Fix/permissions #71
Fix/permissions #71
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in 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 (
|
Deploying identity-on-chain-platform with
|
| Latest commit: |
eaa597c
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://deef634e.identity-on-chain-platform.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://fix-permissions.identity-on-chain-platform.pages.dev |
mehdi-torabiv
force-pushed
the
fix/permissions
branch
from
1de489b to
eaa597c
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/pages/Permissions/Permissions.tsx (1)
Line range hint
182-186: Consider improving error handling and user experienceThe current implementation has some potential issues:
- Using 'Unknown' as a fallback value might not provide the best user experience
- Missing error logging for debugging when provider information is unavailable
Consider these improvements:
const providers: Platform[] = attestations.map((attestation) => ({ id: attestation.id || 'Unknown', - provider: attestation.provider || 'Unknown', + provider: attestation.provider || '(Provider not available)', uid: attestation.id || 'Unknown', })); + + // Add logging for debugging + if (!attestation.provider) { + console.warn(`Provider information missing for attestation ID: ${attestation.id}`); + }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/pages/Permissions/Permissions.tsx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/pages/Permissions/Permissions.tsx (2)
101-101: LGTM: Provider extraction is well-implemented
The provider extraction follows good practices:
- Consistent with existing key extraction pattern
- Proper type safety with optional chaining
- Clear conditional assignment
Also applies to: 105-108
Line range hint 289-294: Verify CustomTable implementation for provider handling
Let's verify that the CustomTable component properly handles the provider field in its implementation.
✅ Verification successful
CustomTable implementation properly handles provider field
The verification shows that CustomTable is correctly implemented to handle providers:
- The
Platforminterface inCustomTable.tsxexplicitly includes theproviderfield - The component accepts
xcolumnsprop of typePlatform[]which is correctly used inPermissions.tsx - The implementation includes proper typing and handling of the provider data through its props interface
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CustomTable implementation and its type definitions
rg -t typescript -A 10 "interface Platform" src/
rg -t typescript -A 10 "CustomTable.*Platform\[\]" src/
Length of output: 178
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CustomTable implementation and its type definitions without file type restriction
rg -A 10 "interface Platform" src/
rg -A 10 "type Platform" src/
rg -A 10 "CustomTable" src/
Length of output: 4654
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes