Add Real-Time Validation for CreateUserForm and Standardize UI Across Forms
#10054
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@AdityaJ2305 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 3 minutes and 47 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. 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces enhancements to user validation mechanisms across multiple components. The changes focus on improving real-time validation feedback for username and password fields by implementing a new Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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 (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for care-ohc ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Users/UserFormValidations.tsx (1)
16-20: Consider enhancing accessibility and user experience.While the implementation is solid, consider these improvements:
- Add
role="status"to the validation messages container for better screen reader support- Consider adding a visual transition when validation states change
Apply this diff:
return ( - <div> + <div role="status"> {isInputEmpty && validations.map((validation, index) => ( - <div key={index} className="text-gray-500 mb-2 text-sm"> + <div key={index} className="text-gray-500 mb-2 text-sm transition-all duration-200">Also applies to: 21-57
src/components/Users/CreateUserForm.tsx (2)
328-349: Consider adding password strength indicator.While the validation feedback is comprehensive, a visual password strength meter would enhance user experience.
Would you like me to provide an implementation for a password strength indicator component?
108-109: Consider consolidating focus state management.With multiple focus states, consider using a reducer or custom hook to manage form field focus states.
Would you like me to provide an implementation for a custom focus management hook?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
public/locale/en.json(3 hunks)src/components/Auth/ResetPassword.tsx(3 hunks)src/components/Users/CreateUserForm.tsx(6 hunks)src/components/Users/UserFormValidations.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/Users/UserResetPassword.tsx(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: cypress-run (1)
- GitHub Check: OSSAR-Scan
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/components/Users/UserFormValidations.tsx (1)
11-14: LGTM! Well-structured type definition.The
Validationtype clearly defines the contract for validation rules with description and fulfillment status.src/components/Auth/ResetPassword.tsx (1)
133-159: Ensure validation rules match the schema validation.The validation rules in the UI should match the validation schema in
validateData. Consider extracting these validation rules to a shared constant to maintain consistency.Run this script to verify validation consistency:
✅ Verification successful
Validation rules are consistent but could be centralized
The password validation rules in the UI match exactly with both the schema validation and the central validation function. However, consider extracting these rules to a shared constant to avoid duplication and make future updates easier to maintain.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for password validation rules across the codebase rg -A 5 "validatePassword|password.*validation"Length of output: 10685
src/components/Users/UserResetPassword.tsx (1)
155-181: LGTM! Comprehensive password validation with old password check.The implementation includes all standard password requirements plus an additional check to ensure the new password differs from the old one.
public/locale/en.json (3)
1355-1355: Password validation messages look good!The password validation messages have been properly formatted with HTML emphasis tags, providing clear visual hierarchy and improved readability for users.
Also applies to: 1490-1491, 1493-1493, 1498-1498, 1501-1501
2148-2150: Username validation messages are well structured!The username validation messages follow the same formatting pattern as password validations, using HTML emphasis tags consistently. The messages are clear and descriptive.
Also applies to: 2153-2154
1355-1355: Verify HTML sanitization for validation messages.Since the messages contain HTML tags, ensure that the application properly sanitizes these strings when rendering to prevent XSS vulnerabilities.
Also applies to: 1490-1491, 1493-1493, 1498-1498, 1501-1501, 2148-2150, 2153-2154
✅ Verification successful
Validation messages are rendered securely through React's text escaping
The validation messages containing HTML tags are rendered securely because:
- React automatically escapes HTML in text content by default
- The FormMessage component converts messages to plain text using String()
- No dangerouslySetInnerHTML is used for validation message rendering
The i18next configuration with
escapeValue: falseis necessary for HTML tags in translations but doesn't create security vulnerabilities as the messages are rendered through React's secure text rendering mechanism.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if HTML sanitization is implemented for validation messages # Look for HTML sanitization in the codebase rg -A 5 "sanitize|escape|xss|dangerouslySetInnerHTML" # Look for validation message rendering ast-grep --pattern 'render($$$validation_message$$$)'Length of output: 15357
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for validation message rendering and i18n usage patterns rg -A 3 "useTranslation|t\(|Trans" src/ # Look for validation-related components and hooks fd -e tsx -e ts "validation|error|message" src/Length of output: 77795
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for validation message rendering patterns rg -A 3 "ValidationMessage|FormMessage|ErrorMessage|t\(.*error|t\(.*validation" src/ # Look for form validation components fd -e tsx -e ts "form|validation" src/components/Length of output: 49223
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for shadcn/ui form component implementation and HTML sanitization rg -A 5 "FormMessage.*=.*|dangerouslySetInnerHTML.*=.*" src/components/ui/form.tsx # Check if there's any HTML parsing/sanitization in the form components rg -A 3 "html|sanitize|parse|DOMPurify" src/components/ui/Length of output: 2310
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Users/CreateUserForm.tsx (3)
331-348: Enhance password security requirements.Consider adding these additional password security validations:
- Special character requirement
- Maximum length limit
- Common password check
Apply this diff to add special character validation:
validations={[ // ... existing validations ... + { + description: "password_special_char_validation", + fulfilled: /[!@#$%^&*(),.?":{}|<>]/.test(field.value), + }, ]}
271-273: Enhance accessibility for validation feedback.The
aria-liveimplementation is good, but consider these improvements:
- Add
role="status"to validation message containers- Use
aria-invalidon input fields when validation failsAlso applies to: 325-327
Line range hint
401-421: Consider supporting international phone numbers.The current implementation is limited to Indian phone numbers (+91). Consider:
- Using a phone number validation library (e.g.,
libphonenumber-js)- Adding country code selection
- Supporting various phone number formats
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
public/locale/en.json(3 hunks)src/components/Users/CreateUserForm.tsx(6 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- public/locale/en.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: cypress-run (1)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/components/Users/CreateUserForm.tsx (1)
3-3: LGTM! Clean implementation of focus state management.The addition of focus state management using React hooks is well-structured and follows best practices.
Also applies to: 31-34, 108-109
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts (3)
38-42: Consider removingforce: trueand adding proper wait conditions.While the addition of existence and visibility checks improves reliability, using
force: truecould mask real issues. Consider:
- Removing
force: trueand properly handling actionability- Adding timeout options for flaky scenarios
- Adding disabled state checks
cy.get('[data-cy="username-input"]') .should("exist") .should("be.visible") + .should("be.enabled") .clear() - .type(username, { force: true }); + .type(username, { timeout: 10000 });
47-51: Remove redundant inline comments.The current comments simply describe what the code is doing, which is already clear from the code itself. Comments should explain "why" not "what".
cy.get('[data-cy="password-input"]') - .should("exist") // Ensure the field exists - .should("be.visible") // Ensure the field is visible - .clear() // Clear the field before typing - .type(password, { force: true }); // Type the password + .should("exist") + .should("be.visible") + .clear() + .type(password, { force: true });
38-42: Extract common input field handling pattern.Both
fillUsernameandfillPasswordshare the same pattern. Consider extracting this to a helper method to follow DRY principles and ensure consistent behavior.private fillField(selector: string, value: string) { return cy.get(selector) .should("exist") .should("be.visible") .should("be.enabled") .clear() .type(value, { timeout: 10000 }); } fillUsername(username: string) { this.fillField('[data-cy="username-input"]', username); return this; } fillPassword(password: string) { this.fillField('[data-cy="password-input"]', password); return this; }Also applies to: 47-51
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts (1)
Learnt from: AnveshNalimela
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#8930
File: cypress/pageobject/Users/UserCreation.ts:31-42
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:23:10.322Z
Learning: In `UserCreationPage` of `UserCreation.ts`, methods like `typePhoneNumber` and `typeUserPhoneNumber` target different input fields and are both necessary.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: cypress-run (1)
- GitHub Check: OSSAR-Scan
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
package.json(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: Test
- GitHub Check: CodeQL-Build
- GitHub Check: cypress-run (1)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
package.json (1)
30-30: Security consideration: Exposing dev server to network access.The
--hostflag makes the development server accessible from other devices on the network. This could potentially expose sensitive information or debugging tools. Please ensure:
- This is an intentional change with a documented use case
- Proper security controls are in place
- The development environment is properly configured
✅ Verification successful
The
--hostflag usage is verified for development purposesThis is an intentional configuration required for local development, cross-device testing, and BrowserStack integration as documented in the project. The codebase has appropriate security controls in place including code scanning, OSSAR analysis, and automated testing workflows.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there are any security guidelines or documentation about exposing dev servers fd -t f "README|SECURITY|CONTRIBUTING" -X cat {} 2>/dev/nullLength of output: 20259
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts (1)
Update test validation messages to match current phone number validation rules
The validation messages in the test are outdated. The current implementation supports multiple phone number formats with specific rules:
- Indian mobile numbers must start with +91 followed by 10 digits (first digit 6-9)
- International numbers, landline numbers, and support numbers have different formats
Please update the phone number validation messages in
verifyValidationErrors()to accurately reflect these requirements.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
63-81: Verify validation messages match the new real-time validation.Since this PR implements new real-time validation with updated messages, please ensure that the validation messages in
verifyValidationErrorsmatch the new messages implemented in theValidationHelpercomponent.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Compare validation messages in test with actual implementation # Find validation messages in ValidationHelper component echo "Validation messages in ValidationHelper:" rg -A 5 "validation.*message" "src/components/Users/UserFormValidations.tsx" # Find validation message translations echo "Validation message translations:" rg -A 5 "validation.*message" "public/locale/en.json"Length of output: 296
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find validation and form-related files echo "Looking for validation and form-related files:" fd -t f -e ts -e tsx -e json . | grep -i "valid\|form\|user" # Search for validation messages with broader patterns echo -e "\nSearching for validation patterns:" rg -i "required|validation|message" --type ts --type tsx -A 3 # Search specifically for phone validation patterns echo -e "\nSearching for phone validation patterns:" rg -i "phone.*validation|phone.*message" --type ts --type tsx -A 3Length of output: 3235
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check validation messages in specific files echo "Checking UserFormValidations.tsx:" cat "src/components/Users/UserFormValidations.tsx" || true echo -e "\nChecking validation.tsx:" cat "src/common/validation.tsx" || true echo -e "\nChecking FieldValidators.tsx:" cat "src/components/Form/FieldValidators.tsx" || true # Search with correct typescript file type echo -e "\nSearching for phone validation patterns:" rg -t typescript -t tsx "phone.*validation|phone.*message" || trueLength of output: 5635
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts (1)
38-39: Remove commented code and document the reason for using direct Cypress commands.
- Remove the commented line as it adds noise to the codebase.
- Consider adding a comment explaining why direct Cypress commands are preferred over
typeIntoFieldfor real-time validation testing.- // cy.typeIntoField('[data-cy="username-input"]', username); cy.get('[data-cy="username-input"]').click().type(username);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts (1)
Learnt from: AnveshNalimela
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#8930
File: cypress/pageobject/Users/UserCreation.ts:31-42
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:23:10.322Z
Learning: In `UserCreationPage` of `UserCreation.ts`, methods like `typePhoneNumber` and `typeUserPhoneNumber` target different input fields and are both necessary.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: cypress-run (1)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
cypress/pageObject/Users/UserCreation.ts (1)
44-44: LGTM! Consistent implementation with username field.The implementation follows the same pattern as the username field, which is good for maintainability and aligns with the PR's goal of standardizing UI interactions.
|
@coderabbitai, getting this error in cypress |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @AdityaJ2305 The error occurs because Cypress can't find the password input element within its default timeout of 10 seconds. This could happen if the form takes longer to render. Try modifying the fillPassword(password: string) {
cy.get('[data-cy="password-input"]', { timeout: 15000 })
.should("be.visible")
.type(password, { force: true });
return this;
}This gives the component more time to render before Cypress attempts to interact with it. Let me know if you still face any issues. 🔗 Analysis chain🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: Length of output: 325 Script: Length of output: 19492 Script: Length of output: 5054 ✏️ Learnings added
|
|
@coderabbitai, it is failing again for the same reason |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @AdityaJ2305 Let's try increasing the timeout further and add an explicit wait for visibility. Update the fillPassword(password: string) {
cy.get('[data-cy="password-input"]', { timeout: 30000 })
.should('exist')
.should('be.visible')
.type(password, { force: true });
return this;
}This change:
The longer timeout and additional checks should help handle the delays caused by the complex form initialization and validation setup. Let me know if you still face any issues. 🔗 Analysis chain🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: Length of output: 5150 Script: Length of output: 19682 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/components/Users/UserForm.tsx (2)
66-69: Consider combining username validation regex patterns.The multiple regex patterns for username validation could be combined into a single pattern for better maintainability and performance.
- .regex(/^[a-z0-9._-]*$/, t("username_not_valid")) - .regex(/^[a-z0-9].*[a-z0-9]$/, t("username_not_valid")) + .regex(/^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._-]*[a-z0-9]$/, t("username_not_valid"))
357-360: Consider adding role attribute for better accessibility.The validation feedback container has aria-live but could benefit from an additional role attribute.
<div className="text-small mt-2 pl-2 text-secondary-500" aria-live="polite" + role="status" >
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
public/locale/en.json(3 hunks)src/components/Users/UserForm.tsx(8 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- public/locale/en.json
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/Users/UserForm.tsx (2)
118-123: LGTM! Proper form initialization.Good practice to initialize all form fields with empty strings to prevent undefined values.
421-451: LGTM! Well-structured validation feedback.The implementation provides clear, accessible feedback and maintains consistency with the username validation UI.
Note: Based on the PR comments about Cypress test failures, consider adding a wait condition in your tests for the validation feedback to be visible:
cy.get('[data-cy="password-input"][data-cy-focused="true"]') .should('exist') .should('be.visible')
|
@Jacobjeevan @rithviknishad , Could you review this PR and let me know if any changes required |
rithviknishad
added
needs testing
needs review
and removed
question
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Users/UserForm.tsx (3)
74-80: Consider extracting regex patterns to constants.The username validation regex patterns should be moved to constants for better maintainability and reusability.
+const USERNAME_PATTERN = /^[a-z0-9._-]*$/; +const USERNAME_START_END_PATTERN = /^[a-z0-9].*[a-z0-9]$/; +const USERNAME_CONSECUTIVE_PATTERN = /(?:[._-]{2,})/; + username: isEditMode ? z.string().optional() : z .string() .min(4, t("field_required")) .max(16, t("username_not_valid")) - .regex(/^[a-z0-9._-]*$/, t("username_not_valid")) - .regex(/^[a-z0-9].*[a-z0-9]$/, t("username_not_valid")) + .regex(USERNAME_PATTERN, t("username_not_valid")) + .regex(USERNAME_START_END_PATTERN, t("username_not_valid")) .refine( - (val) => !val.match(/(?:[._-]{2,})/), + (val) => !val.match(USERNAME_CONSECUTIVE_PATTERN), t("username_not_valid"), ),
383-413: Consider DRY implementation for validation rules.The validation rules are duplicated between the Zod schema and ValidationHelper component. Consider extracting these rules to a shared configuration:
+const USERNAME_VALIDATION_RULES = { + minLength: 4, + maxLength: 16, + patterns: { + chars: USERNAME_PATTERN, + startEnd: USERNAME_START_END_PATTERN, + consecutive: USERNAME_CONSECUTIVE_PATTERN, + }, +}; + // Use in schema username: z.string() - .min(4, t("field_required")) + .min(USERNAME_VALIDATION_RULES.minLength, t("field_required")) // ... // Use in ValidationHelper validations={[ { description: "username_min_length_validation", - fulfilled: (field.value || "").length >= 4, + fulfilled: (field.value || "").length >= USERNAME_VALIDATION_RULES.minLength, }, // ... ]}
448-468: Extract password validation patterns to constants.Similar to username validation, consider extracting password validation patterns to constants:
+const PASSWORD_VALIDATION_RULES = { + minLength: 8, + patterns: { + lowercase: /[a-z]/, + uppercase: /[A-Z]/, + number: /\d/, + }, +}; + // Use in schema and ValidationHelper validations={[ { description: "password_length_validation", - fulfilled: (field.value || "").length >= 8, + fulfilled: (field.value || "").length >= PASSWORD_VALIDATION_RULES.minLength, }, { description: "password_lowercase_validation", - fulfilled: /[a-z]/.test(field.value || ""), + fulfilled: PASSWORD_VALIDATION_RULES.patterns.lowercase.test(field.value || ""), }, // ... ]}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
public/locale/en.json(3 hunks)src/components/Users/UserForm.tsx(7 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- public/locale/en.json
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: cypress-run (1)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/Users/UserForm.tsx (3)
126-131: LGTM! Good form initialization practices.The addition of default values and focus state management improves form stability and user experience.
Also applies to: 160-161
377-382: Great accessibility implementation!The use of
aria-live="polite"ensures screen readers announce validation feedback appropriately.
439-440: Add data-cy attribute for focus state testing.Given the reported Cypress test failures, adding data attributes for the focus state could help with test stability.
|
LGTM |
nihal467
added
tested
reviewed
|
@AdityaJ2305 Your efforts have helped advance digital healthcare and TeleICU systems. 🚀 Thank you for taking the time out to make CARE better. We hope you continue to innovate and contribute; your impact is immense! 🙌 |
Proposed Changes
@ohcnetwork/care-fe-code-reviewers
Merge Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
Localization
User Experience
Validation
ValidationHelpercomponent for more flexible and clear validation messaging.