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(marriage-conditions): certificates fix #17487

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025
Merged

fix(marriage-conditions): certificates fix #17487

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025

Conversation

albinagu
Copy link
Member

@albinagu albinagu commented Jan 14, 2025

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • Formatting passes locally with my changes
  • I have rebased against main before asking for a review

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Corrected the calculation of birth certificate requirements for marriage application payment information
    • Updated logic to accurately count birth certificates based on applicant and spouse documentation status

@albinagu albinagu added the deploy-feature Deploys features to dev label Jan 14, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 14, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the PaymentInfo component in the marriage conditions template, specifically changing the calculation logic for the number of birth certificates. The change reverses the previous conditional logic, now counting birth certificates differently based on whether the applicant and spouse have their own certificates. This adjustment impacts how the total number of birth certificates is computed within the component.

Changes

File Change Summary
libs/application/templates/marriage-conditions/src/fields/PaymentInfo/index.tsx Modified birth certificate calculation logic, inverting the previous conditional counting method

Suggested labels

automerge

Suggested reviewers

  • juni-haukur

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?

❤️ 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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @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.

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.

@albinagu albinagu marked this pull request as ready for review January 14, 2025 11:09
@albinagu albinagu requested a review from a team as a code owner January 14, 2025 11:09
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 35.61%. Comparing base (c0cc6bf) to head (34fdc6f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...rriage-conditions/src/fields/PaymentInfo/index.tsx 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17487   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   35.61%   35.61%           
=======================================
  Files        7015     7015           
  Lines      150313   150313           
  Branches    42975    42975           
=======================================
  Hits        53537    53537           
  Misses      96776    96776           
Flag Coverage Δ
api 3.33% <ø> (ø)
application-system-api 38.72% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
application-template-api-modules 27.57% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
application-templates-marriage-conditions 14.84% <0.00%> (ø)
application-ui-shell 22.19% <ø> (ø)
judicial-system-backend 55.87% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...rriage-conditions/src/fields/PaymentInfo/index.tsx 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c0cc6bf...34fdc6f. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
libs/application/templates/marriage-conditions/src/fields/PaymentInfo/index.tsx (1)

Line range hint 1-120: Component structure follows best practices for reusability.

The component demonstrates good practices:

  • Proper TypeScript usage with explicit types
  • Leverages shared UI components and utilities
  • Named exports for better tree-shaking

Consider extracting the price calculation logic into a separate utility function for better reusability across different payment-related components.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f43ac41 and d9995b3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • libs/application/templates/marriage-conditions/src/fields/PaymentInfo/index.tsx (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
libs/application/templates/marriage-conditions/src/fields/PaymentInfo/index.tsx (1)

Pattern libs/**/*: "Confirm that the code adheres to the following:

  • Reusability of components and hooks across different NextJS apps.
  • TypeScript usage for defining props and exporting types.
  • Effective tree-shaking and bundling practices."
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
  • GitHub Check: tests (application-system-api)
  • GitHub Check: docker-build ({"projects":"application-system-form","docker_type":"docker-static"})
  • GitHub Check: docker-build ({"projects":"application-system-api","docker_type":"docker-express"})
  • GitHub Check: docker-build ({"projects":"api","docker_type":"docker-express"})
  • GitHub Check: tests (application-system-form,application-template-api-modules,application-template-loader,appli...

@datadog-island-is
Copy link

Datadog Report

All test runs 6ae8c9f 🔗

4 Total Test Services: 0 Failed, 4 Passed
➡️ Test Sessions change in coverage: 8 no change

Test Services
Service Name Failed Known Flaky New Flaky Passed Skipped Total Time Code Coverage Change Test Service View
api 0 0 0 4 0 2.96s 1 no change Link
application-system-api 0 0 0 46 0 2m 13.5s 1 no change Link
application-template-api-modules 0 0 0 118 0 2m 20.5s 1 no change Link
application-ui-shell 0 0 0 74 0 34.45s 1 no change Link

@albinagu albinagu added automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass high priority VIP-Kodiak PR and removed deploy-feature Deploys features to dev labels Jan 14, 2025
@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot merged commit 28d8564 into main Jan 14, 2025
43 checks passed
@kodiakhq kodiakhq bot deleted the certificates_fix branch January 14, 2025 12:04
albinagu added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2025
Co-authored-by: kodiakhq[bot] <49736102+kodiakhq[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
kodiakhq bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 14, 2025
Co-authored-by: kodiakhq[bot] <49736102+kodiakhq[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
automerge Merge this PR as soon as all checks pass high priority VIP-Kodiak PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants