Merging Develop into Master #970
Conversation
Iste 474: Resolved "The system is displaying each division twice under jurisdictions"
Numeric Code Added
Solved two Khanna Issue
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant changes to multiple files, primarily focusing on the addition and modification of build configurations in Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change is to solve numeric code problem.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
frontend/mgramseva/lib/screeens/reports/monthly_ledger_report.dart (1)
92-106: Approve changes with suggestions for improvementThe replacement of the
Opacitywidget with a visibleTextButton.iconis a positive change that improves functionality and usability. The download button is now accessible to users, and the addition of the download icon enhances clarity.However, consider the following suggestions for further improvement:
- Add a loading indicator while the download is in progress to provide visual feedback to the user.
- Consider adding a tooltip to the button to provide more context about the download functionality.
- Ensure that the new button doesn't negatively impact the layout on smaller screen sizes.
Here's a sample implementation incorporating these suggestions:
TextButton.icon( onPressed: () async { if (reportProvider.selectedBillPeriod == null) { Notifiers.getToastMessage( context, '${ApplicationLocalizations.of(context).translate(i18.common.SELECT_BILLING_CYCLE)}', 'ERROR'); } else { setState(() => _isDownloading = true); try { await reportProvider.getMonthlyLedgerReport(download: true); } finally { setState(() => _isDownloading = false); } } }, icon: _isDownloading ? CircularProgressIndicator() : Icon(Icons.download_sharp), label: Text(ApplicationLocalizations.of(context).translate(i18.common.CORE_DOWNLOAD)), tooltip: ApplicationLocalizations.of(context).translate(i18.common.DOWNLOAD_TOOLTIP), )Note: You'll need to add a
_isDownloadingboolean state variable to the widget's state class.frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/createEmployee.js (1)
162-176: Improved form validation logicThe changes to the
onFormValueChangefunction enhance the validation process by incorporating the newhasUniqueDivisionscheck for state admins. The conditional logic is now more comprehensive and handles both state admin and non-state admin cases effectively.To further improve readability, consider extracting the complex condition into a separate function. This would make the code more maintainable and easier to understand.
Here's a suggested refactor to improve readability:
const isFormValid = (formData, isStateAdmin) => { const baseConditions = formData?.SelectEmployeeGender?.gender.code && formData?.SelectEmployeeName?.employeeName && formData?.SelectEmployeePhoneNumber?.mobileNumber && formData?.Jurisdictions?.length; const stateAdminConditions = hasUniqueDivisions(formData?.Jurisdictions) && !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.division == undefined || juris?.divisionBoundary?.length === 0); const nonStateAdminConditions = !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.roles?.length === 0) && isValid && checkfield && phonecheck && checkMailNameNum(formData) && hasUniqueTenantIds(formData?.Jurisdictions); return baseConditions && (isStateAdmin ? stateAdminConditions : nonStateAdminConditions); }; // In onFormValueChange: if (isFormValid(formData, STATE_ADMIN)) { setSubmitValve(true); } else { setSubmitValve(false); }This refactoring separates the complex condition into a more readable and maintainable function.
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/example/src/UICustomizations.js (5)
Line range hint
89-114: LGTM: New case added for "muster roll" business serviceThe addition of the "muster roll" case improves the function's completeness and consistency with other business services. The implementation follows the existing pattern, which is good for maintainability.
Consider extracting the common workflow object construction logic into a separate function to reduce code duplication across different business service cases. This would improve maintainability and reduce the risk of inconsistencies when adding new cases in the future.
136-145: LGTM: Additional fields added to works.purchase billThe addition of new fields in
additionalFieldsToSetand their inclusion in thebillobject provides more context for theworks.purchasebusiness service. The use of object spreading is a clean way to merge these fields.For improved clarity and maintainability, consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of these additional fields and why they're being added to the bill object. This will help future developers understand the rationale behind these additions.
175-181: LGTM: Extended getBusinessService function for new business typesThe
getBusinessServicefunction has been updated to include conditions for "works.purchase", "works.wages", and "works.supervision". This extends the functionality consistently with the existing pattern. The improved formatting enhances readability.As the number of business services grows, consider refactoring this function to use a lookup object or switch statement for better scalability and maintainability. This would make it easier to add new business services in the future without extending the if-else chain.
Line range hint
204-254: LGTM with a note: AttendanceInboxConfig improvements and extensionsThe
AttendanceInboxConfigobject has been updated with improved formatting and extended functionality for handling organization IDs and attendance-related data. These changes enhance the code structure and readability.There's a
deleteoperation on line 254 that might impact performance:delete data.state;Consider using an undefined assignment instead:
data.state = undefined;This change would avoid the potential performance impact of the
deleteoperator.🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 254-254: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
Line range hint
440-592: LGTM: Extensive improvements to OpenPaymentSearchThe
OpenPaymentSearchobject has been significantly enhanced with:
- Improved handling of business services and tenant IDs.
- Extended
additionalCustomizationsfunction with new cases for various data types.- Implementation of a
customValidationCheckfunction for consumer code validation.These changes improve the robustness and functionality of the open payment search feature.
In the
additionalCustomizationsfunction, consider using a switch statement instead of multiple if-else statements for the different keys. This would improve readability and maintainability, especially as more cases are added. For example:switch (key) { case "OP_BILL_DATE": return Digit.DateUtils.ConvertEpochToDate(value); case "OP_BILL_TOTAL_AMT": return <span>{`₹ ${value}`}</span>; // ... other cases ... default: return <span>{t("ES_COMMON_NA")}</span>; }This structure would make it easier to add or modify cases in the future.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 483-483: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 484-484: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 525-544: This code is unreachable
... because either this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... or this statement will return from the function beforehand
(lint/correctness/noUnreachable)
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/components/SearchUserForm.js (2)
158-169: Remove commented-out code within 'clearSearch' functionThe
clearSearchfunction contains commented-out code from lines 158 to 169. Removing unnecessary commented code improves the readability and maintainability of the codebase.You can safely remove these lines:
- // dispatch({ - // type: uiConfig?.type === "filter" ? "clearFilterForm" : "clearSearchForm", - // state: { ...uiConfig?.defaultValues } - // }) - // Here reset tableForm as well - // dispatch({ - // type: "tableForm", - // state: { limit: 10, offset: 0 } - // // Need to pass form with empty strings - // })
474-476: Handle potential '-1' result from 'findIndex' when slicing 'childLevels'In lines 474-476, when calculating
childLevels, iffindIndexreturns-1, adding1results in0, causingslice(0)to include all elements. Ensure that this is the intended behavior or add a check to handle cases where the level is not found.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
- build/build-config.yml (0 hunks)
- frontend/mgramseva/lib/screeens/reports/monthly_ledger_report.dart (1 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/example/src/UICustomizations.js (20 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/package.json (0 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/components/SearchUserForm.js (10 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/components/pageComponents/jurisdiction.js (2 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/EditEmployee/EditForm.js (4 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/createEmployee.js (4 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/package.json (0 hunks)
- frontend/micro-ui/web/src/App.js (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (4)
- build/build-config.yml
- frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/package.json
- frontend/micro-ui/web/package.json
- frontend/micro-ui/web/src/App.js
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/EditEmployee/EditForm.js (1)
Learnt from: Hari-egov PR: egovernments/punjab-mgramseva#817 File: frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/EditEmployee/EditForm.js:141-143 Timestamp: 2024-06-19T05:23:48.125Z Learning: Hari-egov prefers to keep the existing complex logic in `EditForm.js` as is, despite its complexity.
🪛 Biome
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/example/src/UICustomizations.js
[error] 220-220: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 254-254: Avoid the delete operator which can impact performance.
Unsafe fix: Use an undefined assignment instead.
(lint/performance/noDelete)
[error] 525-544: This code is unreachable
... because either this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... this statement, ...
... or this statement will return from the function beforehand
(lint/correctness/noUnreachable)
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/components/SearchUserForm.js
[error] 422-422: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/createEmployee.js (2)
106-116: LGTM: New function to check for unique divisionsThe
hasUniqueDivisionsfunction is well-implemented. It efficiently uses a Set to track unique division codes and correctly handles potential undefined values. This addition enhances the form validation process by ensuring division uniqueness.
Line range hint
1-385: Overall assessment: Improved form validationThe changes in this file enhance the employee creation process by introducing more robust validation, particularly for division uniqueness. The new
hasUniqueDivisionsfunction and the modifications to theonFormValueChangefunction are well-implemented and improve the overall functionality of the component.The code maintains good practices and is generally well-structured. The suggested refactoring for the complex condition in
onFormValueChangewould further improve readability and maintainability.frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/example/src/UICustomizations.js (2)
3-3: LGTM: Import added and businessServiceMap updatedThe addition of the
useTranslationimport suggests improved internationalization support, which is a good practice. ThebusinessServiceMapupdate fixes a minor syntax issue.Also applies to: 29-29
Line range hint
148-165: LGTM: Extended functionality for new business servicesThe
enableModalSubmitandenableHrmsSearchfunctions have been updated to include conditions for "muster roll" and "works.purchase" business services. This extends the functionality consistently with the existing pattern. The improved formatting enhances readability.frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/components/pageComponents/jurisdiction.js (1)
90-90: Verify the uniqueness logic inuniqueDivisionsThe uniqueness check now compares
item.id === obj.id && item.code === obj.code. Please verify that this condition correctly identifies unique divisions. Ifidandcodeare not sufficient to guarantee uniqueness, this might lead to duplicate entries inuniqueDivisions.Run the following script to check for divisions that might have the same
idandcode:
| if ( | ||
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0] && | ||
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.department != undefined && | ||
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.designation != undefined | ||
| ) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use strict equality checks to avoid unexpected type coercion
In the conditional statements at lines 167 and 168, consider using !== undefined instead of != undefined to prevent unintended type coercion.
Apply this diff to update the condition:
if (
formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0] &&
- formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.department != undefined &&
- formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.designation != undefined
+ formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.department !== undefined &&
+ formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.designation !== undefined
) {
isValid = true;
} else {
isValid = false;
}📝 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.
| if ( | |
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0] && | |
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.department != undefined && | |
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.designation != undefined | |
| ) { | |
| if ( | |
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0] && | |
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.department !== undefined && | |
| formData?.SelectUserTypeAndDesignation[0]?.designation !== undefined | |
| ) { |
| function hasUniqueDivisions(items) { | ||
| const uniqueDivisions = new Set(); | ||
| for (const item of items) { | ||
| const divisionCode = item?.division?.code; | ||
| if (divisionCode && uniqueDivisions.has(divisionCode)) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
| uniqueDivisions.add(divisionCode); | ||
| } | ||
| return true; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring to reduce code duplication between hasUniqueTenantIds and hasUniqueDivisions
The functions hasUniqueTenantIds and hasUniqueDivisions share similar logic. You could create a generic function that checks for uniqueness based on a provided key. This would enhance code reusability and maintainability.
| formData?.SelectEmployeeName?.employeeName && | ||
| formData?.SelectEmployeePhoneNumber?.mobileNumber && | ||
| STATE_ADMIN | ||
| ? formData?.Jurisdictions?.length && | ||
| !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.division == undefined || juris?.divisionBoundary?.length === 0) && | ||
| hasUniqueDivisions(formData?.Jurisdictions) | ||
| : formData?.Jurisdictions?.length && | ||
| formData?.Jurisdictions.length && | ||
| !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.roles?.length === 0) && | ||
| isValid && | ||
| checkfield && | ||
| phonecheck && | ||
| checkMailNameNum(formData) && | ||
| hasUniqueTenantIds(formData?.Jurisdictions) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix logical error due to operator precedence in the conditional expression
The if condition starting at line 183 uses the ternary operator ? : within a chain of logical AND && operators. Because the ternary operator has lower precedence than the logical AND operator, this can lead to incorrect evaluation of the condition.
Apply this diff to add parentheses and ensure the condition is evaluated as intended:
if (
formData?.SelectEmployeeGender?.gender.code &&
formData?.SelectEmployeeName?.employeeName &&
formData?.SelectEmployeePhoneNumber?.mobileNumber &&
+ (
STATE_ADMIN
? formData?.Jurisdictions?.length &&
!formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.division == undefined || juris?.divisionBoundary?.length === 0) &&
hasUniqueDivisions(formData?.Jurisdictions)
: formData?.Jurisdictions?.length &&
formData?.Jurisdictions.length &&
!formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.roles?.length === 0) &&
isValid &&
checkfield &&
phonecheck &&
checkMailNameNum(formData) &&
hasUniqueTenantIds(formData?.Jurisdictions)
+ )
) {
setSubmitValve(true);
} else {
setSubmitValve(false);
}📝 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.
| formData?.SelectEmployeeName?.employeeName && | |
| formData?.SelectEmployeePhoneNumber?.mobileNumber && | |
| STATE_ADMIN | |
| ? formData?.Jurisdictions?.length && | |
| !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.division == undefined || juris?.divisionBoundary?.length === 0) && | |
| hasUniqueDivisions(formData?.Jurisdictions) | |
| : formData?.Jurisdictions?.length && | |
| formData?.Jurisdictions.length && | |
| !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.roles?.length === 0) && | |
| isValid && | |
| checkfield && | |
| phonecheck && | |
| checkMailNameNum(formData) && | |
| hasUniqueTenantIds(formData?.Jurisdictions) | |
| formData?.SelectEmployeeName?.employeeName && | |
| formData?.SelectEmployeePhoneNumber?.mobileNumber && | |
| ( | |
| STATE_ADMIN | |
| ? formData?.Jurisdictions?.length && | |
| !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.division == undefined || juris?.divisionBoundary?.length === 0) && | |
| hasUniqueDivisions(formData?.Jurisdictions) | |
| : formData?.Jurisdictions?.length && | |
| formData?.Jurisdictions.length && | |
| !formData?.Jurisdictions.some((juris) => juris?.roles?.length === 0) && | |
| isValid && | |
| checkfield && | |
| phonecheck && | |
| checkMailNameNum(formData) && | |
| hasUniqueTenantIds(formData?.Jurisdictions) | |
| ) |
| formData.zoneCode = result[0]; | ||
| formData.circleCode = result[0]; | ||
| formData.divisionCode = result[0]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use 'setValue' to update form fields instead of mutating 'formData' directly
In lines 278-280 and 429-432, you're directly modifying formData to set default field values. Similarly, in functions like setRequiredOptions, showAllData, and onSubmit, formData or data are being mutated directly. Since form data is managed by react-hook-form, direct mutation may not update the form state as expected. Instead, use the setValue function provided by react-hook-form to update form fields.
Apply these changes:
// In the select function at line 278
-formData.zoneCode = result[0];
-formData.circleCode = result[0];
-formData.divisionCode = result[0];
+setValue('zoneCode', result[0]);
+setValue('circleCode', result[0]);
+setValue('divisionCode', result[0]);
// In the 'setRequiredOptions' function at line 429
-function setRequiredOptions(formData) {
- formData.zoneCode = userData[0];
- formData.circleCode = userData[0];
- formData.divisionCode = userData[0];
+function setRequiredOptions() {
+ setValue('zoneCode', userData[0]);
+ setValue('circleCode', userData[0]);
+ setValue('divisionCode', userData[0]);
}
// In 'showAllData' function at line 323
-if (divisionAdmin) setRequiredOptions(formData);
+if (divisionAdmin) setRequiredOptions();
// In 'onSubmit' function at line 356
-if (divisionAdmin) setRequiredOptions(data);
+if (divisionAdmin) setRequiredOptions();Also applies to: 323-323, 356-356, 429-432
| const circleC = userData[0].circleCode; | ||
| const divisionC = userData[0].divisionCode; | ||
|
|
||
| if (tree && tree[zoneC] && tree[zoneC][circleC]) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simplify null checks using optional chaining
At line 422, you can simplify the null checks by using optional chaining to make the code more concise and readable.
Apply this change:
-if (tree && tree[zoneC] && tree[zoneC][circleC]) {
+if (tree?.[zoneC]?.[circleC]) {📝 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.
| if (tree && tree[zoneC] && tree[zoneC][circleC]) { | |
| if (tree?.[zoneC]?.[circleC]) { |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 422-422: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
| const divisionAdmin = Digit.UserService.hasAccess(["DIV_ADMIN"]); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent Role Naming Detected: 'DIV_ADMIN' vs 'DIVISION ADMIN'
Multiple instances of both 'DIV_ADMIN' and 'DIVISION ADMIN' are found across the codebase, leading to potential access control issues. Please standardize the role name to ensure consistent behavior.
frontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/components/SearchUserForm.jsfrontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/core/src/pages/Inbox.jsfrontend/micro-ui/web/micro-ui-internals/packages/modules/hrms/src/pages/createEmployee.js- (and other listed files)
🔗 Analysis chain
Ensure consistent role naming: 'DIV_ADMIN' vs 'DIVISION ADMIN'
In line 107, the role is referenced as 'DIV_ADMIN', but elsewhere, such as in line 225, roles are filtered using 'DIVISION ADMIN'. This inconsistency may lead to unexpected behavior when checking user access or filtering roles. Please ensure that the role names are consistent throughout the codebase.
To verify all occurrences of these role names in the codebase, you can run the following script:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all occurrences of 'DIV_ADMIN' and 'DIVISION ADMIN' in the codebase
# Search for 'DIV_ADMIN'
rg --type js --type jsx 'DIV_ADMIN'
# Search for 'DIVISION ADMIN'
rg --type js --type jsx 'DIVISION ADMIN'
Length of output: 134
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all occurrences of 'DIV_ADMIN' and 'DIVISION ADMIN' in .js and .jsx files
# Search for 'DIV_ADMIN' in .js and .jsx files
rg 'DIV_ADMIN' -g '*.js' -g '*.jsx'
# Search for 'DIVISION ADMIN' in .js and .jsx files
rg 'DIVISION ADMIN' -g '*.js' -g '*.jsx'
Length of output: 4824
|
|
||
| if (isEdit && STATE_ADMIN) { | ||
| let divisionData = []; | ||
| let divisionDataSet = new Set(); | ||
| if (isEdit && jurisdictionData.length > 0) { | ||
| jurisdictionData?.map((jurisdiction) => { | ||
| if (jurisdiction?.divisionBoundary && jurisdiction?.divisionBoundary?.length > 0 && divisionData.length === 0) { | ||
| divisionData.push(jurisdiction); | ||
| } else if (divisionData.length > 0) { | ||
| if (divisionData[divisionData.length - 1]?.division?.code !== jurisdiction?.division?.code) { | ||
| divisionData.push(jurisdiction); | ||
| jurisdictionData?.forEach((jurisdiction) => { | ||
| if (jurisdiction?.divisionBoundary && jurisdiction?.divisionBoundary?.length > 0) { | ||
| // If divisionData set doesn't already have this division, add it | ||
| if (!Array.from(divisionDataSet).some((item) => item.division?.code === jurisdiction?.division?.code)) { | ||
| divisionDataSet.add(jurisdiction); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
| let divisionData = Array.from(divisionDataSet); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize the construction of divisionDataSet
The current implementation converts the Set to an array on each iteration, which can be inefficient:
if (!Array.from(divisionDataSet).some((item) => item.division?.code === jurisdiction?.division?.code)) {
divisionDataSet.add(jurisdiction);
}Consider using a Map or adjusting the Set to store division codes directly for more efficient lookups:
- let divisionDataSet = new Set();
+ let divisionCodeSet = new Set();
// ...
jurisdictionData?.forEach((jurisdiction) => {
if (jurisdiction?.divisionBoundary && jurisdiction?.divisionBoundary?.length > 0) {
- if (!Array.from(divisionDataSet).some((item) => item.division?.code === jurisdiction?.division?.code)) {
- divisionDataSet.add(jurisdiction);
+ if (!divisionCodeSet.has(jurisdiction.division?.code)) {
+ divisionCodeSet.add(jurisdiction.division.code);
+ divisionDataSet.add(jurisdiction);
}
}
});
- let divisionData = Array.from(divisionDataSet);
+ let divisionData = Array.from(divisionDataSet);| // If divisionData set doesn't already have this division, add it | ||
| if (!Array.from(divisionDataSet).some((item) => item.division?.code === jurisdiction?.division?.code)) { | ||
| divisionDataSet.add(jurisdiction); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify duplicate checking in divisionDataSet
To improve readability and performance, you can simplify the duplicate check by using the Set's inherent properties:
- if (!Array.from(divisionDataSet).some((item) => item.division?.code === jurisdiction?.division?.code)) {
- divisionDataSet.add(jurisdiction);
- }
+ const divisionCode = jurisdiction.division?.code;
+ if (!divisionDataSet.has(divisionCode)) {
+ divisionDataSet.add(divisionCode);
+ uniqueJurisdictions.push(jurisdiction);
+ }This way, you avoid converting the Set to an array and improve the efficiency of the operation.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
MonthlyLedgerReportfunctionality, allowing users to download the report.Bug Fixes
Chores
Documentation