feat: create expense without any group attached

[sub1120]

In this PR, i have created expense without considering group.

• User can create expense without associating it with any group.
• Admin also can create expense on behalf of any user without associating it with any group.

I have a created another Issue to work on expense considering group related scenarios - #66 .

[shivamvijaywargi]

Good work, please check the mentioned things and we should be good to go.

[shivamvijaywargi]

Good work, one or two minor changes required.

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 suggestions.

Files not reviewed (4)

• src/app.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/db/schemas/expense.model.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/modules/categories/category.routes.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/common/utils/test.util.ts: Evaluated as low risk

[shivamvijaywargi]

@sub1120 Please reduce the cognitive complexity of create expense function as suggested by the code quality check.

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 suggestions.

Files not reviewed (2)

• src/app.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/modules/expenses/expense.routes.ts: Evaluated as low risk

Comments skipped due to low confidence (3)

src/modules/expenses/expense.handlers.ts:63

• The error message has a grammatical error. It should be 'Category does not belong to user'.

message: "Category does not belongs to user",

src/modules/expenses/expense.handlers.ts:76

• There is no test coverage for the case where the db.insert operation in createExpenseRepository fails.

expense = await createExpenseRepository(expensePayload);

src/modules/expenses/expense.repository.ts:6

• [nitpick] The type alias TExpensePayload could be more descriptive. It should be renamed to CreateExpensePayload to better reflect its purpose.

type TExpensePayload = Omit<TInsertExpenseSchema, "id" | "createdAt" | "updatedAt" | "groupId" >;

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.

[shivamvijaywargi]

A few things got updated, please make those changes accordingly.

[shivamvijaywargi]

Please update the correct error message

[shivamvijaywargi]

Not found should not be same as validation error, please check.

[sub1120]

@shivamvijaywargi i updated error message to Not found error(s). Works?

And thank you for getting my attention to "Not Found" status, with this i got to know some mistakes in test cases related to 404. I have fixed them as well. 5ae08b5

[shivamvijaywargi]

How about "Requested resource not found"?

[sub1120]

Ya this is good. I will update it.

[sub1120]

Updated.

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.

Files not reviewed (3)

• src/app.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/db/schemas/expense.model.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/modules/categories/category.util.ts: Evaluated as low risk

[shivamvijaywargi]

Please fix the cognitive complexity, best thing would be to refactor your switch case to its own function.

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.

Files not reviewed (4)

• src/modules/expenses/expense.routes.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/modules/expenses/expense.test.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/common/utils/constants.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/db/schemas/expense.model.ts: Evaluated as low risk

Comments skipped due to low confidence (1)

src/modules/expenses/expense.handlers.ts:68

• [nitpick] The error message 'Category does not belong to valid category user' could be more specific. Consider changing it to 'Category does not belong to the user or the specified payer'.

message: "Category does not belong to valid category user",

[sub1120]

Please fix the cognitive complexity, best thing would be to refactor your switch case to its own function.

@shivamvijaywargi I’ve refactored the code. In my opinion, extracting switch case to its own function would definitely improve the complexity score, though I’m still a bit uncertain about how the function might evolve when we implement updates to the create expense feature for handling splits.

So for now, following our discussion on category validation, I created a separate function to validate category, which has further reduced complexity. Let me know your thoughts!

[sub1120]

This Node.js CI build is failing because of eslint errors in ISSUE_TEAMPLATES which we recently added, should we add .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATES to eslint ignore?

[shivamvijaywargi]

This Node.js CI build is failing because of eslint errors in ISSUE_TEAMPLATES which we recently added, should we add .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATES to eslint ignore?

Yes, let's add it.

[shivamvijaywargi]

Please ignore the issues template from ESLint and we can ship this.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.

Files not reviewed (4)

• src/db/schemas/expense.model.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/modules/expenses/expense.repository.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/common/utils/constants.ts: Evaluated as low risk
• src/app.ts: Evaluated as low risk