feat: mock service move to backend #230
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several updates to a NestJS application and its configuration files. Key changes include the addition of new dependencies in the Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 12
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (15)
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/user.ts (4)
1-1: Remove unused importsuccessResponseWrapper.The import
successResponseWrapperis not used in this file. Removing it will clean up the code.
35-36: Remove unnecessaryJSON.parse(JSON.stringify(...))when handling strings.Using
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(...))on strings is redundant. You can directly use the string variables.Apply this cleanup:
-const start = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(startTime))).getTime(); -const end = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(endTime))).getTime(); +const start = new Date(startTime).getTime(); +const end = new Date(endTime).getTime();And in the filter function:
-return new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(item.time))).getTime(); +return new Date(item.time).getTime();Also applies to: 42-44
37-38: Use arrow functions to comply with ESLint rules.Replace function expressions with arrow functions to avoid disabling ESLint rules and improve code readability.
Apply this change:
-// eslint-disable-next-line func-names -const table = initData.tableData.filter(function (item: any) { +const table = initData.tableData.filter((item: any) => { return ( //... ); }); -// eslint-disable-next-line func-names -const chart = initData.chartData[0].list.filter(function (item: any) { +const chart = initData.chartData[0].list.filter((item: any) => { return ( //... ); });Also applies to: 47-48
4-7: Consider using a more efficient method for deep cloning.Using
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(...))for deep cloning can be inefficient and may cause issues with complex data types. Consider using a utility likelodash.cloneDeepor the structured clone algorithm for better performance.packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.dto.ts (1)
4-5: Use@IsString()instead of@Matches(/.*/)for string validation.The
@Matches(/.*/)validator matches any string, including empty strings, and may not provide meaningful validation. Using@IsString()fromclass-validatormore clearly indicates thatpathshould be a string.Apply this change:
-@Matches(/.*/) +@IsString() path: string;packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.controller.ts (1)
18-18: Remove unused service injection.The
MockServiceis injected but never used in the controller.- constructor(private readonly mockService: MockService) {}packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/config/vite.config.dev.ts (1)
13-13: Consider preserving the API version in the rewrite rule.The current rewrite rule strips everything, which might cause issues if API versioning is used.
- '', + '/api', // Or appropriate base pathpackages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/profile.ts (2)
4-9: Consider using TypeScript enums for project labelsThe project labels are using hardcoded translation keys without type safety. Consider using an enum or constant object.
+enum ProjectLabel { + ONE = 'baseForm.form.label.projectone', + TWO = 'baseForm.form.label.projecttwo', + THREE = 'baseForm.form.label.projectthree', +} + const initData = mock({ - Project: [ - 'baseForm.form.label.projectone', - 'baseForm.form.label.projecttwo', - 'baseForm.form.label.projectthree', - ], + Project: Object.values(ProjectLabel),
10-54: Utilize mock.js templates for dynamic data generationThe table data is currently static. Consider using mock.js templates for more realistic and varied data.
tableData: [ - { - id: '1', - version: 'version1', - operation: 'offline', - updated: 'person1', - time: '2022-10-11', - }, + 'list|6': [{ + 'id|+1': 1, + version: function() { + return `version${this.id}`; + }, + 'operation|1': ['online', 'offline'], + updated: '@name', + time: '@date("yyyy-MM-dd")', + }], - // Remove other static entries...packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/farm.config.ts (1)
48-50: Verify environment variable consistency with proxy configurationThe proxy target is hardcoded while environment variables exist for server hosts. Consider using the environment variables for consistency.
pathRewrite: { '^/mock': '/mock', }, - target: 'http://localhost:3000', + target: process.env.VITE_SERVER_HOST || 'http://localhost:3000',packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/board.ts (2)
4-19: Consider using TypeScript interfaces for mock data structuresThe mock data structures (
initData,initData1,initData2) share similar shapes but lack type definitions. This could lead to inconsistencies and make maintenance harder.Consider adding an interface:
interface MockOption { options: Array<{ value: string; label: string; }>; } const initData: MockOption = mock({ // ... existing implementation });Also applies to: 21-36, 38-53
8-8: Use i18n keys consistentlySome labels use the
work.mockprefix while others don't follow this pattern. Maintain consistent i18n key naming conventions.Also applies to: 12-12, 16-16, 25-25, 29-29, 33-33, 42-42, 46-46, 50-50
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/package.json (1)
Line range hint
17-17: Add e2e tests for mock endpointsThe
test:e2escript is currently a placeholder. Since we're adding new endpoints, we should implement e2e tests.Would you like me to help generate e2e test templates for the new mock endpoints?
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/setup.ts (2)
120-211: Enhance mock data generation for better realism.The tableData structure has several areas for improvement:
- Dates are static and outdated (2020-2021)
- Company names are hardcoded and some are repeated
- Uses same hardcoded translation keys pattern
Consider using MockJS's built-in data generators for more dynamic data:
tableData: mock({ - 'tableData|10': [ + 'tableData|10-20': [{ 'id|+1': 1, - bid: 'A', + 'bid|1': ['A', 'B', 'C'], - name: 'GFD Company', + name: '@company()', - time: '2021-12-18', + time: '@date("yyyy-MM-dd")', type: '@pick(["userInfo.type.optionA", "userInfo.type.optionB", "userInfo.type.optionC"])', status: '@pick(["userInfo.status.optionA", "userInfo.status.optionB", "userInfo.status.optionC", "userInfo.status.optionD"])' }] })
1-227: Consider architectural improvements for mock service migration.Since this is part of moving mock services to backend, consider these architectural improvements:
- Create separate mock data generators for different domains (user, company, etc.)
- Implement a mock data seeding service for consistent data across tests
- Add TypeScript interfaces for mock data structures
- Consider using Swagger/OpenAPI schemas to ensure mock data matches API contracts
Would you like help implementing any of these architectural improvements?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/package.json(2 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/app.module.ts(2 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/board.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/forms.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/index.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/list.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/profile.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/setup.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/user.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.controller.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.dto.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.module.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.service.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/utils.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/config/vite.config.dev.ts(2 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/farm.config.ts(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/rspack.config.js(1 hunks)packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/webpack.config.js(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.service.ts
🔇 Additional comments (12)
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/index.ts (1)
1-7: Good implementation of data aggregation.
The aggregation of mock data modules into a single export is clean and efficient.
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.module.ts (1)
1-9: Module setup looks correct.
The MockModule is properly defined with its controller and service. This aligns with NestJS best practices.
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.controller.ts (1)
20-31: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor duplicate code and improve route matching.
The GET and POST handlers contain duplicate logic and use simple string matching which could be problematic with query parameters or path parameters.
Consider refactoring to:
@Controller('mock')
export class MockController {
private handleMockRequest(req: Request, method: string) {
const path = req.path.replace('/mock', '');
const queryString = req._parsedUrl.search ?? '';
const cleanPath = path.replace(queryString, '');
const item = data.find(
(dataItem) => dataItem.method === method && dataItem.url === cleanPath
);
if (!item) {
throw new HttpException(
`No mock found for ${method.toUpperCase()} ${cleanPath}`,
HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND
);
}
return item.response({
body: method === 'post' ? req.body : null,
query: req.query
});
}
@Public()
@Get('*')
async getMock(@Req() req: Request) {
return this.handleMockRequest(req, 'get');
}
@Public()
@Post('*')
async postMock(@Req() req: Request) {
return this.handleMockRequest(req, 'post');
}
}Let's verify the mock data structure:
Also applies to: 33-44
✅ Verification successful
The refactoring suggestion is valid and would improve code quality
The code inspection confirms the review comment's concerns:
- Both GET and POST handlers contain identical filtering logic
- The path handling is basic string replacement without query param handling
- The mock service is empty and not utilized
- The data structure is imported but could be better encapsulated in the service
The suggested refactoring would:
- Remove duplication through a shared handler method
- Add proper query parameter handling
- Better utilize the service layer
- Improve error messages
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check mock data structure and usage
ast-grep --pattern 'export default $data = $_' src/mock/data.ts
Length of output: 129
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first find the mock data file
fd "data.ts" --type f
# Then check for any mock data structure in the codebase
ast-grep --pattern 'const $_ = $$$'
# Also search for array declarations that might contain mock data
rg "export.*\[.*\]" -A 5
Length of output: 66511
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try to find the mock data structure in the NestJS mock controller
fd "mock.controller.ts|mock.service.ts|mock.data.ts" --type f
# Then let's look for any mock data array declarations
rg "const.*data.*=.*\[" --type ts
# And check for any mock request handlers
ast-grep --pattern 'async $method($req: Request) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 614
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the mock controller and service files
cat packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.controller.ts
cat packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/mock.service.ts
# Also search for any mock data imports
rg "import.*data.*from" --type ts
Length of output: 2584
packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/config/vite.config.dev.ts (1)
17-20: Verify environment variables and consider security implications.
The proxy configuration has been updated to point to the backend server, but there are some considerations:
- Ensure
VITE_SERVER_HOSTis properly set in all environments - Debug level logging should be disabled in production
Let's verify the environment variables:
packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/farm.config.ts (1)
Line range hint 21-29: Update environment variables for mock service migration
Some environment variables appear outdated after moving the mock service to the backend:
VITE_MOCK_HOSTstill points to port 8848VITE_USE_MOCKmight need updating based on the new architecture
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/package.json (1)
35-35:
Review dependency versions and placements
Several concerns with the new dependencies:
expressis already included via@nestjs/platform-express, making the explicit devDependency redundant- Version constraints are inconsistent (some use
^, others don't) mockjshasn't been updated in 4 years (last release: 2020)
Let's verify the status of mockjs:
Consider these alternatives:
- Use
@faker-js/fakerwhich is actively maintained - Use
@nestjs/testingbuilt-in mocking capabilities
Also applies to: 54-54, 62-62
packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/webpack.config.js (1)
154-160: LGTM! Proxy configuration aligns with backend mock service.
The proxy configuration correctly forwards mock requests to the backend server while maintaining the '/mock' prefix for proper routing.
Let's verify the mock endpoints are properly configured in the backend:
✅ Verification successful
Proxy configuration is correctly aligned with backend mock service implementation
The verification shows that:
- The backend has a proper mock service implementation in
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/with controller that handles/mockroutes - The controller correctly processes requests by stripping and maintaining the
/mockprefix (req.path.replace('/mock', '')) - The webpack proxy configuration in the frontend matches this setup by:
- Using the correct context
/mock - Maintaining the
/mockprefix in pathRewrite - Properly forwarding to the backend server via
VITE_SERVER_HOST
- Using the correct context
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify mock endpoints configuration in the backend
# Look for mock controller routes in the backend
ast-grep --pattern 'class MockController {
$$$
@$_($$$)
$_($$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for mock-related endpoints and routes
# First, search for files containing 'mock' in their names
fd -t f "mock" -X echo "=== {} ==="
# Then search for mock-related route configurations
rg -i "mock.*route|route.*mock" -A 3
# Also search for any mock-related API endpoints
rg "/mock" -A 2
Length of output: 14296
packages/toolkits/pro/template/tinyvue/rspack.config.js (1)
56-62: LGTM! Consistent proxy configuration across build tools.
The proxy configuration matches the webpack configuration, ensuring consistent behavior regardless of the build tool used.
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/app.module.ts (2)
35-35: LGTM! Import of MockModule added.
The MockModule import is correctly added to support the backend mock service functionality.
58-58: Verify MockModule implementation and test coverage.
The MockModule is correctly integrated into the AppModule imports. However, ensure that:
- The MockModule has proper unit tests
- The mock endpoints are documented
Let's verify the MockModule implementation and test coverage:
packages/toolkits/pro/template/server/nestJs/src/mock/data/setup.ts (2)
1-2: LGTM: Import statement is clean and necessary.
212-226:
Address potential security concerns and data consistency in userInfo.
-
Security Considerations:
- Mock data contains sensitive information (userId, username)
- Employment details might be considered confidential
-
Data Consistency:
- Static dates for probation/protocol periods
probationDurationshould match the difference betweenprobationStartandprobationEnd
Consider these improvements:
userInfo: mock({
userId: '@id()',
- username: 'admin',
+ username: '@word(5, 10)',
department: '@pick(["Tiny-Vue-Pro", "Backend", "Frontend", "QA"])',
employeeType: '@pick(["social recruitment", "campus recruitment"])',
role: '@pick(["admin", "user", "guest"])',
job: '@pick(["Frontend", "Backend", "Full Stack"])',
- probationStart: '2021-04-19',
+ probationStart: '@date("yyyy-MM-dd")',
// Calculate probationEnd based on probationStart + probationDuration
+ probationEnd: function() {
+ const start = new Date(this.probationStart);
+ return new Date(start.setDate(start.getDate() + parseInt(this.probationDuration))).toISOString().split('T')[0];
+ },
probationDuration: '@pick(["90", "180"])',
// ... similar dynamic generation for protocol dates
})Let's check for any sensitive data exposure in logs or documentation:
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify if there are any other instances of hardcoded sensitive data or similar mock data patterns in the codebase.
Based on the analysis of the mock data files and their usage, I can now provide the final response:
Improve mock data security and consistency in userInfo structure
The review comment is valid. The mock data contains hardcoded sensitive information and static dates that could be improved. However, this is specifically in a mock data setup file used for development/testing, and the sensitive data is not exposed in logs or documentation (only references to 'admin' in documentation are for explaining permissions).
Recommended improvements:
- Use Mock.js's built-in generators for sensitive data:
userInfo: Mock.mock({ userId: '@id', username: '@word(5, 10)', department: '@pick(["Tiny-Vue-Pro", "Backend", "Frontend"])', employeeType: '@pick(["social recruitment", "campus recruitment"])', role: '@pick(["admin", "user", "guest"])', job: '@pick(["Frontend", "Backend", "Full Stack"])', probationStart: '@date("yyyy-MM-dd")', probationEnd: function() { const start = new Date(this.probationStart); return new Date(start.setDate(start.getDate() + parseInt(this.probationDuration))).toISOString().split('T')[0]; }, probationDuration: '@pick(["90", "180"])', protocolStart: '@date("yyyy-MM-dd")', protocolEnd: function() { const start = new Date(this.protocolStart); return new Date(start.setFullYear(start.getFullYear() + 3)).toISOString().split('T')[0]; }, address: '@city', status: '@pick(["normal", "probation"])' })
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for potential sensitive data exposure
rg -g '*.{md,log}' "userId|username|admin"
Length of output: 930
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar mock data patterns and hardcoded sensitive information
rg -g '*.ts' -A 5 -B 5 "userInfo.*=.*{"
# Also check for other mock data files
fd "mock.*\.(ts|js)$" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 20754
| initData.tableData = positive; | ||
| initData.chartData[0].list = initlist; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid mutating initData; return a new object instead.
Assigning directly to initData.tableData and initData.chartData[0].list mutates the original data. This can cause side effects in other parts of the application that use initData. Consider creating a new object for the response.
| initData.tableData = positive; | ||
| initData.chartData[0].list = initlist; | ||
| if (sort === 1 || sort === 3) { | ||
| initData.chartData[0].list.reverse(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid mutating initData.chartData[0].list with reverse().
Calling reverse() on initData.chartData[0].list mutates the original list. To prevent unintended mutations, make a copy before reversing.
Apply this fix:
-initData.chartData[0].list.reverse();
+initData.chartData[0].list = [...initData.chartData[0].list].reverse();Also applies to: 25-25
| const positive = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(initData.tableData)); | ||
| const negative = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(initData.tableData.reverse())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid mutating initData.tableData with reverse().
Using initData.tableData.reverse() mutates the original initData.tableData, which may lead to unintended side effects elsewhere in the application. Consider creating a copy before reversing.
Apply this fix:
-const negative = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(initData.tableData.reverse()));
+const negative = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify([...initData.tableData].reverse()));📝 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 positive = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(initData.tableData)); | |
| const negative = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(initData.tableData.reverse())); | |
| const positive = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(initData.tableData)); | |
| const negative = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify([...initData.tableData].reverse())); |
| const start = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(startTime))).getTime(); | ||
| const end = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(endTime))).getTime(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle invalid dates when parsing startTime and endTime.
If startTime or endTime are empty strings, new Date('') results in an Invalid Date, causing getTime() to return NaN. Ensure these values are valid dates before parsing.
Consider adding validation:
-const start = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(startTime))).getTime();
-const end = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(endTime))).getTime();
+const start = startTime ? new Date(startTime).getTime() : 0;
+const end = endTime ? new Date(endTime).getTime() : 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.
| const start = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(startTime))).getTime(); | |
| const end = new Date(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(endTime))).getTime(); | |
| const start = startTime ? new Date(startTime).getTime() : 0; | |
| const end = endTime ? new Date(endTime).getTime() : Date.now(); |
| export const successResponseWrapper = (data: unknown) => { | ||
| return { | ||
| data, | ||
| status: 'ok', | ||
| msg: '请求成功', | ||
| code: 20000, | ||
| }; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export const failResponseWrapper = ( | ||
| data: unknown, | ||
| msg: string, | ||
| code = 50000 | ||
| ) => { | ||
| return { | ||
| data, | ||
| status: 'fail', | ||
| msg, | ||
| code, | ||
| }; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consolidate duplicate response wrapper functions and improve type safety.
The codebase has two pairs of very similar response wrapper functions that could be consolidated. Additionally, there are several improvements that could be made for type safety and maintainability.
Consider the following improvements:
- Define proper interfaces for response structures:
interface ApiResponse<T> {
data: T;
code: string | number;
status?: string;
msg?: string;
errMsg?: string;
}- Consolidate the wrapper functions and use consistent types:
export const successResponse = <T>(data: T, options: Partial<ApiResponse<T>> = {}) => ({
data,
status: 'ok',
msg: options.msg ?? 'Success', // Internationalization should be handled by i18n
code: options.code ?? '0',
});
export const failResponse = <T>(
data: T,
message: string,
code: string = '500'
) => ({
data,
status: 'fail',
errMsg: message,
code,
});Also applies to: 23-41
| const taskList = mock({ | ||
| 'list|60': [ | ||
| { | ||
| id: '@id', | ||
| name: 'xiaoming', | ||
| rank: '初级', | ||
| description: '一段描述文字', | ||
| createTime: '@datetime', | ||
| 'status|1': ['0', '1', '2'], | ||
| type: 'Tiny Design', | ||
| roles: '前端', | ||
| employeeNo: '00022456', | ||
| department: '公共服务', | ||
| departmentLevel: '中级', | ||
| workbenchName: 'work', | ||
| project: 'TinyDesign', | ||
| address: '西安研究所', | ||
| lastUpdateUser: '张三', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance mock data variety and type safety
The mock data generation could be improved in several ways:
- Use
@nametemplate instead of hardcoded 'xiaoming' - Define status values as constants/enum instead of magic strings
- Add more variety to fields like 'roles', 'department', etc.
const taskList = mock({
'list|60': [
{
id: '@id',
- name: 'xiaoming',
+ name: '@cname',
- rank: '初级',
+ 'rank|1': ['初级', '中级', '高级'],
description: '@sentence(3, 10)',
createTime: '@datetime',
- 'status|1': ['0', '1', '2'],
+ 'status|1': ['ACTIVE', 'INACTIVE', 'PENDING'],
- roles: '前端',
+ 'roles|1': ['前端', '后端', '全栈', 'UI设计', '产品'],
- department: '公共服务',
+ 'department|1': ['研发部', '产品部', '设计部', '测试部', '运维部'],Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| response: (data: any) => { | ||
| let result = null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add type safety and error handling to the POST endpoint
The POST endpoint /api/user/getselect lacks proper type safety and error handling:
- Uses
anytype for the data parameter - No validation for
data.body - Missing error handling for invalid input
Consider implementing this improvement:
- response: (data: any) => {
+ response: (data: { body: number }) => {
+ if (typeof data.body !== 'number' || ![1, 2, 3].includes(data.body)) {
+ throw new Error('Invalid body value. Expected 1, 2, or 3');
+ }
let result = null;
if (data.body === 1) {
result = successResponseWrap(changeDate.options1);
} else if (data.body === 2) {
result = successResponseWrap(changeDate.options2);
} else {
result = successResponseWrap(changeDate.options3);
}
- return result;
+ return result!;
},Also applies to: 95-96
| return successResponseWrap('ok'); | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ] as any; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove as any type assertion
Using as any bypasses TypeScript's type checking. This could lead to runtime errors.
Define proper types for the mock endpoints:
interface MockEndpoint {
url: string;
method: 'get' | 'post';
response: () => ReturnType<typeof successResponseWrap>;
}
export default [
// ... existing implementation
] satisfies MockEndpoint[];| HR: [ | ||
| { | ||
| value: '1', | ||
| label: 'test01', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| value: '2', | ||
| label: 'test01', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| value: '3', | ||
| label: 'test03', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix duplicate label in HR mock data
The HR mock data contains duplicate labels ('test01' appears twice with different values).
HR: [
{
value: '1',
label: 'test01',
},
{
value: '2',
- label: 'test01',
+ label: 'test02',
},
{
value: '3',
label: 'test03',
},
],📝 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.
| HR: [ | |
| { | |
| value: '1', | |
| label: 'test01', | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| value: '2', | |
| label: 'test01', | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| value: '3', | |
| label: 'test03', | |
| }, | |
| ], | |
| HR: [ | |
| { | |
| value: '1', | |
| label: 'test01', | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| value: '2', | |
| label: 'test02', | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| value: '3', | |
| label: 'test03', | |
| }, | |
| ], |
| bid: 'c', | ||
| pid: 'B', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionC', | ||
| len: 3, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'C', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionA', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'A', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionB', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionA', | ||
| len: 6, | ||
| bid: 'B', | ||
| pid: 'A', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionC', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'C', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionA', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'A', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionB', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'B', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionB', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionA', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'B', | ||
| pid: 'A', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionC', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'C', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionD', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'D', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionC', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionD', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'C', | ||
| pid: 'D', | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| type: 'userInfo.type.optionA', | ||
| status: 'userInfo.status.optionD', | ||
| len: 1, | ||
| bid: 'A', | ||
| pid: 'D', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.1', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.2', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.3', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.4', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.5', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.6', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.7', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.8', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.9', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.10', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.11', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.12', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.13', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.14', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.15', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.16', value: 0 }, | ||
| { title: 'userInfo.month.17', value: 0 }, | ||
| ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Translation keys are properly defined, but data structure inconsistency remains a valid concern
The translation keys are properly defined in multiple locale files (both JSON and TypeScript) with corresponding translations in English and Chinese. However, the inconsistent data structure between the first item (with list array) and subsequent month entries (without list) remains a valid concern as it could lead to frontend rendering issues.
- The first item has a detailed
listarray with type/status information - Month entries 2-17 lack the
listproperty entirely, not even an empty array - This inconsistency could cause type errors or undefined property access in frontend code
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider improving data structure consistency and i18n handling.
Several potential improvements for the chartData structure:
- The translation keys are hardcoded strings. Consider moving them to a centralized i18n configuration.
- The data structure is inconsistent - first item has a detailed
listarray while others only havetitleandvalue. - Month entries (2-17) all have
value: 0, which might indicate incomplete implementation.
Consider restructuring like this:
chartData: [
{
- title: 'userInfo.week.1',
+ title: i18n.t('userInfo.week.1'),
value: 1,
list: [/*...*/]
},
{
- title: 'userInfo.month.1',
+ title: i18n.t('userInfo.month.1'),
value: 0,
+ list: [] // maintain consistent structure
},
// ... other months
]Let's verify if these translation keys are defined:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for translation key definitions
rg -g '*.{json,ts,js}' "userInfo\.(week|month|type|status)\."
Length of output: 43518
PR
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Enhancements
Bug Fixes
Documentation