Skip to content

Conversation

jjramirezn
Copy link
Contributor

We were previousley checking previousValueRef.current to see if the value was the same as the debounced value. This was causing issues and is no longer necessary, because it was introduced when the state was not handled correctly

We were previousley checking previousValueRef.current to see if the
value was the same as the debounced value. This was causing issues and
is no longer necessary, because it was introduced when the state was not
handled correctly
Copy link

vercel bot commented Oct 23, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
peanut-ui ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Oct 23, 2024 9:22pm

Copy link

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 23, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes in the ValidatedInput component focus on refining the validation logic within the useEffect hook. The early return condition has been simplified to check only if debouncedValue is an empty string, omitting the previous value check. This adjustment ensures validation occurs for any non-empty debouncedValue. The error handling and stale validation checks remain intact, preserving the component's stability during unmounting or value changes. The debouncing logic and input change handling functions were not modified.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/components/Global/ValidatedInput/... Simplified validation logic in useEffect to check only debouncedValue. Retained error handling and stale validation checks. Debouncing logic and handleChange function remain unchanged.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • Hugo0
  • nezz0746

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@jjramirezn jjramirezn changed the base branch from main to develop October 23, 2024 21:20
@jjramirezn jjramirezn requested a review from Hugo0 October 23, 2024 21:21
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/components/Global/ValidatedInput/index.tsx (1)

Line range hint 36-36: Remove unused previousValueRef update.

The previousValueRef.current is being updated but is no longer used in the validation logic. This reference can be safely removed along with its declaration.

Apply these changes:

- const previousValueRef = useRef(value)
- previousValueRef.current = debouncedValue
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2b760c9 and cbf4d81.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/Global/ValidatedInput/index.tsx (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/Global/ValidatedInput/index.tsx (2)

32-33: LGTM! Simplified validation logic improves code clarity.

The simplified check for empty value is cleaner and more maintainable. This change correctly addresses the issue mentioned in PR-249.


Line range hint 32-52: Well-structured validation implementation.

The validation logic is well-implemented with:

  • Proper async operation handling
  • Good error management
  • Clean state updates
  • Appropriate cleanup to prevent memory leaks

@Hugo0 Hugo0 merged commit ce440a2 into develop Oct 24, 2024
2 checks passed
@jjramirezn jjramirezn deleted the fix/locked-validated-input branch October 24, 2024 09:31
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2024
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants