Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
add routes logging message #37
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
add routes logging message #37
Changes from all commits
2dd13d6
7a5bda9
4e527fe
fab002c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Remove TODO comment and fix typo.
The TODO comment contains a typo ("recieved" should be "received") and appears to be a placeholder that can be removed since the logging has been implemented.
Apply this diff:
- #TODO: Request recieved with body
📝 Committable suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider enhancing error handling with specific error codes.
While the logging is comprehensive, consider mapping specific error codes to more descriptive log messages.
Also applies to: 54-54, 60-60, 71-71
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider breaking down the complex handle_session function.
While the logging implementation is good, the function's complexity (14 > 10) suggests it should be broken down into smaller, more focused functions.
Consider extracting each HTTP method handler into its own function:
Also applies to: 88-88, 101-101, 112-112
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider adding error logging for PATCH operations.
While the success path logging is good, consider adding error logging for failed operations.
if not status: + logger.error("Common: Failed to update nickname for session %s: %s", session_id, reason) abort(400, reason)
Also applies to: 128-128, 150-150
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add error logging for failed command execution.
Consider adding error logging when command execution fails.
status, _, stdout, stderr = conn.exec_command_blocking(cmd) if status is False: + logger.error("Common: Command execution failed: %s", stderr) abort(500, 'exec failed')
Also applies to: 183-183, 186-186
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Logging added to sftp_ls function.
The logging statements provide good coverage of the function's execution flow. Consider using
logger.exception()
when logging errors in the error path.status, cwd, file_list = sftp.ls(path) if status is False: + logger.exception("Sftp: Failed to list directory: %s", path) abort(400, description=cwd)
Also applies to: 50-50
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider enhancing error logging in sftp_rename.
While the logging is good, consider adding exception logging in the error path.
status, reason = sftp.rename(cwd, old, new) if not status: + logger.exception("Sftp: Failed to rename file from %s to %s: %s", old, new, reason) abort(400, reason)
Also applies to: 100-100
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
💡 Codebase verification
The TODO comment should be replaced with proper error handling
The verification reveals that
exec_command_blocking
returns an exit status that's not being checked in the SFTP upload route, unlike other places in the codebase where directory operations are properly validated (e.g., thesftp_mkdir
endpoint). The recursive directory creation throughmkdir -p
could fail due to:Specific locations needing attention:
application/routes/sftp.py
: Add error handling for themkdir -p
command by checking the exit status returned byexec_command_blocking
sftp_mkdir
endpoint where errors are properly logged and propagated to the client🔗 Analysis chain
Consider removing TODO comment.
The TODO comment questions whether directory creation could fail. Since this is a critical operation, we should either:
Let me gather more context about the error handling in this SFTP implementation.
Let me check how the SFTP connection and command execution is implemented.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
Length of output: 894
Script:
Length of output: 1590
Script:
Length of output: 3032
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider adding a return type annotation to
generate()
.Since this function yields data to the client, specifying a
-> Generator[bytes, None, None]
or similar can improve readability and tooling support.def generate(): + # type: (...) -> Generator[bytes, None, None] ...
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
41-41: Missing return type annotation for private function
generate
(ANN202)