validator: email #622
validator: email #622
Conversation
carlbrugger
force-pushed
the
feat/EmailValidator
branch
from
0dbcecc to
91ca3e2
Compare
WalkthroughThe changes involve the removal of the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🪧 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: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (1)
12-51: LGTM: Space configuration is well-structured and complete.The
configureSpacefunction is correctly implemented, defining a 'Sandbox' workbook with a 'Contacts' sheet. All required fields are present, and theallowAdditionalFieldsoption provides flexibility for future additions.Consider extracting the field definitions into a separate constant for improved readability:
const contactFields = [ { key: 'firstName', type: 'string', label: 'First Name' }, { key: 'lastName', type: 'string', label: 'Last Name' }, { key: 'email', type: 'string', label: 'Email' }, { key: 'phone', type: 'string', label: 'Phone' }, { key: 'country', type: 'string', label: 'Country' }, ]; // Then use it in the configuration fields: contactFields,This change would make the code more maintainable and easier to update in the future.
validators/email/README.MD (3)
16-16: Adjust heading levels for consistency.The parameter headings are currently using h4 (####). For better document structure and to address the Markdownlint warning, consider changing these to h3 (###).
Apply this change to all parameter headings:
-#### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) +### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional)🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
22-28: Clarify or remove unuseddomainkey inerrorMessages.The
domainkey is mentioned in theerrorMessagesobject, but it's noted as "not used in current implementation". Consider either removing this key if it's not needed or clarifying its intended future use.If removing, apply this change:
Custom error messages for different validation scenarios. Available keys: - `required`: Message for missing email - `invalid`: Message for invalid email format - `disposable`: Message for disposable email domains -- `domain`: Message for invalid domains (not used in current implementation)
41-61: LGTM: Comprehensive example with clear usage instructions.The example usage section effectively demonstrates how to implement the email validation plugin in a Flatfile listener. The code is well-formatted and easy to understand.
As a minor enhancement, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of each configuration option in the example. This would provide even more clarity for users new to the plugin.
Here's a suggestion for adding explanatory comments:
listener.use(emailValidationPlugin({ + // Specify which fields should be validated as email addresses emailFields: ['email', 'alternativeEmail'], + // Custom error messages for different validation scenarios errorMessages: { required: 'Please provide an email address', invalid: 'The email address is not valid', disposable: 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' } }));
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json,!**/*.jsonvalidators/email/metadata.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonvalidators/email/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- validators/email/README.MD (1 hunks)
- validators/email/rollup.config.mjs (1 hunks)
- validators/email/src/disposable-domains.ts (1 hunks)
- validators/email/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
validators/email/README.MD
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
validators/email/rollup.config.mjs (5)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import statement correctly uses ES6 module syntax to import the
buildConfigfunction from the '@flatfile/rollup-config' package. This appears to be a custom Rollup configuration for Flatfile projects, which is appropriate for this email validator module.
7-7: LGTM: Default export is correct.The configuration object is correctly exported as the default export. This is the standard practice for Rollup configuration files and will allow easy importing of the configuration in build scripts or other files that need to use this configuration.
1-7: Overall, the Rollup configuration looks good, but some verifications are needed.This Rollup configuration file sets up the foundational structure for the email validation module as intended in the PR objectives. The file correctly imports the necessary function, declares external dependencies, creates the configuration, and exports it.
However, to ensure completeness and correctness, please address the following points:
- Verify that '@flatfile/plugin-record-hook' is the only required external dependency for the email validator.
- Confirm that passing only the
externaloption tobuildConfigis sufficient, or if additional options are needed.Once these points are clarified, this configuration should provide a solid foundation for the email validation functionality.
To further validate the setup, please check if there are any email validation-specific files or tests in the
validators/emaildirectory:#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for email validation files and tests # Test: List files in the validators/email directory ls -R validators/email # Test: Search for email validation logic in JavaScript/TypeScript files rg --type javascript --type typescript 'email.*valid' validators/email
5-5: Verify completeness of buildConfig options.The use of
buildConfigwith theexternalarray is correct and follows the expected pattern for creating Rollup configurations in Flatfile projects.Please confirm that passing only the
externaloption tobuildConfigis sufficient for the email validator module. Are there any other options that should be considered, such as input/output configurations or plugins?#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential missing buildConfig options # Test: Search for other uses of buildConfig in the project rg --type javascript --type typescript 'buildConfig\(' -A 5 -g '!validators/email/rollup.config.mjs'
3-3: Verify completeness of external dependencies.The declaration of '@flatfile/plugin-record-hook' as an external dependency is correct. This ensures that the plugin is not bundled with the email validator module, which is a good practice.
Please confirm that '@flatfile/plugin-record-hook' is the only external dependency required for the email validator. Are there any other dependencies that should be listed as external?
✅ Verification successful
External dependencies declaration is complete.
Only
'@flatfile/plugin-record-hook'is declared as an external dependency in the email validator module, and no other external dependencies are found.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential missing external dependencies # Test: Search for import statements in the email validator files rg --type javascript --type typescript 'import .+ from' validators/emailLength of output: 266
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential missing external dependencies # Test: Search for import statements in the email validator files rg --glob "*.js" --glob "*.ts" 'import\s.+\sfrom' validators/emailLength of output: 264
flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (3)
1-3: LGTM: Import statements are correctly updated.The import statements have been appropriately modified to reflect the new functionality. The removal of previously used plugins and the addition of
configureSpaceandemailValidationPluginare consistent with the changes in the file.
7-9: LGTM: Email validation plugin is correctly implemented.The
emailValidationPluginis properly configured to validate the 'email' field. This implementation aligns with the PR objectives and introduces the required email validation functionality.
1-51: Overall changes align well with PR objectives.The modifications in this file successfully implement the required functionality for email validation and space configuration. The removal of unused plugins and the introduction of
emailValidationPluginandconfigureSpacestreamline the code and focus it on the intended purpose.The changes effectively:
- Set up the foundational structure for email validation
- Configure the space with a 'Sandbox' workbook and 'Contacts' sheet
- Define the necessary fields for the 'Contacts' sheet
These implementations align perfectly with the PR objectives and provide a solid foundation for further development.
validators/email/README.MD (3)
1-12: LGTM: Info card provides a clear overview.The info card effectively summarizes the plugin's purpose, functionality, and integration method. It provides users with a quick understanding of what the plugin does and how it works.
29-39: LGTM: Clear installation and import instructions.The usage section provides concise and clear instructions for installing the plugin via npm and importing it into a project. This helps users quickly integrate the plugin into their Flatfile setup.
1-61: Overall, excellent documentation for the email validation plugin.This README aligns well with the PR objectives of setting up the foundational structure for email validation. It provides clear and comprehensive documentation for the
@flatfile/plugin-validate-emailplugin, including its purpose, configuration options, and usage instructions.The document structure, content, and example usage effectively guide users in implementing email validation within Flatfile sheets. The minor suggestions provided earlier will further enhance the clarity and consistency of the documentation.
Great job on creating this informative README for the new validators folder!
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| export const disposableDomains = ['asdf.com'] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improvements for robustness and clarity
While the implementation is syntactically correct, there are several areas for improvement:
- Make the array immutable to prevent unintended modifications:
export const disposableDomains = Object.freeze(['asdf.com']);-
The current list contains only one domain, which is insufficient for effective filtering. Consider expanding this list to include well-known disposable email domains.
-
Add documentation to explain the purpose and usage of this constant:
/**
* A list of disposable email domains used for email validation.
* These domains are considered temporary and are typically blocked in user registration processes.
*/
export const disposableDomains = Object.freeze(['asdf.com']);- 'asdf.com' is not a well-known disposable email domain. Is this intended as a placeholder? If so, consider using a more recognizable disposable domain or adding a comment to clarify its purpose.
💡 Codebase verification
Expand the disposableDomains List for Effective Validation
The disposableDomains array currently includes only 'asdf.com', which is insufficient for robust email validation:
- Increase the List: Incorporate a more comprehensive set of known disposable email domains to enhance validation accuracy.
- Dynamic Management: Consider implementing a dynamic solution, such as fetching the list from a reliable external source or maintaining it in a separate configuration file.
- Future Plans: If the current implementation is a placeholder, adding a TODO comment to indicate plans for expansion in future commits would improve clarity.
🔗 Analysis chain
Align implementation with PR objectives
While this implementation serves as an initial setup for email validation as mentioned in the PR objectives, it appears to be overly simplistic for effective email validation:
-
Consider expanding this initial implementation to include more common disposable email domains. Even for an initial commit, a more comprehensive list would provide better value.
-
If there are plans to expand this list in future commits, it would be helpful to add a TODO comment indicating this intention.
-
To better align with the PR objectives of setting up a foundational structure for email validation, consider adding additional files or functions for the actual validation logic.
To ensure we're not missing any related files, let's check the structure of the validators/email directory:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the structure of the validators/email directory
# Test: List all files in the validators/email directory
fd . validators/email
Length of output: 241
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Display the contents of disposable-domains.ts
cat validators/email/src/disposable-domains.ts
Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Display the contents of index.ts
cat validators/email/src/index.ts
Length of output: 1414
validators/email/src/index.ts
Outdated
| const emailRegex = | ||
| /^[a-zA-Z0-9.!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(?:\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)*$/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a well-tested email validation library instead of a custom regex
Email validation with regular expressions can be complex and error-prone. Consider using a library such as validator.js or email-validator to improve reliability and maintainability.
Example:
First, install the library:
npm install email-validatorThen, update the import statement and use the library in validateEmail:
+ import validator from 'email-validator';
function validateEmail(email: string): string | null {
- if (!emailRegex.test(email)) {
+ if (!validator.validate(email)) {
return 'Invalid email format'
}
// rest of the code
}This reduces maintenance overhead and leverages community-tested validation.
validators/email/src/index.ts
Outdated
| if (!email) { | ||
| record.addError(field, errorMessages.required || 'Email is required') | ||
| } else { | ||
| const errorMessage = await validateEmail(email) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove unnecessary await when calling validateEmail
The function validateEmail is synchronous, so using await is unnecessary and could lead to confusion.
Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary await:
- const errorMessage = await validateEmail(email)
+ const errorMessage = validateEmail(email)📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const errorMessage = await validateEmail(email) | |
| const errorMessage = validateEmail(email) |
validators/email/src/index.ts
Outdated
| function validateEmail(email: string): string | null { | ||
| if (!emailRegex.test(email)) { | ||
| return 'Invalid email format' | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const domain = email.split('@')[1] | ||
| if (disposableDomains.includes(domain)) { | ||
| return 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return null | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor validateEmail to return error codes for better error message customization
Currently, validateEmail returns error messages directly, which makes it harder to customize messages for different error types using errorMessages. Consider refactoring validateEmail to return error codes or identifiers, allowing the calling function to handle message customization.
Example refactoring:
function validateEmail(email: string): string | null {
if (!emailRegex.test(email)) {
- return 'Invalid email format'
+ return 'invalid'
}
const domain = email.split('@')[1]
if (disposableDomains.includes(domain)) {
- return 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed'
+ return 'disposable'
}
return null
}Then, in the emailValidationPlugin function, update the error handling:
- const errorMessage = await validateEmail(email)
+ const errorCode = validateEmail(email)
if (errorCode) {
- record.addError(field, errorMessages.invalid || errorMessage)
+ const defaultMessages = {
+ required: 'Email is required',
+ invalid: 'Invalid email format',
+ disposable: 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed',
+ }
+ const message = errorMessages[errorCode] || defaultMessages[errorCode]
+ record.addError(field, message)
}This approach allows for better customization of error messages based on the specific validation error.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
validators/email/src/index.ts
Outdated
| const domain = email.split('@')[1] | ||
| if (disposableDomains.includes(domain)) { | ||
| return 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider normalizing domains to detect disposable email addresses more effectively
Currently, the domain is extracted using email.split('@')[1], which may not account for subdomains (e.g., mail.disposable.com). To improve validation, consider normalizing the domain and checking against the base domain.
Here's an example of how you might adjust the domain extraction:
const domain = email.split('@')[1]
+ const baseDomain = domain.split('.').slice(-2).join('.')
- if (disposableDomains.includes(domain)) {
+ if (disposableDomains.includes(baseDomain)) {
return 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed'
}This adjustment ensures that subdomains are correctly identified as part of disposable domains.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
carlbrugger
force-pushed
the
feat/EmailValidator
branch
from
98e88a3 to
af415fa
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (3)
7-9: LGTM: Email validation plugin configured correctly.The email validation plugin is correctly set up with 'email' specified as the field to validate. This aligns with the new schema defined later in the file.
Consider adding custom validation options or error handling for more robust email validation. For example:
emailValidationPlugin({ emailFields: ['email'], customValidation: (email: string) => { // Add any custom validation logic here return true; }, errorMessage: 'Please enter a valid email address' })
23-45: Field configurations updated correctly, but consider adding more specific types and validations.The field changes align with the PR objectives:
- 'name' is split into 'firstName' and 'lastName'
- 'email' and 'phone' fields are added
- 'country' field is retained
- 'what3words', 'lat', and 'long' fields are removed
Consider the following improvements:
- Use more specific types for better validation:
{ key: 'email', type: 'string', label: 'Email', constraints: [{ type: 'email' }] }, { key: 'phone', type: 'string', label: 'Phone', constraints: [{ type: 'phone' }] }- Add constraints or validations to other fields. For example:
{ key: 'firstName', type: 'string', label: 'First Name', constraints: [{ type: 'required' }] }- Consider using an enum or predefined list for the 'country' field to ensure data consistency.
These changes would enhance data validation and consistency in the imported data.
Line range hint
1-53: Overall structure is consistent with PR objectives, consider adding error handling and data processing logic.The changes in this file align well with the PR objectives:
- The
convertWhat3wordsplugin has been removed.- The
emailValidationPluginhas been added.- The space configuration has been updated with new fields and a renamed sheet.
Consider the following additions to make the code more robust:
Add error handling for the email validation plugin. For example:
listener.on('error', (error) => { console.error('An error occurred:', error); // Add appropriate error handling logic });Implement data processing logic to handle the new field structure. For instance:
listener.on('records:created', async (event) => { const { records } = event; // Process the records here });If there are any downstream systems or APIs that expect the old field structure (with 'name' instead of 'firstName' and 'lastName'), consider adding a transformation step to maintain compatibility.
These additions would enhance the robustness and flexibility of the data handling process.
validators/email/README.MD (4)
16-17: Adjust heading levels for parameter descriptions.The parameter descriptions are currently using h4 (####) level headings. For better document structure, consider using h3 (###) level headings for consistency with the "Parameters" section.
Apply this change to improve the heading structure:
-#### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) +### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) -#### `config.emailFields` - `string[]` +### `config.emailFields` - `string[]` -#### `config.errorMessages` - `object` - (optional) +### `config.errorMessages` - `object` - (optional)Also applies to: 19-20, 22-27
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
27-27: Clarify or remove unuseddomainkey inerrorMessages.The
domainkey is mentioned in theerrorMessagesobject but is noted as "not used in current implementation". Consider either removing this line or adding a comment explaining its future use to avoid confusion.If it's not planned for immediate use, you can remove the line:
- - `domain`: Message for invalid domains (not used in current implementation)Alternatively, if it's planned for future use, you can add a comment:
- - `domain`: Message for invalid domains (not used in current implementation) + - `domain`: Message for invalid domains (reserved for future use)
41-61: LGTM: Example usage is clear and well-structured.The example effectively demonstrates how to use the plugin, including setting up the record hook and configuring email fields and custom error messages. The code is well-formatted and easy to understand.
As a minor enhancement, consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the
// ... rest of your Flatfile listenerline to provide context for users who might be new to Flatfile.You could add a comment like this:
- // ... rest of your Flatfile listener + // ... rest of your Flatfile listener configuration and event handlers
1-61: Consider adding a table of contents for improved navigation.The README is well-structured and provides comprehensive information about the email validation plugin. To further enhance its usability, especially as the documentation grows, consider adding a table of contents at the beginning of the file.
You could add a table of contents like this after the info card:
## Table of Contents - [Parameters](#parameters) - [Usage](#usage) - [Installation](#installation) - [Import](#import) - [Example Usage](#example-usage)Remember to add corresponding anchor links to each section heading in the document.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json,!**/*.jsonvalidators/email/metadata.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonvalidators/email/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (2 hunks)
- validators/email/README.MD (1 hunks)
- validators/email/rollup.config.mjs (1 hunks)
- validators/email/src/disposable-domains.ts (1 hunks)
- validators/email/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- validators/email/rollup.config.mjs
- validators/email/src/disposable-domains.ts
- validators/email/src/index.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
validators/email/README.MD
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (2)
3-3: LGTM: Email validation plugin import added.The import statement for the email validation plugin is correctly added, aligning with the PR objective of setting up email validation functionality.
15-20: Workbook and sheet names updated correctly, but consider the implications of allowing additional fields.The workbook name 'Sandbox' and sheet name 'Contacts' have been correctly updated as per the PR objectives.
However,
allowAdditionalFieldsis set totrue. This might lead to unexpected data in the sheet. Is this intentional? If so, how will these additional fields be handled in the application logic?To verify the impact, you can run the following script:
This will help identify any places in the code where dynamic field access is occurring, which might be affected by allowing additional fields.
✅ Verification successful
Allowing additional fields has been properly handled in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any usage of additional fields in the codebase # Search for any code that might be accessing dynamic fields rg --type typescript --type javascript "field\.(key|name)" -C 3Length of output: 100
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any usage of additional fields in the codebase # Search for any code that might be accessing dynamic fields rg --type ts --type js "field\.(key|name)" -C 3Length of output: 5666
validators/email/README.MD (2)
1-12: LGTM: Info card section is well-structured and informative.The info card provides a clear and concise overview of the plugin's functionality and type. The use of HTML comments for wrapping the info card is appropriate for Markdown compatibility.
29-39: LGTM: Usage section is clear and informative.The usage section provides clear instructions for installation and importing the plugin. The npm installation command and the import statement are correctly formatted and easy to follow.
![flatfile-nullify[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/31830338?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts (1)
4-18: Consider additional improvements for scalability and maintainability.
Error messages:
- Consider using an enum or constant object for error messages to facilitate future internationalization.
Performance optimization:
- For bulk operations, consider pre-compiling the regex and creating a Set from disposableDomains for faster lookups.
Testing:
- Ensure comprehensive unit tests are in place, covering various scenarios including valid emails, invalid formats, disposable domains, and edge cases.
Here's an example of how you might implement these suggestions:
enum EmailValidationError { INVALID_FORMAT = 'INVALID_FORMAT', DISPOSABLE_NOT_ALLOWED = 'DISPOSABLE_NOT_ALLOWED', } const EMAIL_REGEX = /^(([^<>()\[\]\\.,;:\s@"]+(\.[^<>()\[\]\\.,;:\s@"]+)*)|(".+"))@((\[[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}\.[0-9]{1,3}])|(([a-zA-Z\-0-9]+\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,}))$/; export function createEmailValidator(disposableDomains: string[]) { const disposableDomainSet = new Set(disposableDomains.map(domain => domain.toLowerCase())); return function validateEmailAddress(email: string): EmailValidationError | null { const trimmedEmail = email.trim().toLowerCase(); if (!EMAIL_REGEX.test(trimmedEmail)) { return EmailValidationError.INVALID_FORMAT; } const domainMatch = trimmedEmail.match(/@(.+)$/); if (!domainMatch) { return EmailValidationError.INVALID_FORMAT; } const domain = domainMatch[1]; if (disposableDomainSet.has(domain)) { return EmailValidationError.DISPOSABLE_NOT_ALLOWED; } return null; } }This approach creates a closure over the disposable domains set, which can be more efficient for repeated validations. It also uses an enum for error messages, making it easier to internationalize in the future.
flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (2)
7-9: LGTM: validateEmail plugin configuration.The validateEmail plugin is correctly configured to validate the 'email' field, which aligns with the PR objective.
Consider enhancing the configuration with custom error messages or additional validation options. For example:
validateEmail({ emailFields: ['email'], customMessages: { invalid: 'Please enter a valid email address.', empty: 'Email address is required.' }, allowEmpty: false })This would provide more user-friendly error messages and ensure the email field is not left empty.
Line range hint
1-53: Summary: Changes align with PR objectives, some verifications needed.The changes in this file successfully implement the email validation setup and update the space configuration as per the PR objectives. The new structure for contact information is an improvement.
However, there are a few points that require attention:
- Consider enhancing the email validation with custom error messages.
- Verify if allowing additional fields (
allowAdditionalFields: true) is intentional and doesn't impact data integrity.- Check for any dependencies on the removed location-specific fields ('what3words', 'lat', 'long') and update the codebase accordingly if needed.
Please review these suggestions and make any necessary adjustments. Once these points are addressed, the changes will be ready for approval.
validate/email/README.MD (3)
16-17: Correct heading level for consistencyThe heading for
config.sheetSluguses an h4 level (####) while the main "Parameters" heading uses h2 (##). For consistency, consider changing all parameter headings to h3 (###).Apply this change to all parameter headings:
-#### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) +### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional)🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
22-27: Remove or clarify unused 'domain' key in errorMessagesThe documentation mentions a 'domain' key for errorMessages, but it's noted as "not used in current implementation". Consider either removing this mention or clarifying its future use to avoid confusion.
If you decide to remove it, apply this change:
Custom error messages for different validation scenarios. Available keys: - `required`: Message for missing email - `invalid`: Message for invalid email format - `disposable`: Message for disposable email domains -`domain`: Message for invalid domains (not used in current implementation)
41-61: Enhance example with explanatory commentsThe example usage is clear and demonstrates the key configuration options. To further improve it, consider adding explanatory comments for each part of the configuration. This will help users understand the purpose of each option more easily.
Here's a suggested enhancement:
export default function (listener: FlatfileListener) { listener.use(emailValidationPlugin({ + // Specify which fields should be validated as email addresses emailFields: ['email', 'alternativeEmail'], + // Custom error messages for different validation scenarios errorMessages: { required: 'Please provide an email address', invalid: 'The email address is not valid', disposable: 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' } })); // ... rest of your Flatfile listener }validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts (2)
4-14: Consider makingsheetSlugrequired or provide a clearer default valueCurrently,
sheetSlugis optional and defaults to'**', which applies the hook to all sheets. If this is not the intended behavior, consider makingsheetSluga required property or setting a more specific default to avoid unintentional application.
16-37: Add unit tests forvalidateEmailfunctionTo ensure the email validation functionality works as intended across various cases, consider adding unit tests covering:
- Valid emails
- Missing emails
- Invalid email formats
- Disposable email domains
- Custom error messages
Would you like assistance in generating example unit tests for
validateEmail?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json,!**/*.jsonvalidate/email/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (2 hunks)
- validate/email/README.MD (1 hunks)
- validate/email/rollup.config.mjs (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- validate/email/rollup.config.mjs
- validate/email/src/index.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
validate/email/README.MD
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (3)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement for validateEmail plugin.The import statement for the validateEmail plugin is correctly added, aligning with the PR objective of setting up email validation.
17-20: Space configuration updated correctly, but consider data integrity.The workbook and sheet names have been updated as per the PR summary. The addition of the sheet slug is a good practice for clear identification.
However, setting
allowAdditionalFieldstotruemight lead to unexpected data in the sheet. This could potentially impact data integrity and processing. Consider if this is intentional and necessary for your use case.To verify the impact, let's check if there are any data processing or validation steps that rely on a fixed set of fields:
If there are no strict validations or processing steps that depend on a fixed set of fields, then allowing additional fields might be acceptable. Otherwise, you may want to set this to
falseto ensure data consistency.✅ Verification successful
Space configuration update verified successfully.
The search for data processing or validation logic related to
allowAdditionalFieldsrevealed no dependencies on a fixed set of fields. The current implementation handles dynamic fields appropriately, ensuring data integrity is maintained.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any data processing or validation logic that might be affected by additional fields rg --type typescript -e "contacts.*fields" -e "Contacts.*fields" -e "sheet.*fields"Length of output: 221
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any data processing or validation logic that might be affected by additional fields rg -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx" -e "contacts.*fields" -e "Contacts.*fields" -e "sheet.*fields"Length of output: 2264
23-45: Field configuration updated correctly, verify impact of removed fields.The field configuration has been updated as per the PR summary:
- 'name' field split into 'firstName' and 'lastName', which is good for data normalization.
- 'email' and 'phone' fields added, enhancing contact information.
- 'country' field retained.
- Location-specific fields ('what3words', 'lat', 'long') removed.
These changes align with the PR objectives and improve the contact information structure.
However, the removal of location-specific fields might impact existing functionality. Let's verify if there are any dependencies on these removed fields:
If the search returns results, review those occurrences to ensure that removing these fields doesn't break any existing functionality. If necessary, update the dependent code or consider keeping these fields if they are still required.
✅ Verification successful
Verified removal of location-specific fields, no dependencies found.
The removed fields
'what3words','lat', and'long'are not referenced elsewhere in the codebase. This ensures that their removal does not affect existing functionalities.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any usage of the removed fields in the codebase rg --type typescript -e "what3words" -e "lat" -e "long"Length of output: 221
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any usage of the removed fields in the codebase rg --type ts -e "what3words" -e "lat" -e "long"Length of output: 63045
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any usage of the removed fields in the codebase rg --type ts -e "what3words" -e "lat" -e "long"Length of output: 63045
validate/email/README.MD (3)
1-12: LGTM: Info card provides clear overviewThe info card effectively summarizes the plugin's purpose, functionality, and integration method. It provides a good introduction for users.
29-39: LGTM: Clear installation and import instructionsThe usage section provides clear and concise instructions for installing the plugin and importing it in the code. This will help users quickly integrate the plugin into their projects.
1-61: Overall: Well-structured and informative documentationThe README provides a comprehensive overview of the
@flatfile/plugin-validate-emailplugin. It covers all necessary aspects including description, configuration, installation, and usage. The structure is logical and easy to follow. With the suggested minor improvements, this documentation will serve as an excellent guide for users implementing email validation in their Flatfile sheets.🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts (2)
35-35: Verify necessity of returningrecordReturning
recordat the end of the hook function might be unnecessary if mutations are applied directly to therecordobject. Confirm ifrecordHookrequires an explicit return or if it can be omitted.
25-28: Handle potential exceptions fromvalidateEmailAddressEnsure that
validateEmailAddresshandles all inputs gracefully without throwing exceptions that could disrupt the record processing. Consider wrapping the call in a try-catch block if exceptions are possible.Run the following script to check for
throwstatements invalidateEmailAddress:✅ Verification successful
Exception Handling Verified
The
validateEmailAddressfunction does not contain anythrowstatements. Therefore, wrapping it in a try-catch block is not necessary.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if 'validateEmailAddress' contains any 'throw' statements. # Expected: No 'throw' statements found. rg --type ts -A 5 'function validateEmailAddress' -g 'validate.email.utils*' | rg 'throw'Length of output: 89
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Use ast-grep to find any 'throw' statements within the 'validateEmailAddress' function in TypeScript files. ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern $'function validateEmailAddress($_params) { $$$ throw $_error $$$ }'Length of output: 106
bangarang
force-pushed
the
feat/EmailValidator
branch
from
bf06634 to
7391722
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
validate/email/README.MD (2)
16-17: Correct the heading level for consistency.The heading for the
config.sheetSlugparameter is using an h4 level (####) while the main "Parameters" heading is h2 (##). For consistency, consider changing the parameter headings to h3 (###).Apply this change to all parameter headings:
-#### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) +### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional)🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
1-61: Overall, excellent documentation with a minor suggestion for improvement.The README provides comprehensive and well-structured documentation for the
@flatfile/plugin-validate-emailplugin. It effectively covers all necessary aspects including overview, parameters, usage instructions, and a detailed example.To further enhance the documentation:
Consider adding a brief section on error handling or expected behavior. This could include:
- How validation errors are reported back to the user
- Whether the plugin halts further processing on validation failure
- Any logging or debugging information the plugin provides
This addition would give users a complete picture of how the plugin integrates into their data processing workflow.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json,!**/*.jsonvalidate/email/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (2 hunks)
- validate/email/README.MD (1 hunks)
- validate/email/rollup.config.mjs (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts
- validate/email/rollup.config.mjs
- validate/email/src/index.ts
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
validate/email/README.MD
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
validate/email/README.MD (3)
1-12: LGTM: Info card section is well-structured and informative.The info card provides a clear and concise overview of the plugin's functionality and type. It effectively communicates the key features and purpose of the
@flatfile/plugin-validate-emailplugin.
29-39: LGTM: Usage section is clear and well-formatted.The usage section provides clear installation instructions and a correct import example. The code blocks are properly formatted, making it easy for users to understand how to install and import the plugin.
41-61: LGTM: Excellent example usage section.The example usage section is comprehensive and well-structured. It demonstrates:
- Proper import of necessary modules
- Correct usage of the
emailValidationPluginwithin a Flatfile listener- Configuration of email fields and custom error messages
- Use of TypeScript for improved type safety
The comment at the end (
// ... rest of your Flatfile listener) effectively indicates where users should add their own listener logic.
bangarang
force-pushed
the
feat/EmailValidator
branch
from
7391722 to
623ede6
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
validate/email/jest.config.js (2)
12-12: Consider reducing the test timeout.The current
testTimeoutof 60 seconds seems excessive for email validation tests, which should typically complete quickly. Unless there's a specific reason for this long timeout (e.g., integration with external services), consider reducing it to a more reasonable value (e.g., 5-10 seconds) to catch potential performance issues or infinite loops earlier.
14-15: Reconsider forceExit and passWithNoTests options.
forceExit: trueforces Jest to exit after all tests complete. While this can be useful, it might hide issues with asynchronous operations not completing properly. Consider removing this option and ensuring all async operations are properly handled in the tests.
passWithNoTests: trueallows the test suite to pass when no tests are found. This can be useful during initial setup, but it might hide issues if tests are accidentally skipped or not detected. Consider removing this option once you have implemented your tests to ensure you're alerted if no tests are run.Please provide explanations in comments if these options are necessary for your specific use case.
validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.spec.ts (4)
6-10: LGTM: Good coverage of valid email formatsThe test case effectively covers standard, subdomain, and tagged email formats. Well done!
Consider adding more test cases to cover additional valid email formats, such as:
- Emails with numeric domains (e.g., '[email protected]')
- Emails with multiple subdomains (e.g., '[email protected]')
- Emails with special characters in the local part (e.g., '[email protected]')
This will ensure more comprehensive coverage of valid email scenarios.
12-17: LGTM: Good coverage of invalid email formatsThe test case effectively covers common invalid email formats. Great job on including various scenarios!
To enhance the robustness of your tests, consider adding more edge cases such as:
- Email with multiple @ symbols (e.g., 'user@[email protected]')
- Email with invalid characters (e.g., 'user![email protected]')
- Email with very long local part or domain (to test length restrictions if any)
This will help ensure the validation function handles a wider range of invalid inputs correctly.
19-22: LGTM: Proper handling of disposable email addressesThe test case correctly verifies the rejection of disposable email addresses. Good use of the predefined
disposableDomainsarray.To make this test more robust, consider adding the following:
- Test with a valid email that's not in the disposable list to ensure it's not falsely flagged.
- Test with variations of the disposable domains (e.g., subdomain of a disposable domain) to ensure thorough checking.
- Consider testing with a larger, more comprehensive list of disposable domains to ensure scalability of the validation function.
24-26: LGTM: Good edge case testing for empty disposable domains listThis test case is crucial for verifying the behavior when no disposable domains are specified. Well done on including this edge case!
To make this test more comprehensive, consider adding one more assertion:
- Test a non-disposable email address with an empty list to ensure it's also accepted.
This will confirm that the function behaves correctly for both previously disposable and non-disposable emails when the list is empty.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json,!**/*.jsonvalidate/boolean/metadata.jsonis excluded by!**/*.jsonvalidate/email/package.jsonis excluded by!**/*.json
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/README.MD (1 hunks)
- validate/email/jest.config.js (1 hunks)
- validate/email/rollup.config.mjs (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- flatfilers/sandbox/src/index.ts
- validate/email/rollup.config.mjs
- validate/email/src/index.ts
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
validate/email/README.MD
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
🔇 Additional comments (13)
validate/email/jest.config.js (5)
2-2: LGTM: Appropriate test environment.The
testEnvironmentis correctly set to 'node', which is suitable for testing Node.js-based email validation logic.
4-6: LGTM: Correct TypeScript transformation setup.The
transformconfiguration is properly set up to use 'ts-jest' for TypeScript files. This ensures that Jest can correctly process and test TypeScript code.
8-11: LGTM: Post-setup enhancements included.The
setupFilesAfterEnvconfiguration includes files for better console logging and test cleanup, which are good practices for test management and debugging.Verify the existence and contents of the setup files:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if setup files exist and display their contents for file in "test/betterConsoleLog.js" "test/unit.cleanup.js"; do if [ -f "$file" ]; then echo "$file exists. Contents:" cat "$file" echo "----------------------" else echo "$file not found in the expected location." fi done
13-13: LGTM: Global setup included.The
globalSetupconfiguration correctly includes a global setup file, which is good for maintaining a consistent test environment across the project.Verify the existence and contents of the global setup file:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if setup-global.js exists and display its contents if [ -f "test/setup-global.js" ]; then echo "setup-global.js exists. Contents:" cat "test/setup-global.js" else echo "setup-global.js not found in the expected location." fi
7-7: LGTM: Environment configuration included.The
setupFilescorrectly includes the dotenv configuration, which is a good practice for managing environment variables.Verify the existence and contents of the dotenv-config.js file:
✅ Verification successful
Action Required: Verify
dotenv-config.jsPresence and ContentsTo ensure the correctness of the
setupFilesconfiguration, please run the following script to locate and display the contents ofdotenv-config.js:
Verified:
setupFilescorrectly includesdotenv-config.js.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if dotenv-config.js exists and display its contents if [ -f "test/dotenv-config.js" ]; then echo "dotenv-config.js exists. Contents:" cat "test/dotenv-config.js" else echo "dotenv-config.js not found in the expected location." fiLength of output: 290
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for dotenv-config.js in the repository and display its contents FILES=$(fd 'dotenv-config\.js$') if [ -z "$FILES" ]; then echo "dotenv-config.js not found in the repository." else echo "dotenv-config.js found at: $FILES" cat "$FILES" fiLength of output: 434
validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.spec.ts (3)
1-5: LGTM: Well-structured test setupThe import statement and test setup are well-organized. Good job on defining the
disposableDomainsarray outside individual tests for reusability.
28-32: LGTM: Excellent case-insensitivity testingGreat job on including tests for case-insensitivity! This ensures that the email validation function correctly handles emails regardless of case, both for accepting valid emails and rejecting disposable ones.
1-32: Overall: Well-structured and comprehensive test suiteGreat job on creating a thorough test suite for the
validateEmailAddressfunction. The tests cover a wide range of scenarios including valid emails, invalid formats, disposable emails, edge cases, and case-insensitivity. The structure follows Jest testing best practices, making the tests clear and maintainable.To further enhance the test suite, consider the following suggestions:
- Add more edge cases for both valid and invalid email formats to increase coverage.
- Include tests with a larger set of disposable domains to ensure scalability.
- Consider adding tests for any length restrictions or other specific requirements of your email validation logic.
- If not already present, add tests for the actual implementation of
validateEmailAddressin thevalidate.email.utils.tsfile.Overall, this is a solid foundation for ensuring the reliability of your email validation functionality. Well done!
validate/email/README.MD (5)
1-12: Info Card section looks good!The Info Card provides a clear and concise overview of the plugin's functionality and correctly specifies the plugin type as "Record Hook".
29-33: Usage section is correct and clearThe installation instructions using npm are provided accurately.
35-39: Import section is accurateThe import statement for the
emailValidationPluginis correct and follows best practices.
41-61: Example Usage section is well-written and informativeThe provided code example clearly demonstrates how to set up and configure the
emailValidationPlugin. It follows good practices and is well-formatted, making it easy for users to understand and implement.
22-27:⚠️ Potential issueAddress the unused
domainkey inerrorMessagesThe
domainkey is still mentioned as "not used in current implementation". To avoid confusion, consider one of the following actions:
- If there are plans to implement this feature soon, add a note about its future availability.
- If there are no immediate plans to use it, remove the mention of the
domainkey.Example for option 1:
- `required`: Message for missing email - `invalid`: Message for invalid email format - `disposable`: Message for disposable email domains - - `domain`: Message for invalid domains (not used in current implementation) + - `domain`: Message for invalid domains (planned for future implementation)
|
|
||
| ## Parameters | ||
|
|
||
| #### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inconsistent heading levels
The heading levels in the Parameters section are inconsistent. Consider updating the heading levels to maintain a proper hierarchy.
-#### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional)
+### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional)Apply this change to all parameter headings in this section.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| #### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) | |
| ### `config.sheetSlug` - `string` - `default: **` - (optional) |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
16-16: Expected: h3; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.spec.ts (5)
6-22: Consider separating test cases for better isolation.The test case for valid email addresses is well-implemented and covers various scenarios. However, it might be beneficial to separate these into individual test cases for better isolation and easier debugging.
Example refactor:
it('should validate a standard email address', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('[email protected]', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: true, email: '[email protected]', error: '' }); }); it('should validate an email address with a subdomain', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('[email protected]', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: true, email: '[email protected]', error: '' }); }); it('should validate an email address with tags', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('[email protected]', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: true, email: '[email protected]', error: '' }); });This approach would make it easier to identify which specific email format fails if a test were to fail in the future.
24-45: Consider separating invalid email format test cases.The test cases for invalid email formats are comprehensive and well-implemented. However, similar to the previous suggestion, it would be beneficial to separate these into individual test cases for better isolation and easier debugging.
Example refactor:
it('should invalidate an email without @ symbol', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('notanemail', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: false, email: 'notanemail', error: 'Invalid email format' }); }); it('should invalidate an email without TLD', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('missing@tld', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: false, email: 'missing@tld', error: 'Invalid email format' }); }); // ... (similar individual tests for other invalid formats)This approach would provide clearer feedback on which specific invalid format is being tested when a test fails.
47-58: LGTM: Disposable email address validation is well-implemented.The test case for disposable email addresses is correctly implemented and covers multiple domains. It ensures that the
validateEmailAddressfunction properly rejects disposable email addresses.Consider adding a test for an email address that is similar to a disposable domain but not exactly matching, to ensure the function doesn't over-reject. For example:
it('should not reject email addresses similar to disposable domains', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('[email protected]', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: true, email: '[email protected]', error: '' }); });This would help ensure that the function is not overly aggressive in rejecting email addresses.
68-79: LGTM: Case-insensitivity is properly tested.The test case correctly verifies that the email validation is case-insensitive for both regular and disposable email addresses. This is crucial for ensuring consistent behavior regardless of the case used in the email address.
Consider adding a test case for mixed-case disposable domains to further strengthen the case-insensitivity testing:
it('should reject mixed-case disposable email addresses', () => { expect(validateEmailAddress('[email protected]', disposableDomains)).toEqual({ isValid: false, email: '[email protected]', error: 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' }); });This additional test would ensure that the function correctly handles mixed-case disposable domains.
1-80: Overall, the test suite is well-implemented with room for minor improvements.The test suite for the
validateEmailAddressfunction is comprehensive and covers a wide range of scenarios, including valid emails, invalid formats, disposable emails, empty disposable domain list, and case-insensitivity. The tests are well-structured and adhere to Jest testing conventions.Areas for potential improvement:
- Separate individual test cases for better isolation and easier debugging.
- Add tests for edge cases, such as:
- Email addresses with valid but uncommon TLDs (e.g., .travel, .museum)
- Email addresses with IP addresses as domains
- Email addresses with non-ASCII characters (if supported)
- Consider adding property-based testing for more exhaustive coverage.
These improvements would further enhance the robustness and maintainability of the test suite.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- validate/email/src/validate.email.plugin.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
validate/email/src/validate.email.utils.spec.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import statement correctly imports the
validateEmailAddressfunction from the relative path './validate.email.utils'.
3-5: LGTM: Test suite setup is well-structured.The test suite is correctly set up using
describe, and thedisposableDomainsarray is defined outside individual tests for reusability.
60-66: LGTM: Empty disposable domains list handling is correct.This test case correctly verifies the behavior of the
validateEmailAddressfunction when provided with an empty list of disposable domains. It ensures that the function doesn't incorrectly reject email addresses when no disposable domains are specified, which is an important edge case to cover.
| const emailRegex = | ||
| /^[a-zA-Z0-9.!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+(?:\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]+)*$/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider revising the email regex for better coverage and security.
The current regex is simple but has limitations:
- It doesn't allow for quoted local parts (e.g., "John Doe"@example.com).
- It doesn't support IP addresses in the domain part.
- It may be vulnerable to ReDoS (Regular Expression Denial of Service) attacks.
To address these issues:
- Consider using a more comprehensive regex as suggested in a previous comment, but be aware that increased complexity might also increase the risk of ReDoS.
- Alternatively, consider using a simpler validation approach that checks for the presence of '@' and '.' characters, as suggested by the Nullify bot. This approach is less prone to ReDoS attacks.
Here's a potential compromise that improves coverage while maintaining simplicity:
const emailRegex = /^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/;This regex is simpler, covers most common email formats, and is less likely to be vulnerable to ReDoS attacks.
| export function validateEmailAddress( | ||
| email: string, | ||
| disposableDomains: string[] | ||
| ): { isValid: boolean; email: string | null; error: string | null } { | ||
| const emailRegex = /^[^\s@]+@[^\s@]+\.[^\s@]+$/ | ||
| if (!emailRegex.test(email)) { | ||
| return { isValid: false, email, error: 'Invalid email format' } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const domain = email.split('@')[1].toLowerCase() | ||
| if (disposableDomains.includes(domain)) { | ||
| return { isValid: false, email, error: 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return { isValid: true, email, error: '' } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance the validateEmailAddress function for better robustness.
The current implementation is good, but there are a few improvements we can make:
- Trim the input email to handle leading/trailing whitespace.
- Make the domain extraction more explicit and safe.
- Handle uppercase domains in the disposable domain check.
- Consider using a more descriptive name for the return type.
Here's a suggested refactoring:
type EmailValidationResult = {
isValid: boolean;
email: string;
error: string;
};
export function validateEmailAddress(
email: string,
disposableDomains: string[]
): EmailValidationResult {
const trimmedEmail = email.trim();
if (!emailRegex.test(trimmedEmail)) {
return { isValid: false, email: trimmedEmail, error: 'Invalid email format' };
}
const domainMatch = trimmedEmail.match(/@(.+)$/);
if (!domainMatch) {
return { isValid: false, email: trimmedEmail, error: 'Invalid email format' };
}
const domain = domainMatch[1].toLowerCase();
if (disposableDomains.includes(domain)) {
return { isValid: false, email: trimmedEmail, error: 'Disposable email addresses are not allowed' };
}
return { isValid: true, email: trimmedEmail, error: '' };
}This refactored version:
- Trims the input email.
- Uses a safer method to extract the domain.
- Ensures case-insensitive comparison with disposable domains.
- Introduces a named type for the return value, improving readability and maintainability.
Please explain how to summarize this PR for the Changelog:
Tell code reviewer how and what to test: