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

[Fix] Employee Duplication in the Selection Input During Task Retriev… #8467

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 21, 2024

Conversation

samuelmbabhazi
Copy link
Contributor

@samuelmbabhazi samuelmbabhazi commented Oct 20, 2024

…al for a Single Employee

PR

Please note: we will close your PR without comment if you do not check the boxes above and provide ALL requested information.


Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Improved task selection handling in the Add Task dialog.
    • Enhanced form initialization to reflect the correct task data when selected.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Refined logic for managing selected members and project values based on the presence of a selected task.

@samuelmbabhazi samuelmbabhazi marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2024 10:45
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 20, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request primarily involve modifications to the AddTaskDialogComponent, specifically the handling of the selectedTask property. The logic within the ngOnInit method has been adjusted to check for the presence of selectedTask instead of task, affecting how selected members and project values are managed. Additionally, the initializeForm method has been updated to use selectedTask for initializing form values, ensuring accurate representation of task data. Overall, the control flow has been refined without introducing new methods or properties.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/tasks/add-task-dialog/add-task-dialog.component.ts Updated logic to replace task with selectedTask for handling task selection and form initialization.

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • rahul-rocket
  • evereq

Poem

🐰 In the meadow where tasks align,
A selected task, oh how it shines!
With members chosen, projects set,
The dialog's ready, no room for regret.
Let’s hop along, with joy we’ll sing,
For task management is a wonderful thing! 🌼


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between af9e72f and f2a133b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/tasks/add-task-dialog/add-task-dialog.component.ts (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/ui-core/shared/src/lib/tasks/add-task-dialog/add-task-dialog.component.ts (3)

Line range hint 118-122: LGTM: Prevents unintended member addition when editing tasks

This change ensures that new members are only added to selectedMembers when creating a new task, not when editing an existing one. This fix aligns with the PR objective of preventing employee duplication in the selection input during task retrieval.


Line range hint 130-135: LGTM: Prevents unintended project overwrite when editing tasks

This change ensures that project details are only set in the form when creating a new task, not when editing an existing one. This is consistent with the previous change and helps maintain the integrity of existing task data during edits.


Line range hint 1-265: Verify initialization of selectedTask

The changes look good and effectively address the issue of employee duplication. However, to ensure complete correctness, we should verify that selectedTask is properly initialized when the component is used for editing an existing task.

Please run the following script to check the initialization of selectedTask:


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

nx-cloud bot commented Oct 20, 2024

☁️ Nx Cloud Report

CI is running/has finished running commands for commit f2a133b. As they complete they will appear below. Click to see the status, the terminal output, and the build insights.

📂 See all runs for this CI Pipeline Execution


🟥 Failed Commands
nx build gauzy -c=production --prod --verbose
nx build desktop --prod --base-href ./
✅ Successfully ran 1 target

Sent with 💌 from NxCloud.

@rahul-rocket rahul-rocket merged commit 62e247b into develop Oct 21, 2024
15 of 20 checks passed
@evereq evereq deleted the fix/8466-employee-duplication branch October 26, 2024 21:51
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.

[Fix] Employee Duplication in the Selection Input During Task Retrieval for a Single Employee
2 participants