Multiple owners/maintainers #258
Conversation
|
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure. 🔧 eslint
frontend/components/package/PackageDocs.svelteOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.0 Error: Failed to load plugin 'svelte' declared in 'frontend/.eslintrc.json': Cannot find module 'svelte/compiler'
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance the package management system by allowing multiple principals to be assigned as owners and maintainers of a package. The Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
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 (
|
…sfer-ownership` command
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (21)
cli/commands/owner.ts (1)
31-49: Extract confirmation prompt to a reusable functionThe confirmation prompt logic in
addOwneris duplicated inremoveOwner. Consider extracting this code into a reusable function to adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle and enhance maintainability.Here's how you might refactor the confirmation prompt:
+async function confirmAction(message: string): Promise<boolean> { + const promptsConfig = { + onCancel() { + console.log('aborted'); + process.exit(0); + }, + }; + const { confirm } = await prompts({ + type: 'confirm', + name: 'confirm', + message, + initial: true, + }, promptsConfig); + return confirm; +} ... if (!yes) { - let promptsConfig = { - onCancel() { - console.log('aborted'); - process.exit(0); - }, - }; - - let {confirm} = await prompts({ - type: 'confirm', - name: 'confirm', - message: `Are you sure you want to add owner ${chalk.yellow(owner)} to ${chalk.yellow(config.package?.name)} package?`, - initial: true, - }, promptsConfig); - - if (!confirm) { + const message = `Are you sure you want to add owner ${chalk.yellow(owner)} to ${chalk.yellow(config.package?.name)} package?`; + const confirmed = await confirmAction(message); + if (!confirmed) { return; } }Apply similar changes in
removeOwnerto use theconfirmActionfunction.cli/commands/maintainer.ts (2)
31-49: Extract confirmation prompt to a reusable functionThe confirmation prompt logic in
addMaintaineris duplicated inremoveMaintainer. Consider extracting this code into a reusable function to adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle and enhance maintainability.Here's how you might refactor the confirmation prompt:
+async function confirmAction(message: string): Promise<boolean> { + const promptsConfig = { + onCancel() { + console.log('aborted'); + process.exit(0); + }, + }; + const { confirm } = await prompts({ + type: 'confirm', + name: 'confirm', + message, + initial: true, + }, promptsConfig); + return confirm; +} ... if (!yes) { - let promptsConfig = { - onCancel() { - console.log('aborted'); - process.exit(0); - }, - }; - - let {confirm} = await prompts({ - type: 'confirm', - name: 'confirm', - message: `Are you sure you want to add maintainer ${chalk.yellow(maintainer)} to ${chalk.yellow(config.package?.name)} package?`, - initial: true, - }, promptsConfig); - - if (!confirm) { + const message = `Are you sure you want to add maintainer ${chalk.yellow(maintainer)} to ${chalk.yellow(config.package?.name)} package?`; + const confirmed = await confirmAction(message); + if (!confirmed) { return; } }Apply similar changes in
removeMaintainerto use theconfirmActionfunction.
8-105: Consider consolidating owner and maintainer command logicThe functions in this file are very similar to those in
owner.ts. To reduce code duplication and improve maintainability, consider consolidating shared logic into reusable functions or a common module.backend/main/registry/Registry.mo (2)
211-213: Define constants for maximum owners and maintainersThe maximum number of owners and maintainers is hard-coded as
5. Consider defining constants or configuration parameters for these limits to improve maintainability and flexibility.Here's how you might implement it:
+ public let MAX_OWNERS = 5; + public let MAX_MAINTAINERS = 5; ... // In addOwner function - if (owners.size() >= 5) { + if (owners.size() >= MAX_OWNERS) { return #err("Maximum number of owners reached"); }; ... // In addMaintainer function - if (maintainers.size() >= 5) { + if (maintainers.size() >= MAX_MAINTAINERS) { return #err("Maximum number of maintainers reached"); };Also applies to: 228-230
184-201: Optimize owner and maintainer look-upThe
isOwnerandisMaintainerfunctions iterate over arrays to check for membership, which can be inefficient for larger lists. Consider usingHashSetorTrieSetforownersByPackageandmaintainersByPackageto improve lookup performance.Here's how you might refactor the data structures:
- ownersByPackage : TrieMap.TrieMap<PackageName, [Principal]>, - maintainersByPackage : TrieMap.TrieMap<PackageName, [Principal]>, + ownersByPackage : TrieMap.TrieMap<PackageName, TrieSet.TrieSet<Principal>>, + maintainersByPackage : TrieMap.TrieMap<PackageName, TrieSet.TrieSet<Principal>>,Update the related functions accordingly to work with sets.
frontend/declarations/main/main.did (3)
160-163: Review Redundancy BetweenownerandownersFieldsThe
PackageSummaryrecord now includes bothowner: principalandowners: vec User. Having both fields may introduce redundancy and potential confusion. Consider whether both are necessary or ifownerscan replaceownerto represent multiple owners consistently.
210-215: Review Redundancy inPackageSummaryFieldsSimilar to previous comments, the
PackageSummaryrecord includes bothowner,ownerInfo, andowners. To improve maintainability and clarity, consider unifying these fields. For example, ifownersprovides all necessary owner information,ownerandownerInfomight be redundant.
Line range hint
281-301: Inconsistent Use ofPackageNameandPackageName__1TypesWithin
PackageConfigV3andPackageConfigV3_Publishing, thenamefield usesPackageName, while other parts of the code usePackageName__1. Since both types are defined astext, consider standardizing on a singlePackageNametype to avoid confusion.frontend/declarations/main/main.did.d.ts (1)
236-241: Assess Redundancy BetweenownerandownersinPackageSummaryHaving both
ownerandownersfields inPackageSummarymay lead to confusion. Evaluate if it's necessary to keep both or if one can be removed in favor of a unified approach.cli/declarations/main/main.did.d.ts (1)
236-241: Evaluate Necessity of BothownerandownersFieldsIncluding both
ownerandownersinPackageSummarymay be redundant. Consider unifying these fields to simplify the data model.backend/main/PackagePublisher.mo (1)
72-74: Simplify Permission Check LogicThe updated permission check allows both owners and maintainers to publish packages, which is correct. However, the condition can be simplified for better readability.
Consider refactoring the condition:
-if (not isNewPackage and not registry.isOwner(config.name, caller) and not registry.isMaintainer(config.name, caller)) { +if (not isNewPackage and not (registry.isOwner(config.name, caller) or registry.isMaintainer(config.name, caller))) { return #err("Only owners and maintainers can publish packages"); };docs/docs/cli/2-publish/05-mops-owner.md (3)
24-24: Specify Language Identifier in Code BlockThe code block on line 24 lacks a language specifier, which helps with syntax highlighting.
Apply the following change:
-``` +mops owner add <principal> +```bash🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
24-24: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
31-31: Specify Language Identifier in Code BlockThe code block on line 31 should specify the language for clarity.
Apply the following change:
-``` +mops owner remove <principal> +```bash🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
31-31: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
48-48: Specify Language Identifier in Code BlockIncluding the language specifier improves readability and complies with markdown standards.
Apply the following change:
-``` +mops owner add 2d2zu-vaaaa-aaaak-qb6pq-cai +```bash🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
48-48: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
docs/docs/cli/2-publish/06-mops-maintainer.md (3)
24-24: Specify Language Identifier in Code BlockThe code block on line 24 is missing a language specifier.
Apply the following change:
-``` +mops maintainer add <principal> +```bash🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
24-24: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
31-31: Specify Language Identifier in Code BlockAdd a language specifier to the code block on line 31 for better syntax highlighting.
Apply the following change:
-``` +mops maintainer remove <principal> +```bash🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
31-31: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
48-48: Specify Language Identifier in Code BlockIncluding the language specifier enhances readability and helps with code formatting.
Apply the following change:
-``` +mops maintainer add 2d2zu-vaaaa-aaaak-qb6pq-cai +```bash🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
48-48: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
frontend/components/package/UserCard.svelte (1)
22-23: Enhance accessibility for social media linksThe current implementation could benefit from improved accessibility attributes.
-<img class="github-icon" src="{githubImg}" alt="GitHub logo" loading="lazy" /> +<img class="github-icon" src="{githubImg}" alt="GitHub profile" loading="lazy" aria-hidden="true" /> +<span class="sr-only">GitHub profile for {user.github}</span> -<img class="twitter-icon" src="{twitterImg}" alt="Twitter logo" loading="lazy" /> +<img class="twitter-icon" src="{twitterImg}" alt="Twitter profile" loading="lazy" aria-hidden="true" /> +<span class="sr-only">Twitter profile for {user.twitter}</span>Also add this to your styles:
.sr-only { position: absolute; width: 1px; height: 1px; padding: 0; margin: -1px; overflow: hidden; clip: rect(0, 0, 0, 0); white-space: nowrap; border: 0; }Also applies to: 28-29
backend/main/registry/searchInRegistry.mo (1)
44-61: Consider weighted scoring for primary vs secondary ownersThe current implementation gives equal weight to all owners in search results, which might not reflect the intended hierarchy.
Consider implementing a weighted scoring system where the primary owner gets higher points than secondary owners. This would help maintain more relevant search results while still supporting multiple owners.
Example approach:
- Modify
Registry.moto track primary vs secondary owners- Adjust scoring in search:
- Primary owner match: 5 points
- Secondary owner match: 3 points
cli/cli.ts (2)
293-322: Add principal validation for owner management commands.While the command structure is well-organized, consider adding validation for the principal parameter to ensure it's in the correct format before making the API call.
ownerCommand .command('add <principal>') .description('Add package owner') .addOption(new Option('--yes', 'Do not ask for confirmation')) + .addOption(new Option('--validate', 'Validate principal format').default(true)) .action(async (data, options) => { + if (options.validate && !isPrincipalValid(data)) { + console.error('Invalid principal format'); + process.exit(1); + } await addOwner(data, options.yes); });
324-353: Consider refactoring common command patterns.The maintainer commands mirror the owner commands, suggesting an opportunity for code reuse. Consider extracting the common command pattern into a reusable function.
function createEntityCommand(entityType: 'owner' | 'maintainer') { const command = new Command(entityType) .description(`Package ${entityType} management`); command .command('list') .description(`List package ${entityType}s`) .action(async () => { await (entityType === 'owner' ? printOwners : printMaintainers)(); }); command .command('add <principal>') .description(`Add package ${entityType}`) .addOption(new Option('--yes', 'Do not ask for confirmation')) .addOption(new Option('--validate', 'Validate principal format').default(true)) .action(async (data, options) => { if (options.validate && !isPrincipalValid(data)) { console.error('Invalid principal format'); process.exit(1); } await (entityType === 'owner' ? addOwner : addMaintainer)(data, options.yes); }); // ... similar for remove command return command; } // Usage program.addCommand(createEntityCommand('owner')); program.addCommand(createEntityCommand('maintainer'));
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (27)
backend/main/PackagePublisher.mo(2 hunks)backend/main/main-canister.mo(12 hunks)backend/main/registry/Registry.mo(4 hunks)backend/main/registry/getPackageSummary.mo(2 hunks)backend/main/registry/searchInRegistry.mo(1 hunks)backend/main/types.mo(1 hunks)cli/CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)cli/cli.ts(2 hunks)cli/commands/maintainer.ts(1 hunks)cli/commands/owner.ts(1 hunks)cli/commands/transfer-ownership.ts(0 hunks)cli/commands/watch/parseDfxJson.ts(1 hunks)cli/declarations/main/main.did(13 hunks)cli/declarations/main/main.did.d.ts(11 hunks)cli/declarations/main/main.did.js(16 hunks)dfx.json(1 hunks)docs/docs/articles/03-package-owners-and-maintainers.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/cli/2-publish/05-mops-owner.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/cli/2-publish/05-mops-transfer-ownership.md(0 hunks)docs/docs/cli/2-publish/06-mops-maintainer.md(1 hunks)frontend/components/package/PackageDocs.svelte(1 hunks)frontend/components/package/PackageRightPanel.svelte(3 hunks)frontend/components/package/PackageVersionSummary.svelte(3 hunks)frontend/components/package/UserCard.svelte(1 hunks)frontend/declarations/main/main.did(13 hunks)frontend/declarations/main/main.did.d.ts(11 hunks)frontend/declarations/main/main.did.js(16 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- docs/docs/cli/2-publish/05-mops-transfer-ownership.md
- cli/commands/transfer-ownership.ts
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- dfx.json
- docs/docs/articles/03-package-owners-and-maintainers.md
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
docs/docs/cli/2-publish/06-mops-maintainer.md
24-24: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
31-31: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
48-48: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
docs/docs/cli/2-publish/05-mops-owner.md
24-24: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
31-31: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
48-48: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🔇 Additional comments (40)
frontend/components/package/PackageRightPanel.svelte (2)
75-83: Implementation of owners display looks good
The new "Owners" section correctly iterates over packageDetails.owners and uses the UserCard component to display each owner.
84-93: Conditional display of maintainers is correctly implemented
The "Maintainers" section is only displayed when there are maintainers, and correctly iterates over packageDetails.maintainers using the UserCard component.
frontend/declarations/main/main.did (2)
319-320: Addition of Methods for Managing Owners and Maintainers
The new methods addMaintainer and addOwner enhance the package management capabilities by allowing multiple maintainers and owners. This is a valuable addition aligning with the PR objectives.
358-359: Methods to Retrieve Owners and Maintainers Added Successfully
The inclusion of getPackageOwners and getPackageMaintainers provides necessary functionality for retrieving owner and maintainer information.
frontend/declarations/main/main.did.d.ts (2)
28-28: Consistent Typing for Package Names
As previously mentioned, consider consolidating PackageName and PackageName__1 into a single PackageName type to maintain consistency throughout the codebase.
59-60: New Methods for Ownership Management Added
The addition of addMaintainer and addOwner methods to the Main interface effectively extends ownership management functionalities.
cli/declarations/main/main.did.d.ts (3)
28-28: Consistent Use of PackageName Type
As mentioned earlier, standardize the usage of PackageName and PackageName__1 to a single PackageName type for clarity.
59-60: Added Methods Enhance Ownership Management
The methods addMaintainer and addOwner in the Main interface improve the package management system as per the PR objectives.
317-322: Consistency in Error Types for Result_3
Ensure that Result_3 uses the Err type for the err variant, similar to other Result types, for consistent error handling.
frontend/declarations/main/main.did.js (5)
61-63: Standardize Dependency Name Type
In the DependencyV2 record, the name field uses PackageName. Ensure that this is consistent with other parts of the code that use PackageName__1.
275-282: Inconsistent Use of PackageName in Config Records
PackageConfigV3_Publishing uses name: PackageName, whereas other places use PackageName__1. For clarity and consistency, consider using a single PackageName type.
312-313: New Owner and Maintainer Management Functions Added
The functions addMaintainer and addOwner enhance the Main service with necessary ownership management capabilities.
380-389: Addition of Functions to Retrieve Owners and Maintainers
The new functions getPackageOwners and getPackageMaintainers are appropriately added to facilitate access to ownership information.
419-424: Ensure Consistent Error Handling in removeMaintainer and removeOwner
The removeMaintainer and removeOwner functions return Result_3, which should consistently use the Err type for the err variant as previously discussed.
backend/main/PackagePublisher.mo (2)
76-81: Consider Consistent Validation for Existing Packages
Currently, the validation for invalid characters '.' and '_' in package names is only applied to new packages. This means existing packages with these characters are allowed without any warnings.
Ensure that this is the intended behavior. If you want to discourage the use of these characters in all packages, consider issuing a warning for existing packages or handling it accordingly.
105-105: Prevent Naming Conflicts with GitHub Dependencies
The check correctly identifies conflicts between GitHub dependencies and existing packages in the Mops registry, preventing potential naming collisions.
backend/main/main-canister.mo (7)
65-67: Initialize Owners and Maintainers Data Structures
The introduction of ownersByPackage and maintainersByPackage enhances the management of package ownership.
495-501: Add Public Queries for Owners and Maintainers
Providing public query functions getPackageOwners and getPackageMaintainers allows users to retrieve the lists of owners and maintainers for a package.
503-516: Implement Functions to Manage Owners and Maintainers
The addition of addOwner, addMaintainer, removeOwner, and removeMaintainer functions enables modification of package ownership and maintainership as intended.
552-556: Include New Data Structures in Backup
The backup now includes ownersByPackage and maintainersByPackage, ensuring these new data structures are preserved.
Confirm that the backup process correctly handles these additions and maintains backward compatibility.
582-598: Update Backup Process to Handle New Variables
The backup function uploads chunks for the new data structures. Ensure all necessary data is included, and the versioning (v8) is correctly managed.
Line range hint 608-666: Handle New Data Structures in Restore Process
The restore function now processes the new backup format, including owners and maintainers. Verify that all data is accurately restored without corruption.
734-745:
Ensure Accurate Migration in Post-Upgrade
The migration from packageOwners to ownersByPackage converts single owners into lists. It's crucial to handle this migration carefully to avoid data loss.
Consider adding error handling or logging to detect any issues during the migration process.
Ensure that all existing owners are correctly migrated to the new structure.
cli/commands/watch/parseDfxJson.ts (1)
54-56: Verify if defensive programming is necessary given the type definition
While the defensive programming using dfxJson.canisters || {} is good practice, the DfxConfig type suggests that canisters is a required field. Let's verify if this protection is necessary.
Also applies to: 61-63
✅ Verification successful
Based on the dfx.schema.json, I can now generate the final response since it clearly shows that the canisters field in dfx.json can be null according to the schema:
"canisters": {
"description": "Mapping between canisters and their settings.",
"type": [
"object",
"null"
],
...
}Defensive programming is necessary and correct
The defensive programming using dfxJson.canisters || {} is necessary and correct since the schema explicitly allows the canisters field to be null. This null-safety ensures the code handles all valid dfx.json configurations properly.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for dfx.json files in the codebase to verify if canisters field is optional
fd -e json -x sh -c 'echo "=== {} ==="; cat {} | jq "has(\"canisters\")"' \;
Length of output: 1621
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the DfxConfig type definition and any related interfaces
rg -A 10 "interface DfxConfig"
# Also check for any dfx.json schema definitions
cat dfx.schema.json
Length of output: 37841
frontend/components/package/PackageVersionSummary.svelte (3)
8-8: LGTM: Clean import addition
The UserCard import is properly placed with other component imports.
70-72: LGTM: Well-structured publisher information display
The publisher section is properly implemented using the UserCard component with appropriate compact mode.
95-100: LGTM: Consistent styling
The publisher section styling follows the existing patterns in the file and provides appropriate spacing and font size.
cli/CHANGELOG.md (1)
3-8: LGTM: Well-documented changes
The changelog entries clearly document:
- The removal of the
transfer-ownershipcommand - The addition of new
ownerandmaintainerscommands with documentation links - An unrelated bug fix
The format is consistent with the rest of the changelog.
backend/main/registry/getPackageSummary.mo (3)
3-4: LGTM: Required imports added
The Array and Principal imports are necessary for the new functionality.
29-39: LGTM: Comprehensive user validation
Good implementation of user validation for publisher, owners, and maintainers.
46-49: LGTM: Clean implementation of backward compatibility
The changes maintain backward compatibility by:
- Keeping the legacy owner field
- Adding new arrays for owners and maintainers
backend/main/types.mo (2)
92-93: LGTM: Proper handling of legacy fields.
The fields are correctly marked as legacy while being retained for backward compatibility.
94-95: LGTM: New fields align with multiple ownership model.
The addition of owners, maintainers, and publisher fields properly implements the multiple ownership model requested in issue #251.
Also applies to: 98-98
cli/declarations/main/main.did (2)
160-166: LGTM: Type definitions properly updated for multiple ownership.
The PackageSummary type correctly includes the new fields while maintaining backward compatibility with legacy fields.
319-320: LGTM: Comprehensive owner/maintainer management methods.
The service interface provides a complete set of methods for managing owners and maintainers:
addOwner/removeOwnerfor ownership managementaddMaintainer/removeMaintainerfor maintainer management
Also applies to: 378-379
frontend/components/package/PackageDocs.svelte (2)
258-259: LGTM: Improved error handling with logging.
Added appropriate logging when a definition is not found, helping with debugging.
261-264: LGTM: Better cross-browser compatibility for scrolling.
Changed to document.scrollingElement.scroll which provides better cross-browser compatibility compared to document.body.scroll.
cli/cli.ts (1)
29-30: LGTM!
The new imports for owner and maintainer management functions are properly organized.
cli/declarations/main/main.did.js (2)
2-3: LGTM!
The new type definitions for PackageName__1 and Result_3 are properly structured.
312-313: LGTM!
The new service methods for owner and maintainer management are well-defined and follow the existing pattern.
Also applies to: 419-424
| let principal = Principal.fromText(owner); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle exceptions when parsing Principal from owner string
Principal.fromText(owner) could throw an error if the input owner is not a valid principal string. Consider wrapping this call in a try-catch block to handle invalid input gracefully.
Apply this diff to handle the exception:
let principal;
- principal = Principal.fromText(owner);
+ try {
+ principal = Principal.fromText(owner);
+ } catch (e) {
+ console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + owner);
+ process.exit(1);
+ }📝 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.
| let principal = Principal.fromText(owner); | |
| let principal; | |
| try { | |
| principal = Principal.fromText(owner); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + owner); | |
| process.exit(1); | |
| } | |
| let principal = Principal.fromText(owner); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle exceptions when parsing Principal from owner string
Principal.fromText(owner) could throw an error if the input owner is not a valid principal string. Consider wrapping this call in a try-catch block to handle invalid input gracefully.
Apply this diff to handle the exception:
let principal;
- principal = Principal.fromText(owner);
+ try {
+ principal = Principal.fromText(owner);
+ } catch (e) {
+ console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + owner);
+ process.exit(1);
+ }📝 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.
| let principal = Principal.fromText(owner); | |
| let principal; | |
| try { | |
| principal = Principal.fromText(owner); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + owner); | |
| process.exit(1); | |
| } | |
| let principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle exceptions when parsing Principal from maintainer string
Principal.fromText(maintainer) could throw an error if the input maintainer is not a valid principal string. Consider wrapping this call in a try-catch block to handle invalid input gracefully.
Apply this diff to handle the exception:
let principal;
- principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer);
+ try {
+ principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer);
+ } catch (e) {
+ console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + maintainer);
+ process.exit(1);
+ }📝 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.
| let principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer); | |
| let principal; | |
| try { | |
| principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + maintainer); | |
| process.exit(1); | |
| } | |
| let principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle exceptions when parsing Principal from maintainer string
Principal.fromText(maintainer) could throw an error if the input maintainer is not a valid principal string. Consider wrapping this call in a try-catch block to handle invalid input gracefully.
Apply this diff to handle the exception:
let principal;
- principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer);
+ try {
+ principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer);
+ } catch (e) {
+ console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + maintainer);
+ process.exit(1);
+ }📝 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.
| let principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer); | |
| let principal; | |
| try { | |
| principal = Principal.fromText(maintainer); | |
| } catch (e) { | |
| console.error(chalk.red('Invalid Principal: ') + maintainer); | |
| process.exit(1); | |
| } | |
| err: text; | ||
| ok; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Ensure Consistent Usage of Error Types in Result_3
In Result_3, the err variant is of type text, whereas in other Result types, err is of type Err. To maintain consistency and clarity, consider defining Result_3 as:
-type Result_3 =
- variant {
- err: text;
- ok;
- };
+type Result_3 =
+ variant {
+ err: Err;
+ ok: null;
+ };This change aligns Result_3 with the other Result types by using the Err type and explicitly specifying ok as null.
📝 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.
| err: text; | |
| ok; | |
| type Result_3 = | |
| variant { | |
| err: Err; | |
| ok: null; | |
| }; |
| <div class="user-card" class:compact={compact}> | ||
| <div class="value user"> | ||
| {#if user.name} | ||
| <a class="value" href="/search/owner:{user.name}" use:link>{user.name}</a> <small class="principal-text">{user.id}</small> | ||
| {:else} | ||
| <a class="value" href="/search/owner:{user.id}" use:link>{user.id}</a> | ||
| {/if} | ||
| </div> | ||
| {#if !compact} | ||
| {#if user.github} | ||
| <a class="value with-icon" href="https://github.com/{user.github}" target="_blank"> | ||
| <img class="github-icon" src="{githubImg}" alt="GitHub logo" loading="lazy" /> | ||
| {user.github} | ||
| </a> | ||
| {/if} | ||
| {#if user.twitter} | ||
| <a class="value with-icon" href="https://twitter.com/{user.twitter}" target="_blank"> | ||
| <img class="twitter-icon" src="{twitterImg}" alt="Twitter logo" loading="lazy" /> | ||
| {user.twitter} | ||
| </a> | ||
| {/if} | ||
| {/if} | ||
| </div> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling for social media profiles
The component should handle cases where social media profiles might be invalid or inaccessible.
Consider adding error states and validation:
<script lang="ts">
export let user: User;
export let compact = false;
+ let githubError = false;
+ let twitterError = false;
+
+ function handleImageError(type: 'github' | 'twitter') {
+ if (type === 'github') githubError = true;
+ if (type === 'twitter') twitterError = true;
+ }
</script>
{#if !compact}
{#if user.github && !githubError}
<a class="value with-icon" href="https://github.com/{user.github}" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
- <img class="github-icon" src="{githubImg}" alt="GitHub logo" loading="lazy" />
+ <img
+ class="github-icon"
+ src="{githubImg}"
+ alt="GitHub profile"
+ loading="lazy"
+ on:error={() => handleImageError('github')}
+ />
{user.github}
</a>
{/if}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| for (ownerId in owners.vals()) { | ||
| if (searchOwnerNameOrId == Principal.toText(ownerId)) { | ||
| sortingPoints += 3; | ||
| }; | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize owner search performance
The current implementation iterates over owners multiple times and might impact performance with a large number of owners.
Consider consolidating the owner search into a single pass:
-for (ownerId in owners.vals()) {
- if (searchOwnerNameOrId == Principal.toText(ownerId)) {
- sortingPoints += 3;
- };
-};
-// search by owner name
-else {
- for (ownerId in owners.vals()) {
- let ownerInfo = users.getUserOpt(ownerId)!;
- if (searchOwnerNameOrId == ownerInfo.name) {
- sortingPoints += 3;
- };
- };
+let found = false;
+label search for (ownerId in owners.vals()) {
+ if (Option.isSome(PrincipalExt.fromText(searchOwnerNameOrId))) {
+ if (searchOwnerNameOrId == Principal.toText(ownerId)) {
+ found := true;
+ break search;
+ };
+ } else {
+ let ownerInfo = users.getUserOpt(ownerId)!;
+ if (searchOwnerNameOrId == ownerInfo.name) {
+ found := true;
+ break search;
+ };
+ };
+};
+if (found) sortingPoints += 3;Also applies to: 56-61
| let ownerInfo = users.getUserOpt(ownerId)!; | ||
| if (searchOwnerNameOrId == ownerInfo.name) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling for getUserOpt
The force unwrap operator ! on getUserOpt could cause runtime errors if user info is not found.
-let ownerInfo = users.getUserOpt(ownerId)!;
-if (searchOwnerNameOrId == ownerInfo.name) {
+switch (users.getUserOpt(ownerId)) {
+ case (?ownerInfo) {
+ if (searchOwnerNameOrId == ownerInfo.name) {
+ sortingPoints += 3;
+ };
+ };
+ case null {
+ // Log or handle missing user info
+ };
+};Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
|
|
||
| let owner = if (owners.size() > 0) owners[0] else Principal.fromText("aaaaa-aa"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Principal aaaaa-aa usage needs to be reviewed
The principal appears in two different contexts:
- In
dfx.schema.jsonas part of Bitcoin canister configuration - In
getPackageSummary.moas a fallback owner when no owners are present
The usage in the code appears to be problematic as:
- It's using the IC management canister as a fallback owner for packages
- This could lead to packages appearing to be owned by the management canister when they have no real owners
- The comment
// legacysuggests this might be technical debt
- Consider using a dedicated null principal or handling the no-owner case differently
- Review if fallback to management canister is the intended behavior
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the hardcoded principal value
The fallback principal aaaaa-aa seems to be the IC management canister, but this should be verified.
Let me check the content of these files to understand the context better.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other occurrences of this principal to verify its usage
rg -l "aaaaa-aa"
Length of output: 75
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content around the principal usage
rg -A 5 -B 5 "aaaaa-aa"
Length of output: 1953
| @@ -57,9 +58,9 @@ export const idlFactory = ({ IDL }) => { | |||
| }); | |||
| const PackageVersion = IDL.Text; | |||
| const Script = IDL.Record({ 'value' : IDL.Text, 'name' : IDL.Text }); | |||
| const PackageName__1 = IDL.Text; | |||
| const PackageName = IDL.Text; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider consistent type naming.
The file uses both PackageName and PackageName__1. For consistency, consider using only PackageName__1 throughout the file.
-const PackageName = IDL.Text;
const DependencyV2 = IDL.Record({
- 'name' : PackageName,
+ 'name' : PackageName__1,
'repo' : IDL.Text,
'version' : IDL.Text,
});
const PackageConfigV3 = IDL.Record({
// ...
- 'name' : PackageName,
+ 'name' : PackageName__1,
// ...
});Also applies to: 63-63, 74-74
fixes #251
fixes #257
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
mops ownerandmops maintainer).Bug Fixes
mops watchcommand whendfx.jsonis absent.Documentation
Style
Chores