🐛 Fix on typed select #4529
🐛 Fix on typed select #4529
Conversation
actual-github-bot
bot
changed the title
✅ Deploy Preview for actualbudget ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Bundle Stats — desktop-clientHey there, this message comes from a GitHub action that helps you and reviewers to understand how these changes affect the size of this project's bundle. As this PR is updated, I'll keep you updated on how the bundle size is impacted. Total
Changeset
View detailed bundle breakdownAdded No assets were added Removed No assets were removed Bigger
Smaller No assets were smaller Unchanged
|
Bundle Stats — loot-coreHey there, this message comes from a GitHub action that helps you and reviewers to understand how these changes affect the size of this project's bundle. As this PR is updated, I'll keep you updated on how the bundle size is impacted. Total
Changeset
View detailed bundle breakdownAdded No assets were added Removed No assets were removed Bigger
Smaller No assets were smaller Unchanged No assets were unchanged |
…ctual into bugfix/typecheck_pluggy
WalkthroughThe diff updates the type annotation for the variable 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
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: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
upcoming-release-notes/4529.mdis excluded by!**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Test
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts
[error] 275-275: 'accRow' is possibly 'null'.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: Wait for Netlify build to finish
- GitHub Check: build (macos-latest)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts (1)
270-274:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify consistency with similar functions in the codebase
The type annotation for
db.first<db.DbAccount>is correct, but it's important to ensure consistent error handling across similar functions.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check how other similar functions handle potential null results from db.first echo "Checking account retrieval patterns in the codebase:" rg "const accRow = await db.first.*WHERE id = \?.*\[.*\]" -A 5 --multilineLength of output: 191
Action Required: Verify Consistency in Error Handling
The current implementation uses
await db.first<db.DbAccount>(...)without an explicit check for a null result. The verification script did not return matching patterns from other parts of the codebase, so it's unclear if similar functions perform additional error handling (e.g., checking for a null return value and handling it appropriately).
- Next Step: Manually review other functions that use
db.firstto confirm if they include extra error handling logic. If they do, ensure that this function follows the same pattern; otherwise, consider adding a null check or equivalent error handling to maintain consistency across similar functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 ESLint
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts
[error] 279-279: Delete ········
(prettier/prettier)
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts
[failure] 279-279:
Delete ········
🪛 GitHub Actions: Test
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts
[error] 279-279: Prettier formatting check failed. Delete ········.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
- GitHub Check: Functional
- GitHub Check: Visual regression
- GitHub Check: build (macos-latest)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
- GitHub Check: build (ubuntu-latest)
- GitHub Check: Analyze
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/loot-core/src/server/accounts/app.ts (1)
271-278: Good addition of null check and proper type annotation ✅The changes correctly add a proper type annotation for the
accRowvariable and introduce a null check before usingaccRow.id, which prevents potential TypeScript errors. This addresses the "unknown type error" mentioned in the PR objectives.
After pluggy was merged, typecheck, tests and api workflows are complaning about a unknown type.
This fixes it