fix: fe axios error handler #1555
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to error handling in two files: Changes
Possibly related PRs
Finishing Touches
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
Documentation and Community
|
![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 (1)
Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Home/index.jsx (1)
113-113: Mom's spaghetti moment: Let's catch those undefined messages! 🍝The error message handling could use a fallback for cases where
error.messageis undefined.Add a fallback message:
- body: error.message, + body: error.message || 'Error fetching monitors. Please try again.',
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Home/index.jsx(1 hunks)Client/src/Utils/NetworkService.js(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
Comment on lines
+30
to
+36
| if (!error.request && error.response && error.response.status === 401) { | ||
| dispatch(clearAuthState()); | ||
| dispatch(clearUptimeMonitorState()); | ||
| navigate("/login"); | ||
| } else if (error.request && !error.response) { | ||
| return Promise.reject(error); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Yo dawg, let's beef up that error handling! 🍝
The simplified error handling is missing some key scenarios that could leave users hanging. Consider these improvements:
- Add specific handling for network errors (timeout, no connection)
- Include handling for common HTTP status codes (403, 404, 500)
- Add meaningful error messages for better user feedback
Here's a spicier version of the error handler:
if (!error.request && error.response && error.response.status === 401) {
dispatch(clearAuthState());
dispatch(clearUptimeMonitorState());
navigate("/login");
+} else if (error.request && !error.response) {
+ const networkError = new Error('Network error - please check your connection');
+ networkError.isAxiosError = true;
+ return Promise.reject(networkError);
+} else if (error.response) {
+ const statusError = new Error(error.response.data?.message || 'An error occurred');
+ statusError.isAxiosError = true;
+ statusError.status = error.response.status;
+ return Promise.reject(statusError);
} else {
return Promise.reject(error);
}📝 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.
Suggested change
| if (!error.request && error.response && error.response.status === 401) { | |
| dispatch(clearAuthState()); | |
| dispatch(clearUptimeMonitorState()); | |
| navigate("/login"); | |
| } else if (error.request && !error.response) { | |
| return Promise.reject(error); | |
| } | |
| if (!error.request && error.response && error.response.status === 401) { | |
| dispatch(clearAuthState()); | |
| dispatch(clearUptimeMonitorState()); | |
| navigate("/login"); | |
| } else if (error.request && !error.response) { | |
| const networkError = new Error('Network error - please check your connection'); | |
| networkError.isAxiosError = true; | |
| return Promise.reject(networkError); | |
| } else if (error.response) { | |
| const statusError = new Error(error.response.data?.message || 'An error occurred'); | |
| statusError.isAxiosError = true; | |
| statusError.status = error.response.status; | |
| return Promise.reject(statusError); | |
| } else { | |
| return Promise.reject(error); | |
| } |
![llamapreview[bot]](/~https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1023541?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview
1. Overview
1.1 PR Summary
- Business value and requirements alignment: This PR fixes incorrect Axios error handling, which is crucial for maintaining a reliable user experience and ensuring the application behaves as expected under various network conditions.
- Key components modified: The client-side network service and the Uptime Home page.
- Impact assessment: The changes in error handling could potentially lead to system instability if not thoroughly tested. It's essential to validate that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: The changes in error handling could affect how the application responds to network issues, potentially leading to unexpected behavior or user experience degradation.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: None
- Component interactions: The changes in error handling could affect the interaction between the client-side network service and the Uptime Home page.
- Integration points: The changes in error handling could affect the integration between the client-side network service and the backend API.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
- Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Home/index.jsx
- Submitted PR Code:
// ...
} catch (error) {
createToast({
body: error.message,
});
// ...- Analysis:
- The PR has replaced the static error message with
error.message, which is a good improvement as it provides more specific error information. - However, it's crucial to ensure that
error.messageis not exposing sensitive information. In some cases, the error message might contain sensitive data like API keys or user credentials, which should not be displayed to the user. - Edge cases and error handling: The current implementation assumes that
error.messageis always available and safe to display. If the error object does not have amessageproperty, or if the message contains sensitive information, the application might behave unexpectedly or expose sensitive data. - Cross-component impact: This change might affect the user experience if the error message contains technical jargon or sensitive information. It's essential to ensure that the error message is user-friendly and does not expose sensitive data.
- The PR has replaced the static error message with
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
catch (error) {
let errorMessage = 'An unexpected error occurred';
if (error.message) {
errorMessage = error.message.replace(/API_KEY|SECRET|PASSWORD/g, '[REDACTED]');
}
createToast({
body: errorMessage,
});-
Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: This improvement ensures that the error message is always available and safe to display, preventing potential UI issues or sensitive data exposure.
- Business value: It enhances the user experience by providing more specific error information while ensuring that sensitive data is not exposed.
- Risk assessment: This improvement mitigates the risk of exposing sensitive data or displaying unexpected error messages to the user.
-
Client/src/Utils/NetworkService.js
- Submitted PR Code:
// ...
} else if (error.request && !error.response) {
return Promise.reject(error);
}
return Promise.reject(error);
// ...- Analysis:
- The PR has removed the unnecessary error handling code and simplified the error handling logic. This is a good improvement as it reduces code complexity and improves readability.
- However, the current implementation might lead to unexpected behavior when the request was successful but the response was empty. In such cases,
error.responsewould benull, and the application would reject the promise with the error object, which is not the expected behavior. - Edge cases and error handling: The current implementation does not handle the case where the request was successful but the response was empty. In such cases, the application should not reject the promise with the error object.
- Cross-component impact: This change might affect the application's behavior when the API response is empty. It's essential to ensure that the application behaves as expected in such cases.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
// ...
} else if (error.request && !error.response) {
return Promise.reject(new Error('Network error: No response received'));
}
return Promise.reject(error);
// ...-
Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: This improvement ensures that the application behaves as expected when the API response is empty, preventing unexpected behavior or errors.
- Business value: It enhances the application's reliability and stability by ensuring that it handles various network scenarios correctly.
- Risk assessment: This improvement mitigates the risk of unexpected behavior or errors when the API response is empty.
-
Client/src/Utils/NetworkService.js
- Submitted PR Code:
// ...
if (!error.request && error.response && error.response.status === 401) {
dispatch(clearAuthState());
dispatch(clearUptimeMonitorState());
navigate("/login");
}
// ...- Analysis:
- The PR has changed how 401 errors are handled, directly impacting the user's session management. This is a significant change that requires thorough testing and validation.
- However, the current implementation does not handle the case where the API returns a 401 status code but the request was not made (e.g., due to a network error). In such cases, the application should not log out the user or redirect them to the login page.
- Edge cases and error handling: The current implementation does not handle the case where the API returns a 401 status code but the request was not made. In such cases, the application should not log out the user or redirect them to the login page.
- Cross-component impact: This change might lead to unexpected user session behavior. It's crucial to ensure that the application behaves as expected when network errors occur.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
// ...
if (error.response && error.response.status === 401) {
dispatch(clearAuthState());
dispatch(clearUptimeMonitorState());
navigate("/login");
}
// ...- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: This improvement ensures that the application behaves as expected when the API returns a 401 status code but the request was not made, preventing unexpected user session behavior.
- Business value: It enhances the user experience by ensuring that the application handles 401 errors correctly and logs out the user when appropriate.
- Risk assessment: This improvement mitigates the risk of unexpected user session behavior when network errors occur.
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code organization and structure: The PR maintains a clear and organized structure, with changes focused on the relevant files and functions.
- Design patterns usage: The PR does not introduce any new design patterns, but it refines the existing error handling logic.
- Error handling approach: The PR improves the error handling approach by replacing static error messages with more specific error information and simplifying the error handling logic.
- Resource management: The PR does not introduce any new resource management concerns.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
- 🔴 Critical Issues
- Impact: Incorrect error handling could lead to unexpected behavior or user experience degradation.
- Recommendation: Thoroughly test the application under various network conditions to ensure that the error handling logic works as expected.
- 🟡 Warnings
- Warning description: The PR does not handle the case where the API response is empty but the request was successful.
- Potential risks: This could lead to unexpected behavior or errors when the API response is empty.
- Suggested improvements: Handle the case where the API response is empty but the request was successful, as suggested in the "Code Logic Deep-Dive" section.
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The PR improves the maintainability of the code by simplifying the error handling logic and reducing code complexity.
- Readability issues: The PR does not introduce any new readability issues, and it improves the readability of the error handling logic by simplifying it.
- Performance bottlenecks: The PR does not introduce any new performance bottlenecks, and it improves the performance of the error handling logic by simplifying it.
4. Security Assessment
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: The PR changes how 401 errors are handled, which could potentially impact the user's session management. It's crucial to ensure that the application behaves as expected when network errors occur.
- Data handling concerns: The PR does not introduce any new data handling concerns, but it's essential to ensure that the error message does not expose sensitive data.
- Input validation: The PR does not introduce any new input validation concerns, but it's crucial to ensure that the error message is safe to display to the user.
- Security best practices: The PR follows security best practices by ensuring that sensitive data is not exposed in the error message.
- Potential security risks: The PR could potentially expose sensitive data if the error message is not properly sanitized. It's crucial to ensure that the error message is safe to display to the user.
- Mitigation strategies: The PR mitigates the risk of exposing sensitive data by ensuring that the error message is properly sanitized, as suggested in the "Code Logic Deep-Dive" section.
- Security testing requirements: Thoroughly test the application under various network conditions to ensure that the error handling logic works as expected and does not expose sensitive data.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: Write unit tests to cover the new error handling logic and ensure that it behaves as expected.
- Integration test requirements: Perform integration tests to validate that the application behaves correctly under various network conditions.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
// Test case for empty API response
it('should handle empty API response', async () => {
const error = new Error('Network error: No response received');
await expect(axiosInstance.get('/api/endpoint')).rejects.toThrow(error);
});
// Test case for 401 error
it('should handle 401 error', async () => {
const error = new Error('Request failed with status code 401');
error.response = {
status: 401,
};
await expect(axiosInstance.get('/api/endpoint')).rejects.toThrow(error);
expect(clearAuthState).toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(clearUptimeMonitorState).toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/login');
});- Coverage improvements: Ensure that the unit tests cover the new error handling logic and that the integration tests validate the application's behavior under various network conditions.
- Performance testing needs: The PR does not introduce any new performance testing needs, but it's crucial to ensure that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed: Update the documentation to reflect the changes in error handling logic and the new behavior of 401 errors.
- Long-term maintenance considerations: The PR improves the maintainability of the code by simplifying the error handling logic and reducing code complexity. This should make the code easier to maintain in the long term.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements: The PR does not introduce any new technical debt or monitoring requirements, but it's crucial to ensure that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions and that the error handling logic is comprehensive.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: The PR does not introduce any new deployment concerns, but it's crucial to ensure that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions and that the error handling logic is comprehensive.
- Key operational considerations: The PR does not introduce any new operational concerns, but it's crucial to ensure that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions and that the error handling logic is comprehensive.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
- Thoroughly test the application under various network conditions to ensure that the error handling logic works as expected and does not expose sensitive data.
- Update the documentation to reflect the changes in error handling logic and the new behavior of 401 errors.
- Handle the case where the API response is empty but the request was successful, as suggested in the "Code Logic Deep-Dive" section.
- Ensure that the application behaves as expected when network errors occur and that the error handling logic is comprehensive.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: As the application evolves, it's crucial to ensure that the error handling logic remains comprehensive and that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions.
- Business capability evolution: As the application's business capabilities evolve, it's crucial to ensure that the error handling logic remains comprehensive and that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions.
- System integration impacts: As the application is integrated with other systems, it's crucial to ensure that the error handling logic remains comprehensive and that the application behaves as expected under various network conditions.
💡 Help Shape LlamaPReview
How's this review format working for you? Vote in our Github Discussion Polls to help us improve your review experience!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes the incorrect implementation of the Axios error handler