fix imports #58
fix imports #58
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThis pull request includes modifications across several files within the API. The handler for the GET request at the root path of the health endpoint is changed from asynchronous to synchronous. The email sending functionality is updated to use dynamic imports for the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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 (
|
|
@wtfdivyansh is attempting to deploy a commit to the BlueFinZ Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/health.ts (1)
Line range hint
3-8: Consider enhancing the health check response.While the current implementation is functional, consider adding more useful health information such as:
- API version
- Environment
- Uptime
- Dependencies status (if any)
app.get("/", (c) => { return c.json({ message: "i am alive", status: 200, + version: process.env.npm_package_version, + env: process.env.NODE_ENV, + uptime: process.uptime(), }); });apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/route.ts (1)
6-6: Consider renaming the import to match its purposeThe import name
testdoesn't align well with its usage in the/helloroute. Consider renaming either:
- The module file from
test.tstohello.ts, or- The import variable to better reflect its purpose
-import test from "./test"; +import hello from "./test";apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/mail.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-65: Consider implementing rate limiting and queuingFor a production email service, consider implementing:
- Rate limiting to prevent abuse
- Message queuing for better scalability
- Circuit breaker pattern for external email service failures
These patterns would make the email service more robust and scalable. Would you like guidance on implementing these architectural improvements?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/health.ts(1 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/mail.ts(2 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/route.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/health.ts (1)
Line range hint 3-8: LGTM! Removing unnecessary async improves performance.
Converting the handler from async to sync is the right choice since there are no async operations in the implementation. This eliminates the unnecessary overhead of promise creation and async function invocation.
| @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ app.use( | |||
|
|
|||
| app.route("/health", health); | |||
| app.route("/session", session); | |||
| app.route("/test", hello); | |||
| app.route("/hello", test); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Renaming test route to hello is intentional but implementation needs alignment
The route change from /test to /hello is actually intentional as evidenced by the test file (hello.test.ts) which consistently uses /hello endpoint for testing user operations. However, there's a mismatch between:
- The route name (
/hello) - The handler file name (
test.ts) - The handler's functionality (user operations)
Suggested changes:
- Rename
test.tstousers.tsorhello.tsto better reflect its purpose - Update the import statement accordingly
- Consider renaming the route to
/usersto match the actual functionality
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the intent of renaming test route to hello
There's an inconsistency between:
- The module name (
test) - The route path (
/hello) - The handler variable name (
test)
This makes the code less maintainable. Please verify if this was intentional and consider aligning these names.
Let me gather more information about the route handler and its usage.
Let me check the content of the test handler file and the test file to understand the full context.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the contents and usage of the test module to understand its purpose
# Check the implementation of the test module
echo "Checking test module implementation:"
cat apps/api/app/api/test.ts || echo "File not found"
# Look for any references to the old route
echo -e "\nChecking for references to old route path:"
rg -l "/test" --type ts
Length of output: 373
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the route file to understand the context
echo "Checking route file content:"
cat "apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/route.ts"
# Look for any test-related files that might contain the handler
echo -e "\nLooking for test-related files:"
fd -t f -e ts test
# Search for 'test' function/variable declarations
echo -e "\nSearching for test handler definition:"
ast-grep --pattern 'const test = $_'
Length of output: 1670
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the test handler implementation
echo "Checking test handler implementation:"
cat "apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/test.ts"
# Check the test file content
echo -e "\nChecking test file content:"
cat "apps/api/tests/hello.test.ts"
Length of output: 3285
| @@ -8,6 +7,7 @@ const app = new Hono(); | |||
| app | |||
| .post("/send", zValidator("json", mailSchema), async (c) => { | |||
| const { email, subject } = c.req.valid("json"); | |||
| const { sendEmail } = await import("@repo/mail"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider caching the dynamic import result
The dynamic import is executed on every request, which could introduce unnecessary latency. Additionally, the import failure isn't explicitly handled.
Consider moving the import outside the route handler and implementing proper error handling:
+let sendEmailFn: typeof import("@repo/mail")["sendEmail"] | null = null;
+
app
.post("/send", zValidator("json", mailSchema), async (c) => {
const { email, subject } = c.req.valid("json");
- const { sendEmail } = await import("@repo/mail");
+ try {
+ if (!sendEmailFn) {
+ const { sendEmail } = await import("@repo/mail");
+ sendEmailFn = sendEmail;
+ }
+ const { data, error } = await sendEmailFn(email, subject);
+ } catch (importError) {
+ return c.json(
+ {
+ message: "Email service initialization failed",
+ },
+ 500
+ );
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ | |||
| app | |||
| .post("/send-batch", zValidator("json", mailBatchSchema), async (c) => { | |||
| const { emails, subject } = c.req.valid("json"); | |||
| const { sendBatchEmail } = await import("@repo/mail"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Apply similar caching pattern and improve error messages
The dynamic import pattern is duplicated here and could benefit from the same caching approach. Additionally, the error messages could be more specific for batch operations.
Consider implementing similar caching and improving error messages:
+let sendBatchEmailFn: typeof import("@repo/mail")["sendBatchEmail"] | null = null;
+
app
.post("/send-batch", zValidator("json", mailBatchSchema), async (c) => {
const { emails, subject } = c.req.valid("json");
- const { sendBatchEmail } = await import("@repo/mail");
+ try {
+ if (!sendBatchEmailFn) {
+ const { sendBatchEmail } = await import("@repo/mail");
+ sendBatchEmailFn = sendBatchEmail;
+ }
+ const { data, error } = await sendBatchEmailFn(emails, subject);
+ if (error) {
+ return c.json(
+ {
- message: "Email sent failed",
+ message: "Batch email operation failed",
+ error: error.message
+ },
+ 400
+ );
+ }
+ } catch (importError) {
+ return c.json(
+ {
+ message: "Email service initialization failed",
+ },
+ 500
+ );
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/auth.ts (1)
5-5: Consider using Hono's request context instead of raw requestUsing
c.req.rawbypasses Hono's built-in request parsing and middleware capabilities. Consider leveraging Hono's request context features unless there's a specific reason to use the raw request.apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/test.ts (1)
Line range hint
4-8: Consider adding pagination and access controlThe current implementation has potential security and performance concerns:
- It exposes all user data without authentication/authorization
- No pagination could lead to performance issues with large datasets
Consider implementing:
- Authentication middleware
- Pagination with limit/offset or cursor-based approach
-const app = new Hono().get("/", async (c) => { - const user = await prisma.user.findMany(); - return c.json({ - user, - }); -}); +const app = new Hono().get("/", async (c) => { + const page = parseInt(c.req.query('page') || '1'); + const limit = parseInt(c.req.query('limit') || '10'); + const skip = (page - 1) * limit; + + const [users, total] = await Promise.all([ + prisma.user.findMany({ + take: limit, + skip: skip, + select: { + id: true, + name: true, + email: true, + // Add other safe-to-expose fields + } + }), + prisma.user.count() + ]); + + return c.json({ + users, + pagination: { + total, + page, + limit, + pages: Math.ceil(total / limit) + } + }); +});apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/status.ts (1)
4-23: Consider implementing response caching.Since status data likely doesn't need to be real-time, consider implementing response caching to reduce Redis load.
You could:
- Use Hono's built-in cache middleware
- Set appropriate cache headers
- Implement an in-memory cache with a short TTL
Example implementation:
import { cache } from 'hono/cache' const app = new Hono() .use('/*', cache({ cacheName: 'status-cache', cacheControl: 'max-age=10', // Cache for 10 seconds })) // ... rest of your routes
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/auth.ts(1 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/health.ts(1 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/mail.ts(2 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/route.ts(2 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/session.ts(1 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/status.ts(1 hunks)apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/test.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/health.ts
- apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/mail.ts
- apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/route.ts
🔇 Additional comments (6)
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/auth.ts (1)
4-6: Consider security implications of wildcard route pattern
The use of "/**" as a route pattern will match all paths under this route, which might be too permissive. Consider:
- Being more explicit about the exact paths that should be handled
- Adding method-specific logic for POST and GET requests
Suggested Implementation:
-const app = new Hono().on(["POST", "GET"], "/**", (c) => {
- return auth.handler(c.req.raw);
-});
+const app = new Hono()
+ .get("/*", (c) => {
+ // Add GET-specific validation/logic here
+ return auth.handler(c.req.raw);
+ })
+ .post("/*", (c) => {
+ // Add POST-specific validation/logic here
+ return auth.handler(c.req.raw);
+ });apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/test.ts (2)
Line range hint 4-8: LGTM! Code structure improvement
The combined Hono instance creation with route definition improves code conciseness while maintaining readability.
Line range hint 4-8: Verify error handling in the database query
Ensure proper error handling for database operations to prevent exposing internal errors to clients.
Let's check if there's error handling middleware or similar patterns in other routes:
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/session.ts (2)
1-4: LGTM! Clean imports and initialization
The imports are properly structured and the app initialization using method chaining is clean.
2-2: Verify consistent auth package usage across routes
Let's verify if other routes follow similar authentication patterns.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the auth package usage patterns to ensure a comprehensive verification.
Let me check how the auth package is used in the other files where it's imported to ensure consistency.
Auth package usage is consistent across routes
The verification shows consistent and proper usage of the @repo/auth package across the codebase:
session.tscorrectly usesauth.apimethods for session managementauth.tsproperly handles authentication usingauth.handlerroute.tscorrectly imports auth types for type inference
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for auth package usage patterns in route handlers
echo "Checking auth package usage patterns in routes:"
rg -A 5 "auth\.api\.(getSession|listDeviceSessions)" "apps/api/app/api"
Length of output: 983
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all auth package imports and usages
echo "Checking auth package imports:"
rg "import.*from.*@repo/auth" "apps/api"
echo -e "\nChecking all auth package method calls:"
rg "auth\.api\." "apps/api"
Length of output: 678
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check contents of other files using auth package
echo "Content of route.ts:"
cat "apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/route.ts"
echo -e "\nContent of auth.ts:"
cat "apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/auth.ts"
Length of output: 1618
apps/api/app/api/[[...route]]/status.ts (1)
1-4: LGTM! Clean setup with proper imports.
The initialization is well-structured and follows Hono's best practices.
| .get("/", async (c) => { | ||
| const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers }); | ||
|
|
||
| app.get("/", async (c) => { | ||
| const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers }); | ||
| if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401); | ||
|
|
||
| return c.json({ | ||
| session, | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| app.get("/all", async (c) => { | ||
| const res = await auth.api.listDeviceSessions({ | ||
| headers: c.req.raw.headers, | ||
| return c.json({ | ||
| session, | ||
| }); | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for auth API calls
While the session check logic is correct, the handler should include error handling for potential auth API failures.
Consider implementing error handling:
.get("/", async (c) => {
+ try {
const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers });
if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401);
return c.json({
session,
});
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error('Session verification failed:', error);
+ return c.json({ message: "Internal server error" }, 500);
+ }
})📝 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.
| .get("/", async (c) => { | |
| const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers }); | |
| app.get("/", async (c) => { | |
| const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers }); | |
| if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401); | |
| if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401); | |
| return c.json({ | |
| session, | |
| }); | |
| }); | |
| app.get("/all", async (c) => { | |
| const res = await auth.api.listDeviceSessions({ | |
| headers: c.req.raw.headers, | |
| return c.json({ | |
| session, | |
| }); | |
| }) | |
| .get("/", async (c) => { | |
| try { | |
| const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers }); | |
| if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401); | |
| return c.json({ | |
| session, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('Session verification failed:', error); | |
| return c.json({ message: "Internal server error" }, 500); | |
| } | |
| }) |
| .get("/all", async (c) => { | ||
| const res = await auth.api.listDeviceSessions({ | ||
| headers: c.req.raw.headers, | ||
| }); | ||
| return c.json(res); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add session check and error handling for device sessions listing
The endpoint needs two improvements:
- Verify active session before listing devices
- Add error handling for API calls
Consider implementing these security and reliability improvements:
.get("/all", async (c) => {
+ try {
+ const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers });
+
+ if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401);
+
const res = await auth.api.listDeviceSessions({
headers: c.req.raw.headers,
});
return c.json(res);
+ } catch (error) {
+ console.error('Device sessions listing failed:', error);
+ return c.json({ message: "Internal server error" }, 500);
+ }
});📝 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.
| .get("/all", async (c) => { | |
| const res = await auth.api.listDeviceSessions({ | |
| headers: c.req.raw.headers, | |
| }); | |
| return c.json(res); | |
| .get("/all", async (c) => { | |
| try { | |
| const session = await auth.api.getSession({ headers: c.req.raw.headers }); | |
| if (!session) return c.json({ message: "no session found" }, 401); | |
| const res = await auth.api.listDeviceSessions({ | |
| headers: c.req.raw.headers, | |
| }); | |
| return c.json(res); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error('Device sessions listing failed:', error); | |
| return c.json({ message: "Internal server error" }, 500); | |
| } |
| .get("/", async (c) => { | ||
| const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1); | ||
| const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1); | ||
| return c.json({ | ||
| dbStatus, | ||
| siteStatus, | ||
| }); | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling for cache operations.
The cache operations could fail and should be wrapped in try-catch blocks to handle potential Redis errors gracefully.
Here's a suggested implementation:
.get("/", async (c) => {
+ try {
const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1);
const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1);
return c.json({
dbStatus,
siteStatus,
});
+ } catch (error) {
+ return c.json({ error: "Failed to fetch status" }, 500);
+ }
})📝 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.
| .get("/", async (c) => { | |
| const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1); | |
| const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1); | |
| return c.json({ | |
| dbStatus, | |
| siteStatus, | |
| }); | |
| }) | |
| .get("/", async (c) => { | |
| try { | |
| const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1); | |
| const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1); | |
| return c.json({ | |
| dbStatus, | |
| siteStatus, | |
| }); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| return c.json({ error: "Failed to fetch status" }, 500); | |
| } | |
| }) |
| .get("/db", async (c) => { | ||
| const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1); | ||
| return c.json({ | ||
| dbStatus, | ||
| }); | ||
| }) | ||
| .get("/site", async (c) => { | ||
| const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1); | ||
| return c.json({ | ||
| siteStatus, | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor repeated logic and add error handling.
Both route handlers share similar patterns and would benefit from:
- Error handling for cache operations
- A shared middleware for common cache operations
Here's a suggested implementation:
+ const fetchCacheData = async (key: string) => {
+ try {
+ return await cache.lrange(key, 0, -1);
+ } catch (error) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to fetch ${key}`);
+ }
+ };
+ const withErrorHandler = async (c: Context, handler: () => Promise<Response>) => {
+ try {
+ return await handler();
+ } catch (error) {
+ return c.json({ error: error.message }, 500);
+ }
+ };
.get("/db", async (c) => {
+ return withErrorHandler(c, async () => {
- const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1);
+ const dbStatus = await fetchCacheData("db-latency:history");
return c.json({ dbStatus });
+ });
})
.get("/site", async (c) => {
+ return withErrorHandler(c, async () => {
- const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1);
+ const siteStatus = await fetchCacheData("site-latency:history");
return c.json({ siteStatus });
+ });
});📝 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.
| .get("/db", async (c) => { | |
| const dbStatus = await cache.lrange("db-latency:history", 0, -1); | |
| return c.json({ | |
| dbStatus, | |
| }); | |
| }) | |
| .get("/site", async (c) => { | |
| const siteStatus = await cache.lrange("site-latency:history", 0, -1); | |
| return c.json({ | |
| siteStatus, | |
| }); | |
| const fetchCacheData = async (key: string) => { | |
| try { | |
| return await cache.lrange(key, 0, -1); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to fetch ${key}`); | |
| } | |
| }; | |
| const withErrorHandler = async (c: Context, handler: () => Promise<Response>) => { | |
| try { | |
| return await handler(); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| return c.json({ error: error.message }, 500); | |
| } | |
| }; | |
| .get("/db", async (c) => { | |
| return withErrorHandler(c, async () => { | |
| const dbStatus = await fetchCacheData("db-latency:history"); | |
| return c.json({ dbStatus }); | |
| }); | |
| }) | |
| .get("/site", async (c) => { | |
| return withErrorHandler(c, async () => { | |
| const siteStatus = await fetchCacheData("site-latency:history"); | |
| return c.json({ siteStatus }); | |
| }); | |
| }); |
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
/testendpoint, ensuring correct functionality after variable renaming.Refactor