updateUser #30
updateUser #30
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several modifications to the user management functionality in the application. A new method, 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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/validations/user.ts (1)
31-36: Good structure, consider adding empty payload validation.The
updateUserSchemais well-structured and consistent with other schemas in the file. The use ofpartial()for the body is appropriate for flexible updates.However, consider adding validation to prevent empty update payloads, which could lead to unnecessary database operations.
You could improve this by adding a check for at least one field being present in the update payload. Here's a suggested implementation:
export const updateUserSchema = z.object({ params: z.object({ userId: z.string().uuid(), }), body: createUserSchema.shape.body.partial().refine( (data) => Object.keys(data).length > 0, { message: "At least one field must be provided for update" } ), })This refinement ensures that the update operation always has at least one field to update.
src/routes/v1/user.ts (1)
32-37: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The new PATCH route for updating user information is well-implemented and consistent with the existing code structure. It correctly uses middleware for JWT verification, role-based access control, and input validation.
Consider adding a brief comment above the route to explain its purpose, for example:
// Update user information .patch( verifyJwt, verifyRoles('manageUsers'), validate(userValidation.updateUserSchema), userController.updateUser, )Also, ensure that proper error handling is implemented in the
userController.updateUsermethod to handle potential issues during the update process.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- src/controllers/user.ts (1 hunks)
- src/routes/v1/user.ts (1 hunks)
- src/services/user.ts (1 hunks)
- src/validations/user.ts (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/validations/user.ts (2)
29-30: LGTM: Reusing getUserSchema for deletion is a good practice.The reuse of
getUserSchemafor the delete operation promotes code consistency and maintainability. This approach is appropriate since both operations typically require only a user ID.
29-36: Overall, the changes are well-implemented and maintain code quality.The addition of
updateUserSchemaand the reuse ofgetUserSchemafor deletion maintain consistency and promote code reuse. The update schema allows for flexible partial updates, which is a good practice. The only suggested improvement is to add validation for empty update payloads to prevent unnecessary database operations.These changes enhance the user management functionality while adhering to existing coding patterns and best practices.
src/routes/v1/user.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-46: Excellent file structure and consistency.The overall structure of the file is well-organized and consistent. The new PATCH route fits seamlessly into the existing pattern, maintaining the file's readability and maintainability.
src/controllers/user.ts (1)
32-34: LGTM: ImproveddeleteUserimplementationThe changes to the
deleteUserfunction look good. Removing theusersvariable and directly callingsuccessResponsewithnullis a more appropriate approach for a delete operation. This change aligns with common practices and improves the clarity of the code.src/services/user.ts (3)
Line range hint
1-122: Summary of changes and final thoughtsThe addition of the
updateUserfunction enhances the user service functionality by enabling user updates. The implementation is generally sound and consistent with the existing codebase. However, there are opportunities for improvement in error handling, input validation, and edge case management.Key points:
- The new function follows the established patterns in the file.
- Suggestions have been made to improve error handling, input validation, and password hashing.
- Verification steps have been provided to ensure consistency and avoid conflicts.
Overall, this is a valuable addition to the user service. Once the suggested improvements are implemented and verifications are completed, this change will be ready for approval.
104-104: Verify export and potential naming conflictsThe
updateUserfunction is correctly exported and follows the naming convention of other functions in this file. To ensure there are no conflicts or issues with the export, please verify the following:
- Check that there are no naming conflicts with the new
updateUserfunction in other parts of the codebase.- Ensure that any modules importing from this file are updated to use the new function if needed.
Let's run a quick check for potential naming conflicts and usage:
#!/bin/bash # Check for potential naming conflicts and usage of updateUser echo "Checking for other declarations of updateUser:" rg "function updateUser" --type typescript echo "\nChecking for other exports of updateUser:" rg "export .*updateUser" --type typescript echo "\nChecking for imports of updateUser:" rg "import .* updateUser .* from '.*user'" --type typescriptThis will help identify any potential conflicts or places where the new function should be imported and used.
104-122: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionImprove error handling and add input validation
The
updateUserfunction looks good overall, but there are a few areas where it could be improved:
Error handling: The current error message is generic. Consider providing more specific error messages based on the type of error encountered.
Input validation: There's no validation of the input data before attempting to update. Consider adding validation to ensure the data is in the correct format and meets any business rules.
Non-existent user handling: The function doesn't handle the case where the user ID doesn't exist. Consider adding a check for this scenario.
Password hashing: If the password is being updated, it should be hashed before saving to the database.
Here's a suggested implementation addressing these points:
export const updateUser = async ( id: string, user: Omit<User, 'id' | 'createdAt' | 'updatedAt'> ) => { try { // Check if user exists const existingUser = await prisma.user.findUnique({ where: { id } }); if (!existingUser) { throw new Error(`User with id ${id} not found`); } // Validate input data (example validation, adjust as needed) if (user.email && !isValidEmail(user.email)) { throw new Error('Invalid email format'); } // Hash password if it's being updated let dataToUpdate = { ...user }; if (user.password) { dataToUpdate.password = await bcrypt.hash(user.password, 10); } const updatedUser = await prisma.user.update({ where: { id }, data: dataToUpdate, }); return updatedUser; } catch (err: unknown) { if (err instanceof Prisma.PrismaClientKnownRequestError) { logger.error(`Prisma error updating user: ${err.message}`); throw new Error(`Failed to update user: ${err.message}`); } else if (err instanceof Error) { logger.error(`Error updating user: ${err.message}`); throw err; } else { logger.error(`Unknown error updating user: ${JSON.stringify(err)}`); throw new Error('An unknown error occurred while updating the user'); } } }; // Helper function for email validation function isValidEmail(email: string): boolean { // Implement email validation logic return /^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/.test(email); }This implementation addresses the mentioned points and provides more robust error handling and data validation.
To ensure the changes are consistent with the rest of the codebase, let's verify the error handling and password hashing in other functions:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes