intacct c1 import settings fix #962
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve modifying how the Changes
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- src/app/core/models/intacct/intacct-configuration/import-settings.model.ts (1 hunks)
Additional context used
Biome
src/app/core/models/intacct/intacct-configuration/import-settings.model.ts
[error] 71-71: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
| @@ -57,20 +57,20 @@ export type IntacctDependentImportFields = { | |||
|
|
|||
| export class ImportSettings { | |||
| static constructPayload(importSettingsForm: FormGroup, existingDependentFieldSettings: DependentFieldSetting | null): ImportSettingPost{ | |||
| const expenseFieldArray = importSettingsForm.value.expenseFields; | |||
| const expenseFieldArray = importSettingsForm.get('expenseFields')?.getRawValue(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle potential undefined expenseFieldArray to prevent runtime errors
If importSettingsForm.get('expenseFields') returns undefined, then expenseFieldArray will be undefined, and calling expenseFieldArray.filter(...) will result in a runtime error. Consider providing a default empty array to prevent potential issues.
Apply this diff to handle potential undefined expenseFieldArray:
-const expenseFieldArray = importSettingsForm.get('expenseFields')?.getRawValue();
+const expenseFieldArray = importSettingsForm.get('expenseFields')?.getRawValue() || [];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 expenseFieldArray = importSettingsForm.get('expenseFields')?.getRawValue(); | |
| const expenseFieldArray = importSettingsForm.get('expenseFields')?.getRawValue() || []; |
| source_field: field.source_field.toUpperCase(), | ||
| destination_field: field.destination_field, | ||
| import_to_fyle: field.import_to_fyle, | ||
| is_custom: (field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'PROJECT' || field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'COST_CENTER') ? false : true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simplify is_custom assignment by removing unnecessary ternary operator
The ternary operator is unnecessary here. You can directly assign the negation of the condition to is_custom for cleaner code.
Apply this diff to simplify the assignment:
-is_custom: (field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'PROJECT' || field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'COST_CENTER') ? false : true,
+is_custom: !(
+ field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'PROJECT' ||
+ field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'COST_CENTER'
+),Alternatively, for better readability, consider using includes:
-is_custom: (field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'PROJECT' || field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'COST_CENTER') ? false : true,
+is_custom: !['PROJECT', 'COST_CENTER'].includes(field.source_field.toUpperCase()),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.
| is_custom: (field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'PROJECT' || field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'COST_CENTER') ? false : true, | |
| is_custom: !( | |
| field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'PROJECT' || | |
| field.source_field.toUpperCase() === 'COST_CENTER' | |
| ), |
Tools
Biome
[error] 71-71: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
DhaaraniCIT
added
deploy
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Style