chore: update documentation and deps #4510
Conversation
|
WalkthroughThe changes introduced in this pull request primarily involve the addition of conditional statements across various GitHub Actions workflow files. These conditions ensure that specific jobs and actions execute only when the repository matches Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (29)
.github/workflows/draft.yml (1)
20-20: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of the condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'is a good practice to ensure that this job only runs on the main repository and not on forks. This aligns well with the PR objectives of updating documentation and dependencies.Consider adding a comment above this line to explain why this condition is necessary. For example:
# Ensure this job only runs on the main repository, not on forks if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'This will help other contributors understand the purpose of this condition.
.github/workflows/stale.yml (2)
9-9: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of the conditional statement is a good practice to ensure that the stale issue management only runs on the main repository. This change aligns well with the PR objectives of updating and maintaining the project.
Consider adding a comment above the condition to explain its purpose, for example:
# Ensure this job only runs on the main repository if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'This will help other contributors understand the reasoning behind this condition.
Line range hint
12-21: Consider refining the stale issue management configuration.While the current configuration is functional, here are some suggestions to potentially improve the stale issue management:
Consider differentiating between issues and PRs:
- PRs might benefit from a shorter stale period, as they often require more timely attention.
- Issues might need a longer period before being marked as stale.
Expand exempt labels:
- Consider adding labels like 'help wanted', 'good first issue', or 'needs triage' to the exempt list.
Customize messages:
- Provide more specific instructions in the stale messages, such as how to request more time or where to find contribution guidelines.
Here's an example of how you might implement these suggestions:
- uses: actions/stale@v9 with: repo-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} stale-issue-message: 'This issue is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. Remove the stale label, comment, or this will be closed in 14 days. If you need more time, please let us know.' stale-pr-message: 'This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove the stale label, comment, or this will be closed in 7 days. Please review our contribution guidelines if you need assistance.' exempt-issue-labels: 'bug,enhancement,help wanted,good first issue,needs triage' days-before-issue-stale: 90 days-before-pr-stale: 30 days-before-issue-close: 14 days-before-pr-close: 7These changes would provide more granular control over the stale management process and potentially improve the overall maintenance of the repository.
.github/workflows/build.yml (2)
22-22: Consider the implications of repository-specific conditionThe new condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'restricts this job to run only for the specified repository. While this might be intentional, it's worth considering the following points:
- This condition will prevent the job from running on forks, which might hinder contributions from external developers.
- If the repository is ever renamed, this job will stop running until the condition is updated.
Consider using a more flexible condition or documenting the reason for this restriction in a comment.
22-23: Clarify the purpose of the commented-out Dependabot conditionThere's a commented-out condition checking for Dependabot:
# if: ${{ github.actor == 'dependabot[bot]' }}If this condition is no longer needed, consider removing it entirely. If it might be needed in the future, add a comment explaining why it's currently disabled and under what circumstances it should be re-enabled.
.github/workflows/issue-close-require.yml (2)
17-17: LGTM: Repository-specific job executionThe addition of the condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'is a good practice. It ensures that the job only runs for the intended repository, preventing unintended executions in forks or other contexts.Consider using environment variables for the repository name to make the workflow more maintainable:
env: MAIN_REPO: 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' jobs: close-issues: if: github.repository == env.MAIN_REPO # ... rest of the job configurationThis approach allows for easier updates if the repository name changes in the future.
24-31: LGTM: Well-configured stale actionThe configuration for the
actions/stale@v9action is well-tailored to the project's needs. It effectively manages issues that require reproduction, closing them after a set period of inactivity. The custom messages and labels provide clear communication to contributors.Consider adding a comment to explain the purpose of setting
days-before-stale: -1. While it's correct for preventing automatic stale flagging, it might not be immediately clear to all contributors. For example:days-before-stale: -1 # Prevent automatic stale flagging; we're only interested in closing inactive issuesThis comment would enhance the readability and maintainability of the workflow.
.github/workflows/issue-labeled.yml (1)
16-16: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The addition of the condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'is correct and aligns with the described changes in the AI-generated summary. This ensures that thereply-labeledjob only runs for the specified repository.Consider adding a comment above this line to explain why this condition is necessary. For example:
# Ensure this job only runs for the main repository if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'This will help other contributors understand the purpose of this condition.
docs/src/guide/introduction/thin.md (2)
Line range hint
5-22: Consider refining the English translationThe content provides clear instructions for application simplification. However, some minor improvements to the English translation could enhance clarity:
Line 7: Consider changing "In this article, we will introduce how to simplify your project and remove unnecessary features" to "This article will guide you on how to simplify your project and remove unnecessary features."
Line 11: "First, confirm the UI component library version you need, then delete the corresponding application" could be rephrased as "First, confirm the UI component library version you need, then remove the unnecessary applications."
Line 18: "If the project does not have the UI component library application you need built-in" could be changed to "If the project doesn't include the UI component library application you need."
These suggestions aim to improve readability while maintaining the original meaning.
Line range hint
45-80: Consider adding explanation for command adjustmentsThe sections on dependency installation and further simplification are informative and helpful. However, the command adjustment section could benefit from a brief explanation of how to modify the commands. Consider adding a sentence like:
"To adjust the commands, remove or modify the script entries that correspond to the applications you've removed or don't need."
This addition would provide clearer guidance for users who may be less familiar with package.json structure.
🧰 Tools
Markdownlint
82-82: null
Multiple headings with the same content(MD024, no-duplicate-heading)
.github/workflows/release-tag.yml (1)
Review Workflow Completeness and Reactivate Build/Test Steps
The workflow currently lacks active build and test steps, which are essential for ensuring the integrity of releases. The presence of commented-out build and test steps suggests these steps might be inadvertently excluded from the release process.
- Uncomment and verify the following steps:
- Install dependencies (
pnpm install --frozen-lockfile)- Use Node.js setup
- Install dependencies
- Test and build steps
Ensure these steps are active to maintain a robust release pipeline.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-87: Verify workflow completeness and uncomment necessary stepsI noticed that several steps in the workflow are commented out, including the build, test, and dependency installation steps. While this might be intentional, it's important to ensure that all necessary steps for creating a release are included.
Consider the following:
- If the build and test steps are required before creating a release, uncomment and update them as needed.
- If these steps are no longer necessary or are performed elsewhere, consider removing the commented code to improve readability.
- Verify that the current workflow structure (with most steps commented out) is sufficient for your release process.
To help verify the completeness of the workflow, you can run the following script:
This script will help identify commented-out sections that might be important, check for active build or test steps, and verify the presence of essential steps for a release workflow.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for commented-out sections in the workflow file # Test: Look for commented lines that might be important steps echo "Potentially important commented steps:" rg '^\s*#\s*(name:|run:)' .github/workflows/release-tag.yml # Test: Check if there are any build or test steps active echo "Active build or test steps:" rg '^\s*(name:.*build|run:.*build|name:.*test|run:.*test)' .github/workflows/release-tag.yml # Test: Verify the presence of essential steps for a release workflow echo "Essential steps for release:" rg '(checkout|version|release)' .github/workflows/release-tag.ymlLength of output: 1225
apps/web-naive/src/api/request.ts (1)
72-72: LGTM: Type parameter added to enhance type safety.The addition of
<HttpResponse>type parameter toaddResponseInterceptormethod call improves type safety and code clarity. This change ensures that the response data structure aligns correctly with the expectedHttpResponsetype.Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this interceptor and the
HttpResponsestructure for better code documentation. For example:// Intercept and process HTTP responses, ensuring they conform to the HttpResponse structure client.addResponseInterceptor<HttpResponse>({ // ... existing code });apps/web-antd/src/api/request.ts (1)
73-73: LGTM: Enhanced type safety in response interceptorThe addition of the
<HttpResponse>type parameter toclient.addResponseInterceptoris a good improvement. It enhances type safety and ensures that the response data structure aligns with the expectedHttpResponsetype.Consider adding a comment explaining the structure of
HttpResponseor linking to its definition for better code documentation. For example:// HttpResponse is expected to have { data, status, code, message } structure client.addResponseInterceptor<HttpResponse>({ // ... rest of the code });playground/src/api/request.ts (2)
73-73: LGTM: Enhanced type safety in response interceptorThe addition of the
HttpResponsetype to theaddResponseInterceptormethod is a good improvement. It enhances type safety and makes the expected response structure explicit.Consider adding a type annotation to the
responseparameter of the fulfilled callback for even better type clarity:- client.addResponseInterceptor<HttpResponse>({ - fulfilled: (response) => { + client.addResponseInterceptor<HttpResponse>({ + fulfilled: (response: HttpResponse) => {This change would make the type of the
responseparameter explicit throughout the callback, potentially catching any misuse of the response object earlier in the development process.
Line range hint
1-110: Overall assessment: Improved type safety without functional changesThe changes in this file focus on enhancing type safety by introducing and utilizing the
HttpResponsetype. These modifications align well with TypeScript best practices and the PR's objectives. The existing functionality remains intact, which is positive for maintaining system stability.Consider applying similar type improvements throughout the codebase for consistency. This could involve:
- Reviewing other API-related files for opportunities to use the
HttpResponsetype.- Ensuring that all response interceptors and handlers are properly typed.
- Documenting the structure of
HttpResponseif it's not already well-documented, to help other developers understand and use it correctly.These steps will further improve the overall type safety and maintainability of the project.
apps/web-ele/src/api/request.ts (1)
Line range hint
73-83: Approve type annotation and suggest error message improvementThe addition of
<HttpResponse>type annotation to the response interceptor is a good improvement for type safety. It ensures that the response data structure aligns with the expectedHttpResponsetype.However, I have a suggestion to enhance the error handling:
Consider improving the error message construction for better debugging. Here's a suggested change:
- throw new Error(`Error ${status}: ${msg}`); + throw new Error(`HTTP Error ${status}: [Code ${code}] ${msg}`);This change provides more context by including both the HTTP status and the internal error code in the error message.
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
Line range hint
20-112: Reconsider the overall CI strategy to maintain an open and efficient contribution process.The changes made to this workflow file introduce a significant shift in how CI processes are applied to this project. By restricting all CI jobs (test, lint, check, and ci-ok) to run only on the 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' repository, several potential issues arise:
- Reduced contribution quality: Forks and external contributions will not benefit from automated checks, potentially leading to lower quality pull requests.
- Increased maintainer workload: Project maintainers may need to perform manual checks that were previously automated, slowing down the review process.
- Deterred community contributions: The lack of immediate feedback from CI processes may discourage potential contributors.
- Inconsistent code quality: Without uniform application of linting and type checking, code style and quality may become inconsistent across contributions.
Recommendations:
- Revert these changes to allow CI jobs to run on all pull requests, regardless of the source repository.
- If there are specific security concerns, consider using GitHub's environment secrets and variables to control access to sensitive resources or operations.
- Implement a two-stage CI process where basic checks run on all contributions, and more intensive checks run only on the main repository or with manual approval.
- Use GitHub's branch protection rules to ensure that required checks pass before merging, rather than limiting where these checks can run.
- If these restrictions are absolutely necessary, clearly document the reasons and provide alternative instructions for contributors to run these checks locally before submitting pull requests.
By maintaining an open and inclusive CI process, you can foster a more active and engaged community around your project while still maintaining high standards of code quality.
docs/src/guide/in-depth/login.md (3)
7-11: Enhance clarity in the introduction and note sections.The updated introduction provides a clear overview of the document's content, including both customization of the login page and interface integration. The added note about customization is helpful for users who need more flexibility.
However, there's a minor grammatical issue in the introduction that could be improved:
Consider revising line 7 for better clarity:
- 本文介绍如何去改造自己的应用程序登录页以及如何快速的对接登录页面接口。 + 本文介绍如何去改造自己的应用程序登录页以及如何快速地对接登录页面接口。This change uses the correct adverbial modifier "地" instead of "的" before the verb "对接".
Also applies to: 113-117
🧰 Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~7-~7: 动词的修饰一般为‘形容词（副词）+地+动词’。您的意思是否是：快速"地"对接
Context: ...eep --- # 登录 本文介绍如何去改造自己的应用程序登录页以及如何快速的对接登录页面接口。 ## 登录页面调整 如果你想调整登录页面的标题、描述和图...(wb4)
119-137: New section on interface integration process is informative.The addition of the "接口对接流程" section provides valuable information for backend integration. The HttpResponse interface is well-defined and documented, which will help developers understand the expected response format.
However, there's a minor grammatical issue that could be improved:
Consider revising line 121 for better clarity:
- 这里将会快速的介绍如何快速对接自己的后端。 + 这里将会快速地介绍如何快速对接自己的后端。This change uses the correct adverbial modifier "地" instead of "的" before the verb "介绍".
🧰 Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~121-~121: 动词的修饰一般为‘形容词（副词）+地+动词’。您的意思是否是：快速"地"介绍
Context: ...录逻辑或者给我们提交PR。 ::: ## 接口对接流程 这里将会快速的介绍如何快速对接自己的后端。 ### 前置条件 - 首先文档用的后端服务，接...(wb4)
165-220: Login interface section is comprehensive and well-documented.The login interface section provides detailed information about the required backend endpoints, including the login API, user info API, and optional access code retrieval API. The code snippets for each API are clear and well-documented.
However, I noticed that the LoginResult and UserInfo interfaces have been simplified compared to the previous version mentioned in the AI summary. This simplification improves clarity and focuses on essential fields.
For consistency with the other interfaces, consider adding a comment to the LoginResult interface similar to the one for UserInfo:
181 /** 只需要保证登录接口返回值有 `accessToken` 字段即可 */ 182 export interface LoginResult { 183 accessToken: string; + // 其他字段可以根据需要自行添加 184 }This addition would make it clear that developers can extend the interface with additional fields if needed, maintaining consistency with the UserInfo interface documentation.
.github/workflows/deploy.yml (4)
66-66: LGTM: Consistent repository-specific conditionThe addition of
github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'to the conditional statement is consistent with the previous jobs. This ensures that the antd deployment job only runs for the specified repository.Consider refactoring these identical conditions into a reusable GitHub Actions expression or environment variable to adhere to the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle. This would make future updates easier and reduce the risk of inconsistencies.
97-97: LGTM: Consistent repository-specific conditionThe addition of
github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'to the conditional statement is consistent with the previous jobs. This ensures that the ele deployment job only runs for the specified repository.As this condition is repeated across multiple jobs, it strongly reinforces the need for refactoring. Consider creating a reusable condition at the workflow level to improve maintainability and reduce redundancy.
128-128: LGTM: Consistent repository-specific conditionThe addition of
github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'to the conditional statement is consistent with the previous jobs. This ensures that the naive deployment job only runs for the specified repository.Given that this is the fifth occurrence of the same condition, it's crucial to refactor for improved maintainability. Here's a suggested refactor:
- At the top of your workflow file, add:
env: IS_MAIN_REPO: ${{ github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' }}
- Then, update each job's
ifcondition to:if: github.actor != 'dependabot[bot]' && !contains(github.event.head_commit.message, '[skip ci]') && env.IS_MAIN_REPO == 'true'This refactoring will centralize the repository check, making it easier to update in the future if needed.
Line range hint
11-128: Overall assessment: Consistent changes with room for improvementThe changes made to this workflow file consistently add a repository-specific check to each deployment job. This aligns with the PR objectives and ensures that these jobs only run for the intended repository.
To improve the maintainability of this workflow, consider implementing the refactoring suggestion provided earlier. This will centralize the repository check and make future updates easier to manage.
Additionally, if these deployment jobs share other common steps or configurations, consider using GitHub Actions' composite actions or reusable workflows to further reduce redundancy and improve maintainability.
packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts (1)
175-175: Improved preference merging logic.This change enhances the preference initialization process by ensuring that
initialPreferences(which includes overrides) are always applied, even when cached preferences exist. This approach maintains a clear hierarchy: default preferences < overrides < cached preferences.Benefits:
- Consistent application of initial preferences and overrides.
- Prevents loss of important overrides when cached preferences exist.
- Aligns better with the purpose of
initialPreferences.For improved clarity, consider extracting this merge operation into a separate method:
private mergePreferences(): Preferences { return merge( {}, this.loadCachedPreferences() || defaultPreferences, this.initialPreferences ); }Then, in the
initPreferencesmethod:const mergedPreference = this.mergePreferences();This refactoring would enhance readability and make the preference merging logic more maintainable.
docs/src/guide/essentials/server.md (2)
Line range hint
235-249: LGTM: Improved response interceptor with better type safety and error handlingThe updated response interceptor now uses the
HttpResponsetype, which enhances type safety. The error handling logic has been improved, providing clearer error messages.Consider adding more granular error handling based on different status codes or error types. For example:
if (status >= 200 && status < 400 && code === 0) { return data; } else if (status === 401) { throw new Error('Unauthorized: Please log in again.'); } else if (status === 403) { throw new Error('Forbidden: You do not have permission to access this resource.'); } else { throw new Error(`Error ${status}: ${msg}`); }This would provide more specific error messages for common HTTP status codes, improving the user experience and making debugging easier.
261-264: LGTM: Enhanced error handling capabilitiesThe addition of the
_errorparameter in the error message response interceptor provides the capability for more detailed error handling. The comment suggesting customization based on different error codes is a good practice for guiding future development.Consider implementing the suggested customization to demonstrate how it can be done. Here's an example:
errorMessageResponseInterceptor((msg: string, error) => { if (error.response) { const { status } = error.response; switch (status) { case 400: message.error(`Bad Request: ${msg}`); break; case 401: message.error('Unauthorized: Please log in again.'); break; case 403: message.error('Forbidden: You do not have permission to access this resource.'); break; case 404: message.error(`Not Found: ${msg}`); break; case 500: message.error('Internal Server Error: Please try again later.'); break; default: message.error(`Error ${status}: ${msg}`); } } else { message.error(msg); } }),This implementation provides more specific error messages based on common HTTP status codes, which can greatly improve the user experience and make debugging easier.
docs/src/en/guide/essentials/server.md (2)
Line range hint
232-241: LGTM: Enhanced type safety in response interceptorThe addition of the
<HttpResponse>generic type toaddResponseInterceptorimproves type safety. This change ensures that the response data conforms to the expected structure, which is a good practice.Consider destructuring the
responseDataobject in the function parameters for cleaner code:fulfilled: ({ data: { code, data, message: msg }, status }) => { if (status >= 200 && status < 400 && code === 0) { return data; } throw new Error(`Error ${status}: ${msg}`); },
258-261: Improved error handling, but consider translating the commentThe addition of the
_errorparameter in the error handling interceptor is a good improvement. It allows for more detailed error handling based on specific error information if needed in the future.The added comment provides valuable guidance for customizing error handling. However, consider translating it to English to maintain consistency with the rest of the documentation:
errorMessageResponseInterceptor((msg: string, _error) => { // Here you can customize based on business needs. You can use the information in the _error object // to provide tailored handling, such as different prompts for different error codes, // instead of directly using message.error to display the msg. message.error(msg); }),
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
🔇 Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (30)
- .github/workflows/build.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/changeset-version.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/ci.yml (4 hunks)
- .github/workflows/codeql.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/deploy.yml (5 hunks)
- .github/workflows/draft.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/issue-close-require.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/issue-labeled.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/lock.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/release-tag.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/semantic-pull-request.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/stale.yml (1 hunks)
- apps/web-antd/src/api/core/auth.ts (0 hunks)
- apps/web-antd/src/api/request.ts (2 hunks)
- apps/web-ele/src/api/core/auth.ts (0 hunks)
- apps/web-ele/src/api/request.ts (2 hunks)
- apps/web-naive/src/api/core/auth.ts (0 hunks)
- apps/web-naive/src/api/request.ts (2 hunks)
- docs/src/en/guide/essentials/server.md (3 hunks)
- docs/src/en/guide/in-depth/login.md (0 hunks)
- docs/src/guide/essentials/server.md (3 hunks)
- docs/src/guide/in-depth/login.md (2 hunks)
- docs/src/guide/introduction/thin.md (2 hunks)
- package.json (1 hunks)
- packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/effects/common-ui/src/components/captcha/slider-captcha/index.vue (1 hunks)
- playground/src/api/core/auth.ts (0 hunks)
- playground/src/api/request.ts (2 hunks)
- playground/src/preferences.ts (0 hunks)
- pnpm-workspace.yaml (7 hunks)
💤 Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (6)
- apps/web-antd/src/api/core/auth.ts
- apps/web-ele/src/api/core/auth.ts
- apps/web-naive/src/api/core/auth.ts
- docs/src/en/guide/in-depth/login.md
- playground/src/api/core/auth.ts
- playground/src/preferences.ts
🧰 Additional context used
LanguageTool
docs/src/guide/in-depth/login.md
[uncategorized] ~7-~7: 动词的修饰一般为‘形容词（副词）+地+动词’。您的意思是否是：快速"地"对接
Context: ...eep --- # 登录 本文介绍如何去改造自己的应用程序登录页以及如何快速的对接登录页面接口。 ## 登录页面调整 如果你想调整登录页面的标题、描述和图...(wb4)
[uncategorized] ~121-~121: 动词的修饰一般为‘形容词（副词）+地+动词’。您的意思是否是：快速"地"介绍
Context: ...录逻辑或者给我们提交PR。 ::: ## 接口对接流程 这里将会快速的介绍如何快速对接自己的后端。 ### 前置条件 - 首先文档用的后端服务，接...(wb4)
Markdownlint
docs/src/guide/introduction/thin.md
82-82: null
Multiple headings with the same content(MD024, no-duplicate-heading)
🔇 Additional comments not posted (41)
.github/workflows/lock.yml (2)
20-20: Consider the impact of reducing the issue inactivity thresholdThe
issue-inactive-daysparameter has been changed from '30' to '14', which will result in issues being locked after 14 days of inactivity instead of 30. While this change can help in managing the issue backlog more aggressively, it's important to consider its potential impacts:
- It may reduce community engagement by locking issues before contributors have a chance to respond or provide additional information.
- It could lead to the premature closure of complex issues that require more time for discussion or investigation.
- This change might increase the workload for maintainers who need to reopen locked issues more frequently.
To assess the potential impact, you can run the following script to check the average time to last activity on issues:
If the average is significantly higher than 14 days, consider adjusting this threshold or implementing a more nuanced locking strategy.
✅ Verification successful
Average Issue Activity Time is Well Below Threshold
The average time to last activity on issues is approximately 1.92 days, which is significantly below the new threshold of 14 days. Reducing the
issue-inactive-daysparameter to 14 days is appropriate and should not negatively impact community engagement or issue management.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get average time to last activity on issues gh issue list -R vbenjs/vue-vben-admin --json number,createdAt,updatedAt --jq '.[] | (.updatedAt | fromdate) - (.createdAt | fromdate)' | awk '{ total += $1; count++ } END { print total/count/86400 " days" }'Length of output: 307
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Corrected script to get average time to last activity on issues gh issue list -R vbenjs/vue-vben-admin --json number,createdAt,updatedAt --jq '.[] | (.updatedAt | fromdate) - (.createdAt | fromdate)' | awk '{ total += $1; count++ } END { if (count > 0) print total/count/86400 " days"; else print "No issues found." }'Length of output: 269
14-14: Verify the impact of limiting the workflow to a specific repositoryThe addition of this condition ensures that the job only runs for the 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' repository. While this is a good practice for repository-specific workflows, it's important to consider the following:
- If this workflow file is shared across multiple repositories, this change will prevent it from running on other repositories.
- Ensure that this limitation aligns with the intended usage of this workflow across your organization.
To confirm the uniqueness of this repository in the organization, you can run:
If this returns any results, consider creating separate workflow files for different repositories or using a more generic condition.
✅ Verification successful
Workflow Restriction Verified: Limited to 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'
The addition of the condition restricts the workflow to the 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' repository. Verification confirms that no other repositories in the
vbenjsorganization utilize the.github/workflows/lock.ymlfile. This change does not impact other repositories.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # List all repositories in the organization that use this workflow file gh repo list vbenjs --json nameWithOwner -q '.[] | select(.nameWithOwner != "vbenjs/vue-vben-admin") | .nameWithOwner' | xargs -I {} gh api repos/{}/contents/.github/workflows/lock.yml --jq '.name'Length of output: 307
Script:
#!/bin/bash # List all repositories in the vbenjs organization excluding 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' that contain the lock.yml workflow file gh repo list vbenjs --json nameWithOwner -q '.[] | select(.nameWithOwner != "vbenjs/vue-vben-admin") | .nameWithOwner' | while read -r repo; do gh api repos/$repo/contents/.github/workflows/lock.yml --silent --exit-status && echo "$repo has lock.yml" || echo "$repo does not have lock.yml" doneLength of output: 28734
Script:
#!/bin/bash # List all repositories in the vbenjs organization excluding 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' that contain the lock.yml workflow file gh repo list vbenjs --json nameWithOwner -q '.[] | select(.nameWithOwner != "vbenjs/vue-vben-admin") | .nameWithOwner' | while read -r repo; do if gh api repos/$repo/contents/.github/workflows/lock.yml --silent; then echo "$repo has lock.yml" else echo "$repo does not have lock.yml" fi doneLength of output: 4252
.github/workflows/semantic-pull-request.yml (1)
13-14: Consider the implications of repository-specific conditionThe addition of the condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'restricts this workflow to run only for the specified repository. While this aligns with the PR objectives of updating documentation and dependencies, it's important to consider the following:
- This change ensures that the semantic pull request checks are only applied to the main project repository, which can help maintain consistency in the main project.
- However, if this workflow file is intended to be shared or forked for use in other repositories, the condition will prevent it from running elsewhere.
To ensure this change doesn't affect other workflows unintentionally, let's check for similar conditions in other workflow files:
This will help us verify if this is a consistent pattern across workflows or an isolated change.
✅ Verification successful
Repository-specific condition is consistently applied across workflows
The condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'is consistently used across all workflow files, ensuring that semantic pull request checks are properly restricted to the specified repository. This maintains consistency and does not impact the portability of the workflow files since the condition is uniformly applied.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for similar repository-specific conditions in other workflow files # Test: Search for similar conditions in other workflow files rg --type yaml 'if:.*github.repository.*==.*vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' .github/workflowsLength of output: 2433
.github/workflows/changeset-version.yml (1)
21-22: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionConsider refactoring the conditional statement for improved readability.
The addition of the repository check
github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'is a good practice to ensure that this job only runs for the specific repository. However, the resulting condition is quite long and may be hard to read or maintain.Consider refactoring the condition for better readability. Here's a suggestion:
if: > (github.event.pull_request.merged || github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch') && github.actor != 'dependabot[bot]' && !contains(github.event.head_commit.message, '[skip ci]') && github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'This multi-line format makes each condition more visible and easier to modify in the future.
To ensure this change doesn't affect other parts of the repository, let's check for similar conditions in other workflow files:
✅ Verification successful
Adjusting the search parameters to locate similar conditions in workflow files.
Let's refine the search to ensure we're correctly targeting the YAML workflow files and searching for the specific repository condition.
The suggested refactor for the conditional statement in
changeset-version.ymlis valid and improves readability.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for similar conditions in other workflow files # Expected result: No other files should have similar conditions that might need updating rg --type yaml -g '.github/workflows/*.yml' 'if:.*github\.repository.*vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'Length of output: 243
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Refined search for similar repository conditions in workflow YAML files # Expected result: List of workflow files containing the specific repository condition rg --type yaml 'if:.*github\.repository.*vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' .github/workflows/Length of output: 2431
.github/workflows/issue-close-require.yml (3)
6-6: LGTM: Addition of manual triggerThe addition of the
workflow_dispatchtrigger is a good improvement. It allows manual execution of the workflow, which can be useful for testing or running the job on-demand without waiting for the scheduled time.
13-13: LGTM: Explicit permission declarationThe addition of the
issues: writepermission is correct and follows best practices. It explicitly declares the required permission for the workflow to modify issues, which is necessary for closing them.
22-22: LGTM: Updated to official stale actionThe change from
actions-cool/issues-helper@v3toactions/stale@v9is a good improvement. Using the official GitHub action for managing stale issues and pull requests aligns with best practices and ensures better long-term support and compatibility.docs/src/guide/introduction/thin.md (3)
1-3: Great addition of outline and improved structure!The inclusion of the outline declaration and the overall restructuring of the document significantly enhance its readability and navigation. This change aligns well with best practices for technical documentation.
Line range hint
24-43: Well-structured simplification instructionsThe sections on simplifying demo code, documentation, and mock services are clear, concise, and easy to follow. They provide valuable guidance for users looking to streamline their projects further.
Line range hint
1-94: Overall, excellent improvements to the documentationThe changes made to this document significantly enhance its value and usability:
- The addition of an outline and improved structure make the content more navigable.
- New sections provide comprehensive guidance on project simplification and customization.
- The content is generally clear and informative, offering specific steps for users to follow.
The suggested minor improvements (refining translations, adding explanations, and addressing the duplicate heading) will further enhance the document's clarity and organization. These changes collectively make the documentation more user-friendly and aligned with best practices for technical writing.
🧰 Tools
Markdownlint
82-82: null
Multiple headings with the same content(MD024, no-duplicate-heading)
.github/workflows/release-tag.yml (2)
18-18: LGTM: Repository-specific condition addedThe addition of the condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'is a good practice. It ensures that the "Create Release" job only runs for the main repository and not on forks. This helps prevent unintended release creation on forked repositories.
Line range hint
55-60: Consider adding a release-drafter configuration fileThe workflow uses the release-drafter action, which is an excellent choice for automating release notes. However, I don't see a reference to a configuration file for release-drafter in this workflow.
To ensure consistent and customized release notes, consider adding a
.github/release-drafter.ymlconfiguration file if you haven't already. This file allows you to define categories, labels, and templates for your release notes.You can run the following script to check for the existence of a release-drafter configuration file:
If the file doesn't exist, consider adding one to customize your release notes generation.
apps/web-naive/src/api/request.ts (1)
4-4: LGTM: Type import added correctly.The addition of the
HttpResponsetype import enhances type safety and aligns with the subsequent usage in the file.apps/web-antd/src/api/request.ts (2)
4-4: LGTM: Import of HttpResponse typeThe addition of the
HttpResponsetype import from@vben/requestis a good practice. It enhances type safety and aligns with the changes made in the response interceptor.
Line range hint
1-110: Overall assessment: Improved type safetyThe changes in this file enhance type safety by introducing the
HttpResponsetype and applying it to the response interceptor. These modifications align well with the PR objectives of updating documentation and dependencies. The improvements contribute to better type checking and potentially enhanced error handling, which are valuable for maintaining code quality and reducing potential runtime errors.playground/src/api/request.ts (1)
4-4: LGTM: Import of HttpResponse typeThe addition of the
HttpResponsetype import is correct and aligns with its usage in the response interceptor. This import enhances type safety in the codebase.apps/web-ele/src/api/request.ts (2)
4-4: LGTM: Import of HttpResponse typeThe addition of the
HttpResponsetype import from@vben/requestis a good practice. It enhances type safety and makes the code more robust by providing explicit typing for the response interceptor.
Line range hint
1-110: Summary: Improvements align with PR objectivesThe changes in this file, particularly the addition of the
HttpResponsetype and its application in the response interceptor, contribute positively to the codebase. These modifications enhance type safety and potentially improve error diagnostics, which aligns well with the PR objectives of updating and improving the project.The changes are focused and effective, demonstrating attention to code quality and maintainability. Good job on these improvements!
.github/workflows/ci.yml (4)
20-20: Consider the impact of restricting the 'test' job to a specific repository.Adding this condition limits the execution of tests to only the 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' repository. This approach might hinder contributions from forks, as they won't be able to run tests in their CI pipeline. Consider the following points:
- It may discourage potential contributors who rely on CI feedback for their changes.
- It reduces the ability to catch issues early in the development process for forked repositories.
- It deviates from the common practice of running tests on all pull requests, regardless of the source repository.
To understand the potential impact, let's check if there are any recent contributions from forks:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for recent pull requests from forks # Get recent pull requests, focusing on those from forks gh pr list --limit 10 --json number,title,author,headRepository --jq '.[] | select(.headRepository.name != "vue-vben-admin") | {number, title, author: .author.login, repo: .headRepository.name}'Consider removing this condition unless there's a specific reason for this restriction that outweighs the benefits of open collaboration.
112-112: Reassess the overall strategy of restricting CI jobs to a specific repository.The addition of this condition to the 'ci-ok' job completes the pattern of restricting all CI jobs to the 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' repository. While this ensures consistency across the workflow, it reinforces the concerns raised for the previous jobs:
- It creates a two-tier system where forks cannot benefit from the full CI process.
- It may discourage contributions from the wider community.
- It increases the manual workload for maintainers when processing external contributions.
Instead of restricting jobs based on the repository, consider the following alternatives:
- Use environment secrets or variables to control sensitive operations, rather than blocking entire jobs.
- Implement a labeling system where trusted contributors can trigger full CI runs on fork-based pull requests.
- Create a separate workflow for additional checks that only run on the main repository, while keeping essential checks available for all contributions.
Let's analyze the current fork and pull request activity to understand the potential impact:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze fork and PR activity # Get fork count echo "Number of forks:" gh repo view --json forkCount --jq .forkCount # Get recent pull requests, including their source (fork or not) echo "Recent pull requests (last 20):" gh pr list --limit 20 --json number,title,author,headRepository --jq '.[] | {number, title, author: .author.login, is_fork: (.headRepository.name != "vue-vben-admin")}'By reviewing this data, we can better understand the contribution patterns and adjust the CI strategy accordingly to foster a more inclusive and efficient development process.
59-59: Reconsider restricting the 'lint' job to a specific repository.Similar to the 'test' job, this condition limits the linting process to only the 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin' repository. This restriction may have several unintended consequences:
- It prevents automatic linting checks on pull requests from forks, potentially leading to inconsistent code style.
- Contributors might submit code that doesn't adhere to the project's style guidelines, increasing the maintainers' workload.
- It may delay the feedback loop for contributors, as style issues won't be caught early in the CI process.
Let's check if there are any style-related issues that have been raised in recent pull requests:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for style-related issues in recent pull requests # Search for comments mentioning style or lint in recent pull requests gh pr list --limit 20 --json number,title,comments --jq '.[] | {number, title, style_comments: [.comments[] | select(.body | test("style|lint"; "i"))] | length}' | jq 'select(.style_comments > 0)'Unless there's a compelling reason for this restriction, consider removing it to maintain a consistent and efficient contribution process for all participants.
82-82: Evaluate the necessity of limiting the 'check' job to a specific repository.The addition of this condition to the 'check' job raises similar concerns as those for the 'test' and 'lint' jobs. This restriction may have several negative impacts:
- It prevents automatic type checking and other verifications for contributions from forks.
- Potential issues that could be caught early in the development process might go unnoticed until later stages.
- It may increase the workload for maintainers who would need to manually verify these aspects for external contributions.
Let's examine if there have been any type-related issues caught in recent pull requests:
Consider removing this condition to ensure all contributions, regardless of their source, undergo the same rigorous checking process. This approach would maintain code quality and consistency across the project.
package.json (1)
113-113: Approved: Vue dependency update looks good.The update of the Vue dependency from version 3.5.7 to 3.5.8 is a minor version increment, which typically includes bug fixes and performance improvements. This update is generally beneficial for keeping the project secure and up-to-date.
To ensure this update doesn't introduce any unexpected issues, please run the following verification steps:
- Check for any breaking changes or important notes in the Vue 3.5.8 release documentation.
- Verify that all project tests pass with the new Vue version.
- Perform a quick smoke test of the main application features to ensure everything works as expected.
docs/src/guide/in-depth/login.md (2)
141-163: Proxy configuration instructions are clear and helpful.The added instructions for configuring the local proxy address are clear and provide necessary information for developers to set up their environment. The code snippet for vite.config.mts is well-formatted and includes helpful comments for clarity.
Line range hint
1-220: Overall document improvements are substantial and valuable.The updates to this document significantly enhance its usefulness for developers integrating login functionality. The structure is logical and easy to follow, with new sections providing comprehensive guidance on interface integration, proxy configuration, and API requirements.
Key improvements include:
- Clear explanation of the interface integration process
- Detailed proxy configuration instructions
- Comprehensive coverage of required backend endpoints
- Well-documented code snippets and interface definitions
To further polish the document, consider addressing the following minor points:
- Correct the grammatical issues in lines 7 and 121 as suggested in previous comments.
- Add a comment to the LoginResult interface for consistency with the UserInfo interface documentation.
These small changes will enhance the overall quality and consistency of this already excellent documentation.
🧰 Tools
LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~121-~121: 动词的修饰一般为‘形容词（副词）+地+动词’。您的意思是否是：快速"地"介绍
Context: ...录逻辑或者给我们提交PR。 ::: ## 接口对接流程 这里将会快速的介绍如何快速对接自己的后端。 ### 前置条件 - 首先文档用的后端服务，接...(wb4)
.github/workflows/codeql.yml (1)
25-25: Clarify the rationale for limiting CodeQL analysis to the main repositoryThe added condition
if: github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'restricts the CodeQL analysis to run only on the main repository. While this might be intentional, it raises some concerns:
- Security scans will not run on forks or pull requests from forks until they are merged, potentially missing early detection of security issues.
- This limitation might reduce the overall security coverage of the project ecosystem.
Could you please clarify the reasoning behind this change? If it's due to resource constraints, consider alternatives such as:
- Running CodeQL less frequently on forks (e.g., only on PR creation rather than every push).
- Using a more limited set of CodeQL queries for forks to reduce resource usage.
If this is intentional, please ensure that other security measures are in place to cover forks and external contributions before they are merged into the main repository.
To help assess the impact, let's check if similar conditions exist in other workflow files:
pnpm-workspace.yaml (9)
23-23: LGTM: Minor version update for @eslint/jsThe update from ^9.11.0 to ^9.11.1 for @eslint/js is a patch version increment, which typically includes bug fixes or minor improvements. This change is unlikely to introduce breaking changes or require code modifications.
85-85: LGTM: Minor version update for eslintThe update from ^9.11.0 to ^9.11.1 for eslint is a patch version increment, which typically includes bug fixes or minor improvements. This change is unlikely to introduce breaking changes or require code modifications. This update aligns with the @eslint/js update seen earlier.
166-166: LGTM: Patch version update for vite-plugin-vue-devtoolsThe update from ^7.4.5 to ^7.4.6 for vite-plugin-vue-devtools is a patch version increment. This change likely includes bug fixes or minor improvements in the Vue development tooling.
45-45: LGTM: Minor version update for @types/nodeThe update from ^22.5.5 to ^22.7.0 for @types/node is a minor version increment. This change may introduce new type definitions for Node.js APIs or improvements to existing ones, potentially offering better type checking.
Consider running the following command to check for any new type definitions that could be utilized to improve the codebase:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for Node.js API usage in the codebase rg --type typescript --type javascript 'require\(["'']node:' -g '!node_modules'
132-132: LGTM: Patch version update for prettier-plugin-tailwindcssThe update from ^0.6.6 to ^0.6.8 for prettier-plugin-tailwindcss is a patch version increment. This change likely includes bug fixes or minor improvements in Tailwind CSS class sorting or formatting.
To ensure consistent formatting across the codebase with the updated plugin, consider running Prettier:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Run Prettier on all relevant files npx prettier --write "**/*.{js,jsx,ts,tsx,vue,css,scss,html}"
152-152: LGTM: Patch version update for tailwindcssThe update from ^3.4.12 to ^3.4.13 for tailwindcss is a patch version increment. This change likely includes bug fixes or minor improvements and is unlikely to introduce breaking changes or require code modifications.
To stay informed about the changes in this update, consider reviewing the Tailwind CSS changelog:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Fetch the latest Tailwind CSS changelog curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss/master/CHANGELOG.md | sed -n '/## \[3.4.13\]/,/## \[3.4.12\]/p'
Line range hint
23-166: Summary: Minor dependency updates with low riskThis change updates several dependencies to their latest minor or patch versions. These updates are generally safe and include bug fixes, performance improvements, and potentially new features that don't introduce breaking changes. The affected packages include ESLint and related plugins, TypeScript types, Tailwind CSS, and Vue development tools.
To ensure the smooth integration of these updates:
- Run the project's test suite to catch any potential issues.
- Review the changelogs of the updated packages for any notable improvements or changes that could benefit the project.
- Consider updating the CI/CD pipeline to include a step that checks for outdated dependencies regularly.
To verify the impact of these updates, run the following commands:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Run tests and check for outdated dependencies npm test npm outdated
50-51: LGTM: Minor version update for @typescript-eslint packagesThe update from ^8.6.0 to ^8.7.0 for both @typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin and @typescript-eslint/parser is a minor version increment. This change may introduce new linting rules or improvements to existing ones.
Consider running the following command to check for any new ESLint rules that could be enabled to improve code quality:
94-94: LGTM: Minor version update for eslint-plugin-perfectionistThe update from ^3.6.0 to ^3.7.0 for eslint-plugin-perfectionist is a minor version increment. This change may introduce new linting rules or improvements to existing ones specific to code organization and formatting.
Consider running the following command to check for any new ESLint rules from eslint-plugin-perfectionist that could be enabled to improve code quality:
.github/workflows/deploy.yml (2)
11-11: LGTM: Repository-specific condition addedThe addition of
github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'to the conditional statement ensures that this deployment job only runs for the specified repository. This change aligns with the PR objectives and adds an extra layer of specificity to the workflow.
42-42: LGTM: Consistent repository-specific conditionThe addition of
github.repository == 'vbenjs/vue-vben-admin'to the conditional statement is consistent with the previous job. This ensures that the docs deployment job only runs for the specified repository, maintaining consistency across the workflow.packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts (1)
175-175: Verify impact on preference management flow.While this change improves the preference initialization logic, it's crucial to ensure it aligns with the overall preference management flow.
Please run the following script to analyze the usage of preferences throughout the codebase:
This script will help identify any potential inconsistencies or areas that might be affected by the change in preference merging logic.
✅ Verification successful
Re-run the verification with updated file type specifications.
Please execute the following script to properly analyze the usage of preferences throughout the codebase:
Re-run the verification with corrected exclusion patterns.
Please execute the following script to properly analyze the usage of preferences throughout the codebase:
Re-run the verification with correctly formatted exclusion patterns.
Please execute the following script to accurately analyze the usage of preferences throughout the codebase:
Verified: Preference management flow remains consistent.
The changes to
preferences.tshave been reviewed, and no issues were found regarding the preference management flow. All preference-related method calls and property accesses are consistent and do not introduce any conflicts or unintended side effects.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze preference usage and management flow # Search for preference-related method calls echo "Preference method usage:" rg --type typescript -e "initPreferences|updatePreferences|resetPreferences|getPreferences" -g "!**/preferences.ts" # Check for direct access to preference properties echo "\nDirect preference property access:" rg --type typescript -e "preferences\.(app|theme)" -g "!**/preferences.ts" # Look for any custom preference merging logic elsewhere echo "\nCustom preference merging logic:" rg --type typescript -e "merge.*preferences" -g "!**/preferences.ts"Length of output: 591
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze preference usage and management flow # Search for preference-related method calls echo "Preference method usage:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "initPreferences|updatePreferences|resetPreferences|getPreferences" ! -g "packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts" # Check for direct access to preference properties echo "\nDirect preference property access:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "preferences\.(app|theme)" ! -g "packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts" # Look for any custom preference merging logic elsewhere echo "\nCustom preference merging logic:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "merge.*preferences" ! -g "packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts"Length of output: 708
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze preference usage and management flow # Search for preference-related method calls echo "Preference method usage:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "initPreferences|updatePreferences|resetPreferences|getPreferences" -g '!packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts' # Check for direct access to preference properties echo "\nDirect preference property access:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "preferences\.(app|theme)" -g '!packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts' # Look for any custom preference merging logic elsewhere echo "\nCustom preference merging logic:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "merge.*preferences" -g '!packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts'Length of output: 11090
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Analyze preference usage and management flow # Search for preference-related method calls echo "Preference method usage:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "initPreferences|updatePreferences|resetPreferences|getPreferences" -g '!packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts' # Check for direct access to preference properties echo "\nDirect preference property access:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "preferences\.(app|theme)" -g '!packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts' # Look for any custom preference merging logic elsewhere echo "\nCustom preference merging logic:" rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "merge.*preferences" -g '!packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts'Length of output: 11090
packages/effects/common-ui/src/components/captcha/slider-captcha/index.vue (1)
157-159: Adjustment in slider end position calculationThe calculation for the final position of the action element (slider) has been modified. The additional 10px offset at the end of the slide has been removed.
While this change makes the slider's end position more precise, it may affect the component's visual appearance or functionality.
Could you please clarify the reasoning behind removing the 10px offset? Additionally, I recommend:
- Verifying that this change doesn't negatively impact the user experience or the slider's visual appearance when it reaches the end.
- Ensuring that the captcha still functions correctly with this more precise positioning.
- Updating any related tests or documentation that might reference the slider's end position.
To assist in verifying the impact, you can run the following command to check for any other occurrences of similar calculations in the codebase:
This will help identify if similar adjustments need to be made elsewhere for consistency.
✅ Verification successful
Slider Captcha Position Adjustment Verified
The removal of the 10px offset in
actionEl.setLefthas been verified withinpackages/effects/common-ui/src/components/captcha/slider-captcha/index.vue. No other occurrences of similar calculations were found, ensuring that this change is localized and does not impact other components.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
rg --type vue -e "wrapperWidth - actionWidth" -e "setLeft\(" -C 3Length of output: 95
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for "wrapperWidth - actionWidth" or "setLeft(" within .vue files rg -g "*.vue" -e "wrapperWidth - actionWidth" -e "setLeft\(" -C 3Length of output: 3521
docs/src/guide/essentials/server.md (1)
166-167: LGTM: Improved type safety with HttpResponse importThe addition of the
HttpResponsetype import from@vben/requestenhances type safety in the response handling. This is a good practice that will help catch potential type-related issues early in development.docs/src/en/guide/essentials/server.md (1)
166-167: LGTM: Improved type safety with HttpResponse importThe addition of the
HttpResponsetype import enhances type safety in the request handling logic. This is a good practice that will help catch potential type-related issues early in development.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/@core/preferences/tests/preferences.test.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/@core/preferences/src/preferences.ts
🔇 Additional comments not posted (1)
packages/@core/preferences/__tests__/preferences.test.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-256: Overall test coverage appears comprehensive, but verify the impact of the commented-out test.The test file maintains a good set of test cases covering various aspects of the PreferenceManager functionality, including default preferences, theme mode updates, color mode updates, preference resets, and more. However, the removal of the test for initializing preferences with overrides may impact the overall test coverage.
To ensure that the commented-out test hasn't left any critical functionality untested, please run the following command to check the test coverage for the PreferenceManager class:
Review the coverage report to ensure that the
initPreferencesmethod and related functionality are still adequately covered by the remaining tests.
Description
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
pnpm-lock.yamlunless you introduce a new test example.Checklist
pnpm run docs:devcommand.pnpm test.feat:,fix:,perf:,docs:, orchore:.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
vbenjs/vue-vben-adminrepository.Bug Fixes
LoginResultinterface across multiple applications, simplifying the login API response.Documentation
Chores
vuedependency inpackage.json.