ISYBANK_ITBBITMM should prefer valueDate over bookingDate
#510
Conversation
actual-github-bot
bot
changed the title
ISYBANK_ITBBITMM should prefer valueDate over bookingDateISYBANK_ITBBITMM should prefer valueDate over bookingDate
matt-fidd
changed the title
ISYBANK_ITBBITMM should prefer valueDate over bookingDateISYBANK_ITBBITMM should prefer valueDate over bookingDate
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces changes to two files within the application. In Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Warning Rate limit exceeded@actual-github-bot[bot] has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 10 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/app-gocardless/banks/isybank-itbbitmm.js (1)
9-15: Consider adding defensive validationThe implementation correctly prefers valueDate over bookingDate as intended. However, consider adding validation to ensure robust handling of edge cases.
Consider this more defensive implementation:
normalizeTransaction(transaction, booked) { + if (!transaction || typeof transaction !== 'object') { + return Fallback.normalizeTransaction(transaction, booked); + } + + // Ensure dates are valid before assignment + if (transaction.valueDate instanceof Date || + (typeof transaction.valueDate === 'string' && !isNaN(Date.parse(transaction.valueDate)))) { transaction.bookingDate = transaction.valueDate ?? transaction.bookingDate; + } return Fallback.normalizeTransaction(transaction, booked); },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
upcoming-release-notes/510.mdis excluded by!**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/app-gocardless/bank-factory.js(2 hunks)src/app-gocardless/banks/isybank-itbbitmm.js(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/app-gocardless/banks/isybank-itbbitmm.js (3)
1-3: LGTM! Good use of TypeScript-like typing
The import statement and JSDoc type annotation provide good type safety and IDE support.
4-5: LGTM! Good use of composition pattern
Using object spread to extend the Fallback implementation is a clean approach.
7-7: Verify the institution ID usage across the codebase
The institution ID matches the PR objective. Let's verify its usage.
✅ Verification successful
Institution ID 'ISYBANK_ITBBITMM' is properly configured and consistently used
The verification shows that the institution ID is:
- Correctly defined in the bank configuration file
- Properly imported and exported in the bank factory
- No inconsistencies or typos found in the usage across the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the institution ID usage and ensure consistency
# Check for any other occurrences of this institution ID
rg "ISYBANK_ITBBITMM" --type js --type ts
# Check for any potential typos or variations
rg -i "isybank" --type js --type ts
Length of output: 395
src/app-gocardless/bank-factory.js (3)
16-16: LGTM! Import follows established patterns.
The new import statement maintains consistency with existing imports and follows alphabetical ordering.
48-48: LGTM! Bank module correctly added to exports.
The IsyBankItbbitmm module is properly added to the banks array, maintaining alphabetical order.
Line range hint 67-115: Verify if ISYBANK_ITBBITMM should be in BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY.
Please verify if the new bank integration has any history limitations that would require it to be added to the BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY array.
✅ Verification successful
ISYBANK_ITBBITMM should not be added to BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY
Based on the code analysis:
- The bank implementation inherits from the default IntegrationBank which has a standard 90-day access period
- There are no specific history limitations mentioned in the bank's implementation
- The bank only customizes the transaction date normalization behavior
- BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY is used to restrict maxHistoricalDays during session initialization, and there's no evidence suggesting ISYBANK_ITBBITMM needs this restriction
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the new bank has history limitations mentioned in its implementation
# Search for history-related comments or configurations in the bank implementation
rg -i "history|limit" src/app-gocardless/banks/isybank-itbbitmm.js
# Check if other bank implementations reference ISYBANK_ITBBITMM in relation to history limitations
rg -i "ISYBANK_ITBBITMM.*history|history.*ISYBANK_ITBBITMM"
Length of output: 130
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify history limitations
# First, let's check if the bank file exists and see its content
fd "isybank-itbbitmm.js" --type f
# Let's also check for any documentation or configuration files that might mention history limitations
rg -i "isybank.*itbbitmm"
# Let's examine the implementation of other banks that are in BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY to see patterns
# Taking a few examples from the list
rg -i "history|limit" src/app-gocardless/banks/revolut.js
rg -i "history|limit" src/app-gocardless/banks/n26.js
Length of output: 705
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual implementation of isybank to look for any limitations
# Check the full content of the isybank implementation
cat src/app-gocardless/banks/isybank-itbbitmm.js
# Let's also check for any documentation about bank limitations
fd -e md -e txt | xargs rg -i "bank.*history.*limit|transaction.*history.*limit"
# Let's also check the integration bank implementation since it was referenced in the code
fd "integration-bank.js" --type f
Length of output: 683
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the integration bank implementation for any default limitations
cat src/app-gocardless/banks/integration-bank.js
# Let's also check if there are any specific patterns or configurations
# that determine if a bank should be in BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY
rg -i "BANKS_WITH_LIMITED_HISTORY" -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 5486
Reported in Github, valueDate is more accurate for
ISYBANK_ITBBITMM