Productpro5 #61
Productpro5 #61
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces extensive modifications to the feature permissions across various pages, particularly affecting admin and vendor roles. Key changes include disabling admin capabilities for managing Dokan plugins, enhancing vendor functionalities in product management, and updating permissions related to wholesale options and EU compliance fields. New methods for product management have been added, alongside new test cases to validate these functionalities. Overall, the changes reflect a significant restructuring of feature permissions, enhancing vendor capabilities while restricting certain admin functionalities. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (1)
511-513: Consider creating issues for TODO items.The TODO comments for advertising, rank math SEO, and variation options serve as good reminders for future test implementations. To ensure these tasks are not overlooked, consider creating GitHub issues to track them.
Would you like me to create GitHub issues for these TODO items?
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (5)
Line range hint
1037-1052: Wholesale features added with potential pricing visibility concernsNew wholesale features have been implemented:
- Admin can manage wholesale customers and their capabilities
- Vendors can create wholesale products
- Customers can become wholesale customers or request wholesale status
- Wholesale prices are visible to all users
While these features enhance the platform's wholesale capabilities, the visibility of wholesale prices to all users (line 1046) may have significant implications:
- It could impact pricing strategy for regular customers
- It might lead to customer confusion or dissatisfaction if they can't access wholesale prices
- It could potentially undermine the value of becoming a wholesale customer
Consider implementing a feature flag or permission check to control the visibility of wholesale prices based on user roles or other criteria.
Would you like assistance in designing a more granular permission system for wholesale price visibility?
Line range hint
1054-1097: Comprehensive vendor verification system implementedA robust vendor verification system has been added with features for both admin and vendor roles:
- Admins can manage verification methods, process verification requests, and perform bulk actions.
- Vendors can submit, re-submit, and cancel verification requests, as well as view documents and notes.
- Verification features are integrated into the vendor setup wizard, streamlining the onboarding process.
Potential improvements to consider:
- Line 1093: Vendors don't need all required methods to be verified to get a verification badge. This might lead to incomplete verifications.
- Line 1094: When no required method exists, vendors only need to be verified by one method. Consider if this is sufficient for proper verification.
- Line 1095: Vendor address verification doesn't reset when the address is updated. This could lead to outdated verifications.
These points might benefit from further review to ensure the verification process maintains its integrity while remaining user-friendly.
Consider implementing a more stringent verification process that requires all necessary methods to be verified before granting a badge, and automatically triggers re-verification when critical information like address is updated.
Line range hint
1001-1019: Vendor subscription features added with limitations on recurring subscriptionsThe vendor subscription system has been enhanced with new features:
- Admins can manage subscriptions, including filtering, cancelling, and bulk actions.
- Vendors can view subscriptions, buy non-recurring packs, switch, and cancel subscriptions.
However, there are significant limitations:
- Admins cannot reactivate recurring subscriptions that have an active period (line 1007).
- Vendors cannot buy recurring subscription packs, either on registration or on the subscription page (lines 1014-1015).
These restrictions on recurring subscriptions could have several implications:
- It may limit the flexibility of the subscription model.
- It could potentially reduce predictable revenue streams.
- It might impact vendor retention if they prefer recurring subscription options.
Consider reviewing the business logic behind these restrictions and evaluate if allowing recurring subscriptions could provide more value to both vendors and the platform.
Would you like assistance in designing a more flexible subscription model that includes recurring options while maintaining necessary controls?
Line range hint
872-910: Comprehensive product advertising system implemented with some limitationsA robust product advertising system has been added with features for admin and vendor roles:
- Admins have extensive capabilities to manage product advertisements, including viewing, adding, searching, filtering, and performing actions on advertisements.
- Vendors can buy product advertising for various product types, including regular, booking, and auction products.
However, there are some limitations and potential areas for improvement:
- Admin cannot search advertised products by order (line 891).
- Admin cannot filter advertised products by calendar (line 893).
- Admin cannot perform bulk actions on product advertisements (line 896).
- Vendors cannot buy product advertising from the product edit page (line 901).
- Customers cannot view advertised products on the shop page (line 910).
These limitations might restrict the system's flexibility and effectiveness. Consider reviewing these restrictions to determine if they align with the intended functionality of the product advertising system.
Consider implementing the missing features, particularly the ability to search by order, filter by calendar, and perform bulk actions on advertisements. Also, evaluate the decision to hide advertised products from customers on the shop page, as this might reduce the impact of the advertising efforts.
Line range hint
812-835: Live Chat and Live Search features have been disabledAll features related to Live Chat and Live Search have been set to false, effectively disabling these functionalities:
Live Chat:
- Admin cannot set chat provider or enable chat buttons
- Vendors cannot set live chat settings or chat with customers
- Customers cannot chat with vendors
Live Search:
- Admin cannot set live search options or add live search widget
- Customers cannot use live search functionality
This change represents a significant reduction in real-time communication and search capabilities on the platform. Consider the following implications:
- User Experience: The removal of live chat may impact customer support and reduce immediate vendor-customer interactions.
- Sales Impact: Live chat often helps in converting visitors to customers by addressing queries in real-time.
- Search Functionality: Disabling live search may make it harder for customers to find products quickly, potentially affecting sales.
Before proceeding with this change, it's crucial to:
- Evaluate the reasons for disabling these features (e.g., performance issues, low usage, maintenance difficulties).
- Consider the impact on user experience and potential mitigations (e.g., enhanced email support, improved static search).
- Plan a communication strategy to inform vendors and customers about these changes.
- Explore alternative solutions that could provide similar benefits without the drawbacks that led to this decision.
Would you like assistance in designing alternative solutions or a transition plan for removing these features?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/requestForQuoteRules.spec.ts (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/requestForQuoteRules.spec.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (13)
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (9)
478-479: LGTM: Appropriate spacing and comment for new section.The spacing and comment for the new "wholesale options" section are consistent with the existing code structure.
481-483: LGTM: Well-structured test for adding product wholesale options.This test case follows the established pattern for adding product options. It's correctly tagged and uses appropriate data sources.
485-487: LGTM: Consistent test for updating product wholesale options.This test case maintains consistency with the previous one and follows the established pattern for updating existing product options.
489-491: LGTM: Appropriate test for removing product wholesale options.This test case introduces a new method for removing wholesale options, maintaining consistency with the pattern used for other product options in the file.
495-497: LGTM: Well-structured test for adding product min-max options.This test case follows the established pattern for adding product options, appropriately introducing a new method for min-max options.
499-501: LGTM: Consistent test for updating product min-max options.This test case maintains consistency with the previous one and follows the established pattern for updating existing product options.
503-505: LGTM: Excellent validation test for min-max options.This test case introduces a crucial validation check to ensure that the minimum quantity cannot exceed the maximum quantity. The method name
cantAddGreaterMinclearly describes its purpose, enhancing code readability.
507-509: LGTM: Appropriate test for removing product min-max options.This test case follows the established pattern for removing product options, consistent with the wholesale options removal test. The use of empty strings to remove the options accurately reflects typical form behavior.
478-513: Overall, excellent additions to the product details test suite.The new tests for wholesale options and min-max options are well-structured, consistent with existing patterns, and enhance the overall test coverage. The inclusion of validation tests, particularly for min-max limits, demonstrates attention to data integrity. The code maintains high quality and readability throughout.
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (2)
Line range hint
739-785: Comprehensive EU compliance features added with some restrictionsAn extensive set of EU compliance features has been implemented across admin, vendor, and customer roles. This is a significant enhancement to ensure adherence to EU regulations. Key points:
- Admins have broad capabilities to manage EU compliance fields for vendors and customers.
- Vendors can add and update EU compliance data for their stores and products.
- Customers can provide and update their EU compliance data.
However, there are some potential areas of concern:
- Admin and vendor cannot view customer EU compliance data on order details (lines 756-757).
- Guest customers cannot add EU compliance data during checkout (line 785).
These restrictions might be intentional for privacy reasons, but they could potentially impact order processing or compliance verification. Consider reviewing these specific limitations to ensure they don't hinder necessary compliance checks or user experience.
To verify the implementation of EU compliance features, run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of EU compliance features # Test: Search for functions or methods related to EU compliance rg --type php 'function.*eu.*compliance|class.*eu.*compliance' app/
202-208: New vendor permissions added for product managementThe following new permissions have been added for vendors:
- Ability to add, update, and remove product wholesale options
- Ability to add, update, and remove product min-max options
- Restriction on adding product min limit greater than max limit
These additions enhance vendor capabilities in product management, allowing for more flexible pricing and inventory control. Ensure that these new features are properly documented and communicated to vendors.
To verify the implementation of these new permissions, run the following script:
tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (2)
1550-1555: LGTM: Well-structured function for removing wholesale optionsThe
removeProductWholesaleOptionsfunction is well-implemented. It follows a clear logical flow, uses async/await correctly, and has a descriptive name. The use of helper methods makes the code readable and maintainable.
1558-1565: LGTM: Well-implemented function for adding min-max optionsThe
addProductMinMaxOptionsfunction is correctly implemented. It sets minimum and maximum quantity options for a product, follows a logical flow, and verifies the changes after saving. The use of helper methods enhances readability and maintainability.
| async cantAddGreaterMin(productName: string, minMaxOption: product['productInfo']['minMax']): Promise<void> { | ||
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.maximumProductQuantity); | ||
| await this.press('Escape'); // to trigger validation | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity); | ||
| await this.saveProduct(); | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity); | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing error validation in cantAddGreaterMin
The function correctly tests the scenario where the minimum quantity can't be greater than the maximum. However, it doesn't explicitly verify that an error occurs or that an error message is displayed. Consider adding assertions to check for the presence of an error message or a failed save operation to make the test more robust.
You could improve the function by adding error checking, like this:
async cantAddGreaterMin(productName: string, minMaxOption: product['productInfo']['minMax']): Promise<void> {
await this.goToProductEdit(productName);
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity);
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.maximumProductQuantity);
await this.press('Escape'); // to trigger validation
await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity);
// Add error checking
await this.toBeVisible(productsVendor.minMax.errorMessage);
// Attempt to save and verify it fails
await this.click(productsVendor.saveProduct);
await this.toBeVisible(productsVendor.errorNotification);
// Verify values remain unchanged
await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity);
await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity);
}This assumes the existence of appropriate selectors for error messages and notifications. Adjust as needed based on your actual implementation.
| async removeProductMinMaxOptions(productName: string, minMaxOption: product['productInfo']['minMax']): Promise<void> { | ||
| await this.goToProductEdit(productName); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, minMaxOption.minimumProductQuantity); | ||
| await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, minMaxOption.maximumProductQuantity); | ||
| await this.saveProduct(); | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, '0'); | ||
| await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, '0'); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inconsistency between function name and implementation
The removeProductMinMaxOptions function name suggests it's removing min-max options, but the implementation is setting these options to specific values and then verifying they're set to '0'. This is inconsistent and potentially confusing.
Consider refactoring the function to align with its name:
async removeProductMinMaxOptions(productName: string): Promise<void> {
await this.goToProductEdit(productName);
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, '0');
await this.clearAndType(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, '0');
await this.saveProduct();
await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.minimumQuantity, '0');
await this.toHaveValue(productsVendor.minMax.maximumQuantity, '0');
}This implementation directly sets both values to '0', effectively removing the min-max options, and then verifies the change. It also removes the unused minMaxOption parameter.
All Submissions:
Changes proposed in this Pull Request:
Related Pull Request(s)
Closes
How to test the changes in this Pull Request:
Changelog entry
Title
Detailed Description of the pull request. What was previous behaviour
and what will be changed in this PR.
Before Changes
Describe the issue before changes with screenshots(s).
After Changes
Describe the issue after changes with screenshot(s).
Feature Video (optional)
Link of detailed video if this PR is for a feature.
PR Self Review Checklist:
FOR PR REVIEWER ONLY:
Summary by CodeRabbit