Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bot: debug handleInteractionResponseEdit #235

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2024
Merged

Conversation

Behzad-rabiei
Copy link
Member

@Behzad-rabiei Behzad-rabiei commented Nov 10, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Updated logging statements to accurately reflect the structure of incoming message data, improving clarity in error tracking.
  • Chores

    • Maintained existing error handling while enhancing logging for better message content visibility.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 10, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on the handleInteractionResponseEdit function within the interactionResponseEdit.ts file. The modifications involve updating logging statements to accurately reflect the structure of the msg object, specifically changing references from msg?.content to msg?.content.data and msg?.content.interaction. The function's signature and error handling mechanisms remain unchanged.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
bot/src/rabbitmq/events/interactionResponseEdit.ts Updated logging statements to reflect the correct structure of the msg object, specifically msg?.content.data and msg?.content.interaction. Error handling remains unchanged.

Possibly related PRs

  • bot: debug handleInteractionResponseEdit #234: The changes in this PR directly modify the same handleInteractionResponseEdit function in the interactionResponseEdit.ts file, focusing on logging adjustments similar to those in the main PR.

Poem

In the code where rabbits play,
Logs now shine a brighter way.
With each message, clear and bright,
We hop along, in pure delight!
Adjustments made, the path is clear,
Hooray for logs, let’s give a cheer! 🐇✨


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.

Copy link

@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: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
bot/src/rabbitmq/events/interactionResponseEdit.ts (2)

Line range hint 9-24: Improve type safety and validation

The function could benefit from the following improvements:

  1. Replace any type with a proper interface/type definition
  2. Add validation for required fields
  3. Consider uncommenting the logger.info statements for better observability

Consider applying these changes:

- export async function handleInteractionResponseEdit(msg: any): Promise<void> {
+ interface InteractionMessage {
+   content: {
+     interaction: unknown;
+     data: unknown;
+   };
+ }
+
+ export async function handleInteractionResponseEdit(msg: InteractionMessage): Promise<void> {
    try {
-       // logger.info({ msg, event: Event.DISCORD_BOT.INTERACTION_RESPONSE.EDIT }, 'is running');
+       logger.info({ msg, event: Event.DISCORD_BOT.INTERACTION_RESPONSE.EDIT }, 'is running');
+       if (!msg?.content?.interaction || !msg?.content?.data) {
+           throw new Error('Missing required fields in message');
+       }
        const interaction = msg.content.interaction;
        const data = msg.content.data;
        
        await interactionService.editOriginalInteractionResponse(interaction, data);
-       // logger.info({ msg, event: Event.DISCORD_BOT.INTERACTION_RESPONSE.EDIT }, 'is done');
+       logger.info({ msg, event: Event.DISCORD_BOT.INTERACTION_RESPONSE.EDIT }, 'is done');
    } catch (error) {
        logger.error({ msg, event: Event.DISCORD_BOT.INTERACTION_RESPONSE.EDIT, error }, 'is failed');
    }
}

Remove debug console.log statements and maintain consistent logging pattern

The verification reveals inconsistent logging patterns across interaction handlers:

  • interactionResponseCreate.ts properly uses logger.info for start and completion
  • interactionResponseDelete.ts has commented-out logger.info statements
  • interactionResponseEdit.ts has both commented-out logger.info and debug console.log statements

Please:

  • Remove all console.log debug statements from interactionResponseEdit.ts
  • Uncomment the logger.info statements to match the pattern in interactionResponseCreate.ts
  • Consider uncommenting logger.info statements in interactionResponseDelete.ts for consistency
🔗 Analysis chain

Line range hint 1-24: Verify consistent logging patterns across the codebase

Let's ensure that other interaction handlers follow consistent logging patterns.


Let me check the logging patterns in the other interaction handlers to ensure consistency.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for inconsistent logging patterns in interaction handlers

# Search for console.log statements in interaction handlers
echo "Checking for console.log statements in interaction handlers:"
rg "console\.log" "bot/src/rabbitmq/events/"

# Search for similar handler patterns to ensure consistency
echo -e "\nChecking other interaction handlers for logging patterns:"
rg "handleInteraction.*Response" "bot/src/rabbitmq/events/"

Length of output: 1207


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of other interaction handlers
echo "Content of interactionResponseDelete.ts:"
cat bot/src/rabbitmq/events/interactionResponseDelete.ts

echo -e "\nContent of interactionResponseCreate.ts:"
cat bot/src/rabbitmq/events/interactionResponseCreate.ts

Length of output: 2288

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e3e0fc3 and 9988bdf.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • bot/src/rabbitmq/events/interactionResponseEdit.ts (1 hunks)

Comment on lines 13 to +18
const data = msg?.content.data
console.log(msg)
console.log('***************')
console.log(msg?.content)
console.log(msg?.content.data)
console.log('***************')
console.log(msg?.interaction)
console.log(msg?.content.interaction)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Remove debug console.log statements

The console.log statements appear to be temporary debugging code. These should be removed or replaced with proper structured logging.

Replace the debug statements with proper logging:

-       console.log(msg)
-       console.log('***************')
-       console.log(msg?.content.data)
-       console.log('***************')
-       console.log(msg?.content.interaction)
+       logger.debug({
+           messageData: msg?.content.data,
+           interaction: msg?.content.interaction
+       }, 'Processing interaction response edit');

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

@Behzad-rabiei Behzad-rabiei merged commit 91a8181 into main Nov 10, 2024
9 checks passed
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.

1 participant