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common.mjs
Length of output: 412
8-8: Verify version string template usage
The dynamic version string 1.0.{{ts}} appears to use a template format. Ensure this format is properly processed during build/deployment.
✅ Verification successful
The previous command had a syntax error with quotes. Let's search more broadly for the template pattern and version strings to understand their usage in the codebase.
Let's search for how these version templates are processed during build/deployment to understand if this is a supported pattern.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a definitive response about the version string template usage:
Version template {{ts}} is a standard pattern in this codebase
The {{ts}} version template is a well-established pattern used throughout the codebase, particularly in component metadata. This is evidenced by:
- Multiple examples in component templates (e.g.,
packages/component_code_gen/templates/) - Consistent usage across various components with both
0.0.{{ts}}and1.0.{{ts}}patterns - Explicit documentation in component generation rules stating "You must pass a value of
0.0.{{ts}}to theversionproperty"
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar version string patterns and their processing
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '!dist' '"version":\s*["\'].*\{\{ts\}\}' .
Length of output: 116
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for version string patterns with {{ts}} without restricting to specific JSON format
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '!dist' '\{\{ts\}\}' .
# Also search for files containing version string definitions
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '!dist' 'version.*1\.0\.' .
Length of output: 25687
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for version string processing or template handling in the codebase
rg -g '!node_modules' -g '!dist' 'ts.*version|version.*ts' .
# Look for any build or deployment scripts that might handle version templating
fd -t f -e js -e mjs -e json "build|deploy" . -x rg -l "version.*\{\{.*\}\}"
Length of output: 65966
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (1)
8-12: LGTM! Clear and focused implementation.
The method correctly specifies that this webhook handler is interested in table field changes.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (2)
5-48: LGTM! Well-structured props with clear descriptions
The props are well-defined with appropriate optionality and dependencies.
107-109: Ensure that this.dataTypes is defined
getDataTypes() references this.dataTypes, which may not be defined in this file. Make sure it's guaranteed by a parent mixin or other config.
| watchSchemasOfFieldIds: { | ||
| propDefinition: [ | ||
| common.props.airtable, | ||
| "tableId", | ||
| ({ baseId }) => ({ | ||
| baseId, | ||
| airtable, | ||
| "sortFieldId", | ||
| (c) => ({ | ||
| baseId: c.baseId, | ||
| tableId: c.tableId, | ||
| }), | ||
| ], | ||
| description: "The table ID to watch for changes.", | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| methods: { | ||
| _getPrevFields() { | ||
| return this.db.get("fieldIds") || {}; | ||
| }, | ||
| _setPrevFields(fieldIds) { | ||
| this.db.set("fieldIds", fieldIds); | ||
| type: "string[]", | ||
| label: "Field Schemas to Watch", | ||
| description: | ||
| "Only emit events for updates that modify the schemas of these fields. If omitted, schemas of all fields within the table/view/base are watched", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add missing airtable import
The airtable reference in the propDefinition is undefined. This will cause runtime errors.
Add the following import at the top of the file:
import common from "../common/common-webhook-field.mjs";
+ import airtable from "../../airtable_oauth.app.mjs";📝 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.
| watchSchemasOfFieldIds: { | |
| propDefinition: [ | |
| common.props.airtable, | |
| "tableId", | |
| ({ baseId }) => ({ | |
| baseId, | |
| airtable, | |
| "sortFieldId", | |
| (c) => ({ | |
| baseId: c.baseId, | |
| tableId: c.tableId, | |
| }), | |
| ], | |
| description: "The table ID to watch for changes.", | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| methods: { | |
| _getPrevFields() { | |
| return this.db.get("fieldIds") || {}; | |
| }, | |
| _setPrevFields(fieldIds) { | |
| this.db.set("fieldIds", fieldIds); | |
| type: "string[]", | |
| label: "Field Schemas to Watch", | |
| description: | |
| "Only emit events for updates that modify the schemas of these fields. If omitted, schemas of all fields within the table/view/base are watched", | |
| }, | |
| import common from "../common/common-webhook-field.mjs"; | |
| import airtable from "../../airtable_oauth.app.mjs"; | |
| watchSchemasOfFieldIds: { | |
| propDefinition: [ | |
| airtable, | |
| "sortFieldId", | |
| (c) => ({ | |
| baseId: c.baseId, | |
| tableId: c.tableId, | |
| }), | |
| ], | |
| type: "string[]", | |
| label: "Field Schemas to Watch", | |
| description: | |
| "Only emit events for updates that modify the schemas of these fields. If omitted, schemas of all fields within the table/view/base are watched", | |
| }, |
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 24-24: 'airtable' is not defined.
(no-undef)
| async emitEvent(payload) { | ||
| const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0]; | ||
| const [operation, fieldObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0]; | ||
| const [fieldId, fieldUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(fieldObj)[0]; | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add payload validation
The destructuring operations assume a specific payload structure. Add validation to handle malformed payloads gracefully.
Consider this validation:
async emitEvent(payload) {
+ if (!payload?.changedTablesById) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload structure");
+ }
const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0];
+ if (!tableData) {
+ throw new Error("No table data found in payload");
+ }
const [operation, fieldObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0];
const [fieldId, fieldUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(fieldObj)[0];📝 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 emitEvent(payload) { | |
| const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0]; | |
| const [operation, fieldObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0]; | |
| const [fieldId, fieldUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(fieldObj)[0]; | |
| async emitEvent(payload) { | |
| if (!payload?.changedTablesById) { | |
| throw new Error("Invalid payload structure"); | |
| } | |
| const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0]; | |
| if (!tableData) { | |
| throw new Error("No table data found in payload"); | |
| } | |
| const [operation, fieldObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0]; | |
| const [fieldId, fieldUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(fieldObj)[0]; | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 25-25: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 27-27: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 27-27: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 27-27: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
| async saveAdditionalData() { | ||
| const tableData = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId }); | ||
| const filteredData = tableData?.tables?.map(({ id, name, fields}) => ({ | ||
| id, | ||
| name, | ||
| fields, | ||
| })); | ||
| if (filteredData?.length) { | ||
| this.db.set("tableSchemas", filteredData); | ||
| } | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for the API call
The method should handle potential API failures gracefully to prevent silent errors.
Consider this implementation:
async saveAdditionalData() {
+ try {
+ if (!this.baseId) {
+ throw new Error("baseId is required");
+ }
const tableData = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId });
const filteredData = tableData?.tables?.map(({ id, name, fields}) => ({
id,
name,
fields,
}));
if (filteredData?.length) {
this.db.set("tableSchemas", filteredData);
}
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error("Failed to save table schemas:", error);
+ throw error;
+ }
}📝 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 saveAdditionalData() { | |
| const tableData = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId }); | |
| const filteredData = tableData?.tables?.map(({ id, name, fields}) => ({ | |
| id, | |
| name, | |
| fields, | |
| })); | |
| if (filteredData?.length) { | |
| this.db.set("tableSchemas", filteredData); | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| async saveAdditionalData() { | |
| try { | |
| if (!this.baseId) { | |
| throw new Error("baseId is required"); | |
| } | |
| const tableData = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId }); | |
| const filteredData = tableData?.tables?.map(({ id, name, fields}) => ({ | |
| id, | |
| name, | |
| fields, | |
| })); | |
| if (filteredData?.length) { | |
| this.db.set("tableSchemas", filteredData); | |
| } | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error("Failed to save table schemas:", error); | |
| throw error; | |
| } | |
| }, |
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 15-15: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 15-15: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 15-15: A space is required before '}'.
(object-curly-spacing)
| async activate() { | ||
| const { id } = await this.airtable.createWebhook({ | ||
| baseId: this.baseId, | ||
| data: { | ||
| notificationUrl: `${this.http.endpoint}/`, | ||
| specification: { | ||
| options: { | ||
| filters: { | ||
| recordChangeScope: this.viewId | ||
| ? this.viewId | ||
| : this.tableId | ||
| ? this.tableId | ||
| : undefined, | ||
| dataTypes: this.getDataTypes(), | ||
| changeTypes: this.getChangeTypes(), | ||
| fromSources: this.fromSources, | ||
| watchDataInFieldIds: this.watchDataInFieldIds, | ||
| watchSchemasOfFieldIds: this.watchSchemasOfFieldIds, | ||
| }, | ||
| includes: { | ||
| includeCellValuesInFieldIds: this.includeCellValuesInFieldIds, | ||
| includePreviousCellValues: true, | ||
| includePreviousFieldDefinitions: true, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| this._setHookId(id); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for webhook creation
The activate hook should handle potential failures in webhook creation.
Consider this implementation:
async activate() {
+ try {
const { id } = await this.airtable.createWebhook({
baseId: this.baseId,
data: {
notificationUrl: `${this.http.endpoint}/`,
specification: {
options: {
filters: {
recordChangeScope: this.viewId
? this.viewId
: this.tableId
? this.tableId
: undefined,
dataTypes: this.getDataTypes(),
changeTypes: this.getChangeTypes(),
fromSources: this.fromSources,
watchDataInFieldIds: this.watchDataInFieldIds,
watchSchemasOfFieldIds: this.watchSchemasOfFieldIds,
},
includes: {
includeCellValuesInFieldIds: this.includeCellValuesInFieldIds,
includePreviousCellValues: true,
includePreviousFieldDefinitions: true,
},
},
},
},
});
+ if (!id) {
+ throw new Error("Failed to create webhook: No ID returned");
+ }
this._setHookId(id);
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error("Failed to activate webhook:", error);
+ throw error;
+ }
}📝 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 activate() { | |
| const { id } = await this.airtable.createWebhook({ | |
| baseId: this.baseId, | |
| data: { | |
| notificationUrl: `${this.http.endpoint}/`, | |
| specification: { | |
| options: { | |
| filters: { | |
| recordChangeScope: this.viewId | |
| ? this.viewId | |
| : this.tableId | |
| ? this.tableId | |
| : undefined, | |
| dataTypes: this.getDataTypes(), | |
| changeTypes: this.getChangeTypes(), | |
| fromSources: this.fromSources, | |
| watchDataInFieldIds: this.watchDataInFieldIds, | |
| watchSchemasOfFieldIds: this.watchSchemasOfFieldIds, | |
| }, | |
| includes: { | |
| includeCellValuesInFieldIds: this.includeCellValuesInFieldIds, | |
| includePreviousCellValues: true, | |
| includePreviousFieldDefinitions: true, | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| this._setHookId(id); | |
| }, | |
| async activate() { | |
| try { | |
| const { id } = await this.airtable.createWebhook({ | |
| baseId: this.baseId, | |
| data: { | |
| notificationUrl: `${this.http.endpoint}/`, | |
| specification: { | |
| options: { | |
| filters: { | |
| recordChangeScope: this.viewId | |
| ? this.viewId | |
| : this.tableId | |
| ? this.tableId | |
| : undefined, | |
| dataTypes: this.getDataTypes(), | |
| changeTypes: this.getChangeTypes(), | |
| fromSources: this.fromSources, | |
| watchDataInFieldIds: this.watchDataInFieldIds, | |
| watchSchemasOfFieldIds: this.watchSchemasOfFieldIds, | |
| }, | |
| includes: { | |
| includeCellValuesInFieldIds: this.includeCellValuesInFieldIds, | |
| includePreviousCellValues: true, | |
| includePreviousFieldDefinitions: true, | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| if (!id) { | |
| throw new Error("Failed to create webhook: No ID returned"); | |
| } | |
| this._setHookId(id); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error("Failed to activate webhook:", error); | |
| throw error; | |
| } | |
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
♻️ Duplicate comments (4)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (1)
23-36:⚠️ Potential issueVerify field watching implementation
The
watchDataInFieldIdsproperty reuses thesortFieldIdpropDefinition which may lead to confusing UI labels and descriptions.Create a dedicated propDefinition for field watching instead of reusing the sorting-related one:
watchDataInFieldIds: { propDefinition: [ airtable, - "sortFieldId", + "watchableFields", (c) => ({ baseId: c.baseId, tableId: c.tableId, }), ], type: "string[]", label: "Watch Data In Field Ids", description: "Only emit events for updates that modify values in cells in these fields. If omitted, all fields within the table/view/base are watched", },components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (1)
12-22:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling and input validation.
The method needs proper error handling and validation to handle API failures gracefully.
Apply this diff to improve error handling:
async saveAdditionalData() { + try { + if (!this.baseId) { + throw new Error("baseId is required"); + } const tableData = await this.airtable.listTables({ baseId: this.baseId }); + if (!tableData?.tables) { + throw new Error("Invalid response from Airtable API"); + } const filteredData = tableData?.tables?.map(({ id, name, fields}) => ({ id, name, fields, })); if (filteredData?.length) { this.db.set("tableSchemas", filteredData); } + } catch (error) { + console.error("Failed to save table schemas:", error); + throw error; + } }🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 13-13: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 13-13: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: A space is required before '}'.
(object-curly-spacing)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (2)
50-79:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for webhook creation.
The webhook activation needs proper error handling to manage API failures gracefully.
Apply this diff to add error handling:
async activate() { + try { const { id } = await this.airtable.createWebhook({ baseId: this.baseId, data: { notificationUrl: `${this.http.endpoint}/`, specification: { options: { filters: { recordChangeScope: this.viewId ? this.viewId : this.tableId ? this.tableId : undefined, dataTypes: this.getDataTypes(), changeTypes: this.getChangeTypes(), fromSources: this.fromSources, watchDataInFieldIds: this.watchDataInFieldIds, watchSchemasOfFieldIds: this.watchSchemasOfFieldIds, }, includes: { includeCellValuesInFieldIds: this.includeCellValuesInFieldIds, includePreviousCellValues: true, includePreviousFieldDefinitions: true, }, }, }, }, }); + if (!id) { + throw new Error("Failed to create webhook: No ID returned"); + } this._setHookId(id); + } catch (error) { + console.error("Failed to activate webhook:", error); + throw error; + } }
107-112:⚠️ Potential issueAdd validation for required properties.
The methods assume that
this.dataTypesandthis.changeTypesare defined, which could lead to runtime errors.Apply this diff to add validation:
getDataTypes() { + if (!this.dataTypes) { + throw new Error("dataTypes is not defined"); + } return this.dataTypes; }, getChangeTypes() { + if (!this.changeTypes) { + throw new Error("changeTypes is not defined"); + } return this.changeTypes; },
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs (1)
36-37: Improve record summary generationThe summary generation could be more robust and informative.
Consider enhancing the summary with more context:
- const summary = `Record ${updateType}: ${fields?.name ?? recordId}` + const summary = `Record ${updateType}: ${fields?.name ?? recordId} in table ${tableId}`🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 36-37: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (1)
7-11: Add JSDoc documentation for better maintainability.Consider adding JSDoc documentation to clarify the purpose and return value of this method.
+ /** + * Returns the types of data this webhook should monitor + * @returns {string[]} Array containing data types to monitor + */ getDataTypes() { return [ "tableFields", ]; },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs(2 hunks)components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-record.mjs
[error] 1-2: Too many blank lines at the beginning of file. Max of 0 allowed.
(no-multiple-empty-lines)
[error] 14-14: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 14-14: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 14-14: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 15-15: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 15-15: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 15-15: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 16-16: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
[error] 21-21: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 21-21: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 21-21: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 23-23: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
[error] 33-34: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 36-37: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs
[error] 126-127: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
[error] 154-154: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
[error] 13-13: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 13-13: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break after this opening brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: Expected a line break before this closing brace.
(object-curly-newline)
[error] 14-14: A space is required before '}'.
(object-curly-spacing)
[error] 24-24: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 24-24: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 24-24: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 25-25: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 28-28: Expected newline between test and consequent of ternary expression.
(multiline-ternary)
[error] 28-28: Expected newline between consequent and alternate of ternary expression.
(multiline-ternary)
[error] 32-33: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 35-36: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 39-40: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 44-45: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs
[error] 41-41: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-or-modified-records/new-or-modified-records.mjs (1)
1-2: LGTM: Clean module restructuring
The change to import the common webhook module and restructure the imports improves code organization and reusability.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant/new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant.mjs (2)
40-44: LGTM: Clear data type specification
The getDataTypes method clearly specifies the expected data type for webhook events.
Line range hint 24-36: Duplicate field watching implementation
This component shares the same watchDataInFieldIds implementation issue as new-or-modified-records.mjs.
Create a dedicated propDefinition for field watching instead of reusing the sorting-related one.
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook-field.mjs (1)
23-52:
Add payload validation and safe destructuring.
The current implementation assumes a specific payload structure without validation, which could lead to runtime errors.
Apply this diff to add validation and safe destructuring:
emitEvent(payload) {
+ if (!payload?.changedTablesById) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload: missing changedTablesById");
+ }
+ const tableEntries = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById);
+ if (!tableEntries.length) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload: empty changedTablesById");
+ }
- const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0];
- const [operation, fieldObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0];
- const [fieldId, fieldUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(fieldObj)[0];
+ const [tableId, tableData] = tableEntries[0];
+ if (!tableData) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload: missing table data");
+ }
+ const operationEntries = Object.entries(tableData);
+ if (!operationEntries.length) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload: empty table data");
+ }
+ const [operation, fieldObj] = operationEntries[0];
+ if (!fieldObj) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload: missing field object");
+ }
+ const fieldEntries = Object.entries(fieldObj);
+ if (!fieldEntries.length) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload: empty field object");
+ }
+ const [fieldId, fieldUpdateInfo] = fieldEntries[0];
const updateType = operation === "createdFieldsById" ? "created" : "updated";
let table = {
id: tableId,
};
let field = {
id: fieldId,
};
const tableSchemas = this.db.get("tableSchemas");
if (tableSchemas) {
table = tableSchemas.find(({ id }) => id === tableId) ?? table;
field = table?.fields?.find(({ id }) => id === fieldId) ?? field;
- delete table.fields;
+ if (table.fields) {
+ const { fields, ...tableWithoutFields } = table;
+ table = tableWithoutFields;
+ }
}
- const summary = `Field ${updateType}: ${field.name ?? fieldUpdateInfo?.name ?? field.id}`
+ const fieldName = field.name ?? fieldUpdateInfo?.name ?? field.id;
+ const summary = `Field ${updateType}: ${fieldName}`;
this.$emit({
originalPayload: payload,
table,
field,
fieldUpdateInfo,
}, this.generateMeta(payload, summary));
}Likely invalid or redundant comment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 41-41: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
🪛 eslint
[error] 24-24: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 24-24: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 24-24: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 25-25: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 25-25: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 26-26: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 26-26: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 28-28: Expected newline between test and consequent of ternary expression.
(multiline-ternary)
[error] 28-28: Expected newline between consequent and alternate of ternary expression.
(multiline-ternary)
[error] 32-33: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 35-36: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 39-40: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
[error] 44-45: Missing semicolon.
(semi)
components/airtable_oauth/sources/common/common-webhook.mjs (1)
142-161:
Add safety limits to prevent infinite loops.
The while loop could potentially run indefinitely if the API continuously returns more data.
Apply this diff to add safety limits:
+ const MAX_ITERATIONS = 100; // Adjust based on your needs
+ let iterations = 0;
do {
+ if (iterations++ >= MAX_ITERATIONS) {
+ console.warn(`Reached maximum iterations (${MAX_ITERATIONS}), stopping payload processing`);
+ break;
+ }
const {
cursor, mightHaveMore, payloads,
} = await this.airtable.listWebhookPayloads({
baseId: this.baseId,
webhookId,
params,
});
for (const payload of payloads) {
try {
await this.emitEvent(payload);
} catch (err) {
- console.log('Error emitting event, defaulting to default emission');
+ console.error("Error emitting event, defaulting to default emission:", err);
console.log(err);
this.emitDefaultEvent(payload);
}
}
params.cursor = cursor;
hasMore = mightHaveMore;
} while (hasMore);Likely invalid or redundant comment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 154-154: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
| description: "Emit new event for each new or modified record in a table or view", | ||
| version: "1.0.{{ts}}", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Version format needs standardization
The version format 1.0.{{ts}} appears to be using a template placeholder. This might cause issues with semantic versioning.
Consider using a standard semantic version format (e.g., "1.0.0") instead of a template string.
| key: "airtable_oauth-new-modified-or-deleted-records-instant", | ||
| version: "0.0.2", | ||
| version: "0.1.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Version inconsistency between components
The version "0.1.0" differs from the version format used in new-or-modified-records.mjs ("1.0.{{ts}}"). Version numbering should be consistent across related components.
Standardize version numbers across all webhook-based components.
Also applies to: 9-9
| const { fields } = await this.airtable.getRecord({ | ||
| baseId: this.baseId, | ||
| tableId, | ||
| recordId | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling for API calls
The API call to get record details lacks error handling.
Add try-catch block for API interaction:
+ try {
const { fields } = await this.airtable.getRecord({
baseId: this.baseId,
tableId,
recordId,
});
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error("Failed to fetch record details:", error);
+ throw error;
+ }📝 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.
| const { fields } = await this.airtable.getRecord({ | |
| baseId: this.baseId, | |
| tableId, | |
| recordId | |
| }); | |
| try { | |
| const { fields } = await this.airtable.getRecord({ | |
| baseId: this.baseId, | |
| tableId, | |
| recordId, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error("Failed to fetch record details:", error); | |
| throw error; | |
| } |
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 33-34: Missing trailing comma.
(comma-dangle)
| const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0]; | ||
| let [operation, recordObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0]; | ||
| if (operation === 'changedViewsById') { | ||
| const changedRecord = Object.entries(recordObj)[0]; | ||
| operation = changedRecord[0]; | ||
| recordObj = changedRecord[1]; | ||
| } | ||
| const [recordId, recordUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(recordObj)[0]; | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling for payload structure
The code assumes a specific payload structure without proper validation.
Add validation and error handling:
async emitEvent(payload) {
+ if (!payload?.changedTablesById) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload structure: missing changedTablesById");
+ }
const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0];
+ if (!tableData) {
+ throw new Error("Invalid payload structure: empty table data");
+ }
let [operation, recordObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0];📝 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.
| const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0]; | |
| let [operation, recordObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0]; | |
| if (operation === 'changedViewsById') { | |
| const changedRecord = Object.entries(recordObj)[0]; | |
| operation = changedRecord[0]; | |
| recordObj = changedRecord[1]; | |
| } | |
| const [recordId, recordUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(recordObj)[0]; | |
| if (!payload?.changedTablesById) { | |
| throw new Error("Invalid payload structure: missing changedTablesById"); | |
| } | |
| const [tableId, tableData] = Object.entries(payload.changedTablesById)[0]; | |
| if (!tableData) { | |
| throw new Error("Invalid payload structure: empty table data"); | |
| } | |
| let [operation, recordObj] = Object.entries(tableData)[0]; | |
| if (operation === 'changedViewsById') { | |
| const changedRecord = Object.entries(recordObj)[0]; | |
| operation = changedRecord[0]; | |
| recordObj = changedRecord[1]; | |
| } | |
| const [recordId, recordUpdateInfo] = Object.entries(recordObj)[0]; |
🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 14-14: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 14-14: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 14-14: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 15-15: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 15-15: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 15-15: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 16-16: Strings must use doublequote.
(quotes)
[error] 21-21: A linebreak is required after '['.
(array-bracket-newline)
[error] 21-21: There should be a linebreak after this element.
(array-element-newline)
[error] 21-21: A linebreak is required before ']'.
(array-bracket-newline)
|
I've reworked the event format so that the original payload is inside the "originalPayload" object, and the current field or record data (fetched in a separate request) in the "field" or "record" object, respectively. The update information (previous and new values) is also in another object. This should make the event structure more clear and easier to use. I've also removed some props and turned them always on by default (e.g. always emit the previous value). And, finally, while I added event deduping which was previously missing, some webhook events will emit several separate changes, e.g. when changing the value of a field in the Airtable UI, it seems to be saved multiple times while typing the value. To minimize this, I've added a minimum threshold of 5 seconds before emitting more events for the same object (field or record). |
|
Hello everyone, I have tested this PR and there're some test cases failed or needed improvement. Please check the test report below for more information |
Replaces #14691
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
warningAlertproperty to provide guidance on using custom expressions.customExpressionInfoproperty for enhanced instructions on custom expressions.changeTypes,infoBox1, andinfoBox2added to enhance event emission functionality.getDataTypesmethod in multiple components for improved data handling.dedupeproperty to several components to manage unique event emissions.Bug Fixes
Version Updates
Documentation