[Components] clarify - new components #14762
Conversation
jcortes
added
action
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several new modules and enhancements to the Clarify system, including functionalities for creating, finding, and updating company and person records. New constants and methods are added to improve API interactions, and event handling for new company and person creations is implemented. The Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
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: 18
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (11)
components/clarify/sources/new-company-instant/new-company-instant.mjs (1)
9-9: Consider updating the documentation linkThe current link points to a generic Swagger endpoint. Consider linking to a more specific section of the documentation that details webhook creation for company events.
components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/new-person-instant.mjs (1)
6-13: LGTM! Consider enhancing the documentation.The configuration is well-structured. However, the documentation link could be more specific about the webhook payload structure and any required configurations.
- description: "Emit new event when a new person is created. [See the documentation](https://api.getclarify.ai/swagger#/default/createWebhook).", + description: "Emit new event when a new person is created. [See the webhook configuration and payload documentation](https://api.getclarify.ai/swagger#/default/createWebhook).",components/clarify/actions/create-company/create-company.mjs (3)
31-40: Consider adding input validation for workspace parameterWhile the method implementation is good, consider adding validation for the workspace parameter since it's used in the API path construction.
createCompany({ workspace, ...args } = {}) { + if (!workspace) { + throw new Error("Workspace ID is required"); + } return this.app.post({ path: `/workspaces/${workspace}/objects/${constants.OBJECT_ENTITY.COMPANY}/records`, ...args, }); },
67-68: Enhance the success message with company detailsThe current success message could be more informative by including the company name.
- $.export("$summary", "Successfully created company."); + $.export("$summary", `Successfully created company "${name}"`);
1-70: Overall implementation meets requirements with good extensibilityThe component successfully implements the create-company action as specified in the PR objectives (#14681). The addition of domain support extends the functionality in a meaningful way while maintaining clean code structure and following Pipedream's best practices.
Consider documenting the domain functionality in the PR description since it's an enhancement beyond the original requirements.
components/clarify/actions/update-person/update-person.mjs (1)
47-71: Enhance the update implementation and success messageA few suggestions for improvement:
- The attributes object should include all optional update fields
- The success message should indicate what was actually updated
Example implementation:
async run({ $ }) { const { updatePerson, workspace, personId, companyId, + email, + name, } = this; + const attributes = {}; + if (companyId) attributes.companyId = companyId; + if (email) attributes.email = email; + if (name) attributes.name = name; + + if (Object.keys(attributes).length === 0) { + throw new Error("At least one field to update must be provided"); + } const response = await updatePerson({ $, workspace, personId, data: { data: { type: "object", - attributes: { - companyId, - }, + attributes, }, }, }); - $.export("$summary", "Successfully updated person."); + $.export("$summary", `Successfully updated person with fields: ${Object.keys(attributes).join(", ")}`); return response; },components/clarify/actions/find-user/find-user.mjs (1)
9-34: Add email validation and consider enhancing search flexibility.Consider the following improvements:
- Add email format validation to prevent invalid inputs
- Add a
caseSensitiveboolean prop to control name matching behavioremail: { type: "string", label: "Email", description: "The email of the user to search for.", + pattern: "^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$", }, +caseSensitive: { + type: "boolean", + label: "Case Sensitive Search", + description: "Enable case-sensitive matching for name fields", + optional: true, + default: false, +},components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjs (2)
72-74: Add error handling to processResource methodThe
processResourcemethod should handle potential errors during event emission.Consider implementing:
processResource(resource) { + if (!resource) { + console.warn("Received empty resource"); + return; + } + try { this.$emit(resource, this.generateMeta(resource)); + } catch (error) { + console.error("Failed to process resource:", error); + throw error; + } }
1-95: Add JSDoc documentation and usage examplesThis module serves as a base implementation for webhook handlers. Adding comprehensive documentation would help other developers extend and use this class correctly.
Consider adding:
- JSDoc comments for the class and methods
- Usage examples in the comments
- Documentation about required implementations (
getEntity,getEventType,generateMeta)- Type definitions for the expected webhook payload structure
Example:
/** * Base webhook handler for Clarify components. * @example * // Implement a new company webhook * export default { * ...webhook, * methods: { * getEntity() { * return "company"; * }, * getEventType() { * return "created"; * }, * generateMeta(resource) { * return { * id: resource.id, * summary: `New company ${resource.name} created`, * ts: Date.now(), * }; * }, * }, * }; */components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs (2)
119-124: Ensure custom headers can override default headers by adjusting spread orderCurrently, custom headers passed to
getHeadersmay be overridden by default headers. To allow custom headers to override defaults, spread...headersafter the default headers.Apply this diff to adjust the order:
"Authorization": `Bearer ${this.$auth.oauth_access_token}`, "Content-Type": "application/json", "Accept": "application/json", - ...headers, + ...headers,
131-131: Consider making the 'debug' setting configurable or removing it in productionSetting
debug: truein every request may expose sensitive information in logs and impact performance. It's advisable to make this setting configurable or remove it in production environments.Apply this diff to address the issue:
- debug: true, + // debug: true, // Remove or make configurable
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (14)
components/clarify/actions/create-company/create-company.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/actions/find-user/find-user.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/actions/update-person/update-person.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/common/constants.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/package.json(2 hunks)components/clarify/sources/common/events.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/company-added-to-list-instant/company-added-to-list-instant.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/company-added-to-list-instant/test-event.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/new-company-instant/new-company-instant.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/new-company-instant/test-event.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/new-person-instant.mjs(1 hunks)components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/test-event.mjs(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (5)
- components/clarify/common/constants.mjs
- components/clarify/sources/common/events.mjs
- components/clarify/sources/company-added-to-list-instant/test-event.mjs
- components/clarify/sources/new-company-instant/test-event.mjs
- components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/test-event.mjs
🔇 Additional comments (13)
components/clarify/package.json (2)
3-3: Version bump follows semver guidelines
The version increment from 0.0.1 to 0.1.0 appropriately reflects the addition of new features (company and person management components) without breaking changes.
15-17: Verify @pipedream/platform version
Let's ensure we're using the latest stable version of the platform package that's compatible with the new components.
✅ Verification successful
Version 3.0.3 of @pipedream/platform is up to date
The installed version (3.0.3) matches the latest published version on npm registry.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check latest @pipedream/platform version and its usage
# Expected: Confirm if 3.0.3 is the latest stable version and how it's used
# Check latest version from npm
echo "Latest published version:"
npm view @pipedream/platform version
# Check how the platform package is used in the components
echo -e "\nPlatform package usage in components:"
rg -l "@pipedream/platform" components/clarify/
Length of output: 357
components/clarify/sources/new-company-instant/new-company-instant.mjs (2)
1-3: LGTM! Imports are well-organized
The imports are appropriate for the component's functionality and follow consistent patterns.
5-29: Verify webhook registration implementation
The component implements the required "new-company-instant" source, but let's verify the webhook setup inherited from common.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the webhook implementation by checking the common source code.
Let me check the app implementation to verify the webhook creation functionality.
Let me check the events constant that's being used in the implementation.
Based on the comprehensive verification performed, I can now provide the final response:
Webhook implementation is properly structured and secure
The webhook implementation in the new-company-instant source is correctly structured with:
- Proper webhook registration/deregistration through common webhook base
- Secure HTTP endpoint handling
- Correct entity and event type implementations
- Proper deduplication with
dedupe: "unique"
The component inherits from a robust common webhook implementation that handles:
- Webhook lifecycle (activate/deactivate hooks)
- Proper workspace-scoped webhook registration
- Secure webhook ID storage in database
- Standard webhook deletion on deactivation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check webhook registration implementation in common
echo "Checking webhook registration in common:"
rg -A 10 "registerHook|setupWebhook" components/clarify/common/webhook.mjs
# Verify event handling consistency across components
echo -e "\nChecking event handling in other components:"
rg "getEventType|getEntity" components/clarify/sources/
Length of output: 1647
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the common implementation that's being imported
echo "Checking common implementation:"
cat components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjs
# Check if there are any other webhook-related files
echo -e "\nChecking for other webhook files:"
fd webhook
Length of output: 11245
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the app implementation for webhook-related methods
echo "Checking Clarify app implementation:"
cat components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs
# Check constants used in the implementation
echo -e "\nChecking constants:"
cat components/clarify/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 4647
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for events constant definition
echo "Checking for events constant:"
rg -l "events" components/clarify/
cat components/clarify/common/events.mjs 2>/dev/null || echo "events.mjs not found in expected location"
# Check if events are defined elsewhere
echo -e "\nSearching for CREATE event definition:"
rg -A 2 "CREATE.*=.*" components/clarify/
Length of output: 607
components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/new-person-instant.mjs (2)
30-30: Verify test event structure
Let's ensure the test event contains all necessary fields for proper testing.
✅ Verification successful
Test event structure is well-defined and contains essential fields
The test event structure is comprehensive and includes all the necessary fields for a person entity:
- Core identity fields (_id, name components, company_id)
- Contact information (email_addresses, phone_numbers)
- Social media profiles
- Interaction timestamps
- System metadata (_created_by, _created_at, _enriched_at)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test event structure
cat components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/test-event.mjs
Length of output: 1029
8-8: Verify component naming convention
Let's confirm that the component key follows the established naming pattern for Clarify components.
✅ Verification successful
Component key follows consistent naming pattern
The component key "clarify-new-person-instant" follows the established naming convention used across all Clarify components:
- Sources use pattern:
clarify-[event]-instant(e.g., "clarify-new-person-instant", "clarify-new-company-instant") - Actions use pattern:
clarify-[action](e.g., "clarify-create-company", "clarify-find-user")
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check naming patterns in other Clarify components
fd -e mjs -e js -p "components/clarify" -x grep -l "key.*clarify-" {} \;
Length of output: 489
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual key values in these files to verify the naming pattern
for file in $(fd -e mjs -e js -p "components/clarify"); do
echo "=== $file ==="
grep -A 1 "key:" "$file" || true
done
Length of output: 4061
components/clarify/sources/company-added-to-list-instant/company-added-to-list-instant.mjs (1)
6-31: Verify consistency with other Clarify components
Let's ensure this implementation follows the same patterns as other Clarify components.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the implementation patterns.
Let me check the common webhook implementation since it's a crucial part of the pattern.
Implementation is consistent with other Clarify components
The implementation follows the established patterns across Clarify components:
- Correctly extends the common webhook implementation
- Implements required methods:
getEntity(),getEventType(), andgenerateMeta() - Uses consistent imports and constants
- Follows the same structure for event handling and metadata generation
The only minor difference is in the resource field names (id vs _id and created_at vs _created_at), which is expected as this handles a different event type (list addition vs creation).
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistency in implementation patterns across Clarify components
# Find all similar component files
echo "Checking other Clarify component implementations:"
fd -e mjs -p "components/clarify/sources/.+/.+\.mjs$" --exclude "*test*" --exclude "*common*"
# Check for consistent method patterns
echo -e "\nChecking method implementations:"
ast-grep --pattern 'methods: {
$$$
getEntity() {
$$$
},
getEventType() {
$$$
},
generateMeta(resource) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 664
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation details of other Clarify source components
echo "=== Checking new-person-instant implementation ==="
cat components/clarify/sources/new-person-instant/new-person-instant.mjs
echo -e "\n=== Checking new-company-instant implementation ==="
cat components/clarify/sources/new-company-instant/new-company-instant.mjs
# Also check the common file that's being imported
echo -e "\n=== Checking common implementation ==="
fd -e mjs -p "components/clarify/sources/.+/common\.mjs$" -x cat {}
Length of output: 2205
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the common webhook implementation
echo "=== Checking webhook common implementation ==="
cat components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjs
echo -e "\n=== Checking events implementation ==="
cat components/clarify/sources/common/events.mjs
echo -e "\n=== Checking constants implementation ==="
cat components/clarify/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 2961
components/clarify/actions/create-company/create-company.mjs (2)
1-9: LGTM! Component metadata and imports are well-structured.
The component follows Pipedream's standard patterns with proper imports, documentation links, and versioning.
10-30: Verify prop definitions in clarify.app.mjs
The props structure looks good, but let's verify that all referenced propDefinitions exist in the app file.
✅ Verification successful
All prop definitions are present and correctly defined
The file content shows that all required propDefinitions exist in clarify.app.mjs with proper type definitions:
workspace: string type with async options for workspace selectioncompanyName: string type for company name inputcompanyDomain: string type for company domain input
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if all propDefinitions exist in the app file
# Expected: Should find definitions for workspace, companyName, and companyDomain
ast-grep --pattern 'propDefinitions: {
$$$
workspace: $_,
$$$
companyName: $_,
$$$
companyDomain: $_,
$$$
}' components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs
Length of output: 159
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find prop definitions
# First, let's check if the file exists and see its content
cat components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs
# As a backup, let's also search for these prop names individually
echo "=== Searching for workspace prop ==="
rg "workspace.*{" components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs -A 5
echo "=== Searching for companyName prop ==="
rg "companyName.*{" components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs -A 5
echo "=== Searching for companyDomain prop ==="
rg "companyDomain.*{" components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs -A 5
Length of output: 4847
components/clarify/actions/update-person/update-person.mjs (3)
37-46: LGTM! Clean and well-structured method implementation
The updatePerson method is well implemented with:
- Proper parameter destructuring
- Correct API path construction using constants
- Flexible argument passing using spread operator
1-9: Verify the imported constants usage across the codebase
The constants import seems correct, but let's verify the consistency of OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON usage across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the constants definition since the previous results don't show the actual constant definition.
Constants import and usage is correctly implemented
The constants import is properly defined and the OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON constant is consistently used across the codebase:
- Defined as
"person"inconstants.mjs - Used correctly in API paths in
clarify.app.mjs - Referenced properly in both the update-person action and new-person-instant source
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent usage of OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON constant
# Search for OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON usage
rg "OBJECT_ENTITY\.PERSON" -A 2
# Verify the constant definition
ast-grep --pattern 'OBJECT_ENTITY = {
$$$
PERSON: $_,
$$$
}'
Length of output: 920
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the constants definition file
cat components/clarify/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 384
1-72: Verify consistency with other Clarify components
Let's ensure this implementation follows the same patterns as other Clarify components.
✅ Verification successful
Implementation is consistent with other Clarify components
The verification confirms that the implementation follows the established patterns across the Clarify integration:
- Consistent component structure with proper key, name, description, version, and type
- Proper usage of
constants.OBJECT_ENTITYfor entity types, matching other components - HTTP method implementation (
patch) follows the same pattern as other API calls - Props structure with workspace and app matches other actions
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistency across Clarify components
# Find all Clarify action components
fd -e mjs$ . components/clarify/actions -x cat {} \; | grep -A 5 "export default"
# Check for similar PATCH implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'patch({
path: $_,
$$$
})'
Length of output: 140
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify component consistency
# 1. Find all Clarify action files
echo "=== Clarify Action Files ==="
fd . components/clarify/actions -e mjs
# 2. Check implementation patterns
echo -e "\n=== Implementation Patterns ==="
rg "export default" components/clarify/actions -A 10
# 3. Check PATCH method usage
echo -e "\n=== PATCH Method Usage ==="
rg "patch\(" components/clarify/actions -A 5
# 4. Check constants usage
echo -e "\n=== Constants Usage ==="
rg "OBJECT_ENTITY" components/clarify -A 2
Length of output: 6460
components/clarify/actions/find-user/find-user.mjs (1)
1-79: Verify API integration details.
Please ensure that:
- The API endpoint
/workspaces/${workspace}/userssupports the implemented pagination - The response structure matches the expected format (particularly the
attributesstructure)
| key: "clarify-new-company-instant", | ||
| name: "New Company (Instant)", | ||
| description: "Emit new event when a new company is created. [See the documentation](https://api.getclarify.ai/swagger#/default/createWebhook).", | ||
| version: "0.0.1", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Version alignment needed with existing Clarify components
The new component is using version 0.0.1 while the existing Clarify component (@pipedream/clarify) is at version 0.1.0. Consider aligning the version with the existing component family to maintain consistency across the Clarify ecosystem.
🔗 Analysis chain
Version strategy check
Starting with version 0.0.1 is appropriate for a new component. However, ensure you have a versioning strategy in place for future updates.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are existing Clarify components and their versions
fd --type f "package.json" components/clarify -x jq -r 'select(.version != null) | "\(.name): \(.version)"'
Length of output: 133
| generateMeta(resource) { | ||
| return { | ||
| id: resource._id, | ||
| summary: `New Company ${resource.name}`, | ||
| ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at), | ||
| }; | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add input validation and error handling to generateMeta
The current implementation might be susceptible to runtime errors if the resource object is malformed.
Consider implementing these improvements:
generateMeta(resource) {
+ if (!resource || typeof resource !== 'object') {
+ throw new Error('Invalid resource object');
+ }
+ const { _id, name, _created_at } = resource;
+ if (!_id || !name || !_created_at) {
+ throw new Error('Missing required resource properties');
+ }
+ const timestamp = Date.parse(_created_at);
+ if (isNaN(timestamp)) {
+ throw new Error('Invalid creation date format');
+ }
return {
- id: resource._id,
- summary: `New Company ${resource.name}`,
- ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at),
+ id: _id,
+ summary: `New Company ${name}`,
+ ts: timestamp,
};
},📝 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.
| generateMeta(resource) { | |
| return { | |
| id: resource._id, | |
| summary: `New Company ${resource.name}`, | |
| ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at), | |
| }; | |
| }, | |
| generateMeta(resource) { | |
| if (!resource || typeof resource !== 'object') { | |
| throw new Error('Invalid resource object'); | |
| } | |
| const { _id, name, _created_at } = resource; | |
| if (!_id || !name || !_created_at) { | |
| throw new Error('Missing required resource properties'); | |
| } | |
| const timestamp = Date.parse(_created_at); | |
| if (isNaN(timestamp)) { | |
| throw new Error('Invalid creation date format'); | |
| } | |
| return { | |
| id: _id, | |
| summary: `New Company ${name}`, | |
| ts: timestamp, | |
| }; | |
| }, |
| methods: { | ||
| ...common.methods, | ||
| getEntity() { | ||
| return constants.OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON; | ||
| }, | ||
| getEventType() { | ||
| return events.CREATE; | ||
| }, | ||
| generateMeta(resource) { | ||
| return { | ||
| id: resource._id, | ||
| summary: `New Person ${resource.name.first_name}`, | ||
| ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at), | ||
| }; | ||
| }, | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add data validation in generateMeta method
The method assumes resource.name.first_name will always exist. Consider adding validation to handle cases where the name object or its properties might be undefined.
generateMeta(resource) {
+ if (!resource?._id) {
+ throw new Error("Resource ID is required");
+ }
+ const firstName = resource?.name?.first_name ?? "Unknown";
return {
id: resource._id,
- summary: `New Person ${resource.name.first_name}`,
+ summary: `New Person ${firstName}`,
ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at) || Date.now(),
};
},📝 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, | |
| getEntity() { | |
| return constants.OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON; | |
| }, | |
| getEventType() { | |
| return events.CREATE; | |
| }, | |
| generateMeta(resource) { | |
| return { | |
| id: resource._id, | |
| summary: `New Person ${resource.name.first_name}`, | |
| ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at), | |
| }; | |
| }, | |
| }, | |
| methods: { | |
| ...common.methods, | |
| getEntity() { | |
| return constants.OBJECT_ENTITY.PERSON; | |
| }, | |
| getEventType() { | |
| return events.CREATE; | |
| }, | |
| generateMeta(resource) { | |
| if (!resource?._id) { | |
| throw new Error("Resource ID is required"); | |
| } | |
| const firstName = resource?.name?.first_name ?? "Unknown"; | |
| return { | |
| id: resource._id, | |
| summary: `New Person ${firstName}`, | |
| ts: Date.parse(resource._created_at) || Date.now(), | |
| }; | |
| }, | |
| }, |
| import common from "../common/webhook.mjs"; | ||
| import events from "../common/events.mjs"; | ||
| import constants from "../../common/constants.mjs"; | ||
| import sampleEmit from "./test-event.mjs"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Implementation type mismatch: Polling source is using webhook base
The implementation is incorrect. The file is importing webhook functionality (import common from "../common/webhook.mjs"), but based on the codebase patterns:
- Polling sources should import from
base-polling.mjsas seen in other polling implementations - The PR objectives specifically mention this should be a polling source
You need to:
- Change the import from
"../common/webhook.mjs"to"../common/base-polling.mjs" - Update the implementation to follow the polling pattern instead of webhook
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify implementation type: webhook vs polling
The PR objectives specify this should be a "Polling Source", but the implementation is using webhook functionality. This might not align with the requirements.
Let me verify the common implementation patterns in the codebase:
Let me check the implementation pattern of polling sources to verify if this is indeed a mismatch:
Let me try a different approach to check the implementation pattern:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other polling sources follow a different pattern
fd -e mjs -e js . -x grep -l "type.*source" {} \; | xargs grep -l "polling"
Length of output: 13069
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check implementation pattern of polling sources
rg -A 5 "type.*polling" ./components/workamajig/sources/new-company/new-company.mjs
Length of output: 85
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine one of the polling sources we found earlier
cat ./components/workamajig/sources/new-company/new-company.mjs | head -n 10
# And also check what the common webhook.mjs contains
cat ./components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjs | head -n 10
Length of output: 699
| export default { | ||
| ...common, | ||
| key: "clarify-company-added-to-list-instant", | ||
| name: "Company Added To List (Instant)", | ||
| description: "Emit new event when a company is added to a list. [See the documentation](https://api.getclarify.ai/swagger#/default/createWebhook)", | ||
| version: "0.0.1", | ||
| type: "source", | ||
| dedupe: "unique", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Implementation doesn't match PR objectives
There are two important discrepancies with the PR objectives:
- This is implemented as a webhook source, but the PR objectives specify it should be a "polling source"
- The required properties 'Company' and 'List' mentioned in the objectives are not defined in this implementation
Please clarify if this should be:
- Reimplemented as a polling source instead of extending the webhook module
- Updated to include the required properties 'Company' and 'List'
| async run({ body }) { | ||
| this.processResource(body); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add request validation to run handler
The run handler should validate the incoming webhook payload before processing.
Consider implementing:
async run({ body }) {
+ if (!body) {
+ console.warn("Received empty webhook payload");
+ return;
+ }
+ // Verify webhook signature if available
+ // await this.verifyWebhookSignature(body);
this.processResource(body);
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| async activate() { | ||
| const { | ||
| workspace, | ||
| createWebhook, | ||
| http: { endpoint: url }, | ||
| setWebhookId, | ||
| getEntity, | ||
| getEventType, | ||
| } = this; | ||
|
|
||
| const response = | ||
| await createWebhook({ | ||
| workspace, | ||
| data: { | ||
| url, | ||
| entity: getEntity(), | ||
| event_type: getEventType(), | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| setWebhookId(response.id); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for webhook creation
The activate hook should handle potential errors during webhook creation and validate required properties.
Consider implementing this improved version:
async activate() {
const {
workspace,
createWebhook,
http: { endpoint: url },
setWebhookId,
getEntity,
getEventType,
} = this;
+ if (!workspace || !url) {
+ throw new ConfigurationError("Workspace and URL are required for webhook creation");
+ }
+
+ try {
const response =
await createWebhook({
workspace,
data: {
url,
entity: getEntity(),
event_type: getEventType(),
},
});
setWebhookId(response.id);
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error("Failed to create webhook:", error);
+ throw error;
+ }
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| db: "$.service.db", | ||
| http: "$.interface.http", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the review of the codebase, I can now provide the final response:
Webhook security measures need to be implemented
The current webhook implementation lacks essential security measures. The code review reveals:
- No webhook signature validation
- No request authentication mechanism
- No IP allowlisting
- No rate limiting
Key areas that need attention:
- The webhook handler in
components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjsprocesses incoming requests without any validation - The Clarify app (
clarify.app.mjs) doesn't provide any webhook security methods - No security constants are defined in
constants.mjs
Recommendations:
- Implement webhook signature validation using Clarify's webhook security mechanism (if provided by their API)
- Add request authentication
- Consider implementing IP allowlisting for Clarify's webhook IPs
- Add rate limiting to prevent abuse
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify webhook endpoint security measures
The component exposes an HTTP endpoint for receiving webhooks. Ensure that proper security measures are in place to validate incoming webhook requests from Clarify.
Let's check if there are any security validations in place:
Consider implementing:
- Webhook signature validation
- IP allowlisting
- Rate limiting
Also applies to: 22-23
Let me search for webhook validation implementation in the Clarify app and webhook handler.
Let me try a different approach to locate the Clarify app file and check webhook implementation.
Let me check the Clarify app implementation for any webhook security measures.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for webhook security implementations in the codebase
rg -g '!node_modules' -A 5 'webhook.*security|webhook.*auth|webhook.*valid' .
Length of output: 16624
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for webhook validation in Clarify app and webhook handler
rg -g '!node_modules' -A 10 'validateWebhook|verifyWebhook|webhook.*signature|webhook.*auth' components/clarify/
# Also check the app.mjs file for any webhook security methods
cat components/clarify/app.mjs
Length of output: 206
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the Clarify app file
fd -t f "clarify.*app.*" .
# Check webhook handler implementation
cat components/clarify/sources/common/webhook.mjs
# Search for any security-related code in Clarify components
rg -g '!node_modules' -A 5 'security|auth|valid|verify|hmac|signature' components/clarify/
Length of output: 4399
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the full Clarify app implementation
cat components/clarify/clarify.app.mjs
# Check if there are any webhook security implementations in constants
cat components/clarify/common/constants.mjs
Length of output: 4509
| const { data = [] } = this.listPeople({ | ||
| workspace, | ||
| params: { | ||
| offset, | ||
| limit: constants.DEFAULT_LIMIT, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add 'await' when calling async functions to retrieve data correctly
The listPeople method returns a Promise, so you need to use await to retrieve the data before destructuring it.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- const { data = [] } = this.listPeople({
+ const { data = [] } = await this.listPeople({📝 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 { data = [] } = this.listPeople({ | |
| workspace, | |
| params: { | |
| offset, | |
| limit: constants.DEFAULT_LIMIT, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| const { data = [] } = await this.listPeople({ | |
| workspace, | |
| params: { | |
| offset, | |
| limit: constants.DEFAULT_LIMIT, | |
| }, | |
| }); |
| const { data = [] } = this.listCompanies({ | ||
| workspace, | ||
| params: { | ||
| offset, | ||
| limit: constants.DEFAULT_LIMIT, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add 'await' when calling async functions to retrieve data correctly
The listCompanies method returns a Promise, so you need to use await to retrieve the data before destructuring it. Without await, data will be undefined, causing errors when accessing its properties.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
- const { data = [] } = this.listCompanies({
+ const { data = [] } = await this.listCompanies({📝 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 { data = [] } = this.listCompanies({ | |
| workspace, | |
| params: { | |
| offset, | |
| limit: constants.DEFAULT_LIMIT, | |
| }, | |
| }); | |
| const { data = [] } = await this.listCompanies({ | |
| workspace, | |
| params: { | |
| offset, | |
| limit: constants.DEFAULT_LIMIT, | |
| }, | |
| }); |
WHY
Resolves #14681
WIP
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Improvements
Bug Fixes