Feat/Verification of the user email #4862
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
kkatusic
changed the title
bypassing first update of the user
WalkthroughThis pull request implements enhancements to the email verification process across multiple localization files and components. It introduces new labels for email verification messages in Catalan, English, and Spanish, along with modifications for existing labels to ensure consistency. Additionally, new components and methods are added to manage email verification within the user interface, including the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure. 🔧 eslint (1.23.1)
warning [email protected]: This version is no longer supported. Please see https://eslint.org/version-support for other options. 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: 12
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (24)
src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx (1)
32-57: Improve sticky positioning and z-index management.The styled components could benefit from the following improvements:
- Add
top: 0to the sticky positioning for consistent behavior- Consider using a z-index from a shared constants file
Consider applying these changes:
const Wrapper = styled(FlexCenter)` flex-wrap: wrap; padding: 16px; text-align: center; gap: 4px; background: ${brandColors.mustard[200]}; - z-index: 99; + z-index: ${zIndex.banner}; // Consider creating a zIndex constant file position: sticky; + top: 0; `;src/context/profile.context.tsx (1)
32-42: Consider adding validation and error handlingWhile the implementation is functionally correct, consider enhancing it with:
- Input validation for critical user fields
- Error handling for invalid updates
- Callback mechanism for update notifications
const updateUser = (updatedUser: Partial<IUser>) => { + try { + // Validate critical fields + if (updatedUser.email && !isValidEmail(updatedUser.email)) { + throw new Error('Invalid email format'); + } setUser(prevUser => ({ ...prevUser, ...updatedUser, })); + // Notify success if needed + onUserUpdate?.(updatedUser); + } catch (error) { + console.error('Failed to update user:', error); + // Handle error appropriately + } };src/components/views/userProfile/projectsTab/ProfileProjectsTab.tsx (1)
52-52: Add visual feedback for unverified usersWhile the container correctly disables interaction for unverified users, there's no clear indication of why the content is inaccessible. Consider adding a message or tooltip explaining that email verification is required to interact with projects.
- <ProjectsContainer $verified={!!user.isEmailVerified}> + <> + {!user.isEmailVerified && ( + <VerificationMessage> + {formatMessage({ id: 'label.verify_email_to_manage_projects' })} + </VerificationMessage> + )} + <ProjectsContainer $verified={!!user.isEmailVerified}>src/apollo/gql/gqlUser.ts (2)
260-264: Consider enhancing the mutation with additional type safety and error handling.The mutation could benefit from more explicit type definitions and error handling:
- Consider specifying the return type explicitly
- Add error cases in the GraphQL schema for common scenarios (invalid email, rate limiting, etc.)
Example enhancement:
export const SEND_USER_EMAIL_CONFIRMATION_CODE_FLOW = gql` mutation SendUserEmailConfirmationCodeFlow($email: String!) { - sendUserEmailConfirmationCodeFlow(email: $email) + sendUserEmailConfirmationCodeFlow(email: $email) { + success: Boolean! + message: String + error: EmailVerificationError + } } `;
Line range hint
19-33: Add isEmailVerified field to GET_USER_BY_ADDRESS query.The query should include the email verification status to maintain consistency with the new verification system.
Add the missing field:
export const GET_USER_BY_ADDRESS = gql` ${USER_CORE_FIELDS} query UserByAddress($address: String!) { userByAddress(address: $address) { ...UserCoreFields totalDonated totalReceived likedProjectsCount projectsCount donationsCount boostedProjectsCount passportScore passportStamps activeQFMBDScore + isEmailVerified } } `;src/components/modals/EditUserModal.tsx (1)
283-285: LGTM: Styled button with proper spacingThe
ButtonEditSavestyled component appropriately adds vertical spacing. Consider using the theme's spacing system if available for consistency.const ButtonEditSave = styled(Button)` - margin-top: 24px; + margin-top: ${({ theme }) => theme.spacing.xxl}; // If theme spacing is available `;src/components/views/project/projectActionCard/AdminActions.tsx (2)
59-60: Consider adding error handling for undefined context.The
isAdminEmailVerifiedis destructured directly from the context without checking if the context is defined. While the context might always be available in the current setup, it's a good practice to handle potential undefined cases.-const { isAdminEmailVerified } = useProjectContext(); +const context = useProjectContext(); +if (!context) { + return null; // or handle the error case appropriately +} +const { isAdminEmailVerified } = context;
138-177: Consider improving accessibility for disabled state.While using opacity and pointer-events effectively disables interactions, consider adding appropriate ARIA attributes to improve accessibility. Also, the disabled state should be communicated to screen readers.
-<Wrapper $verified={isAdminEmailVerified}> +<Wrapper + $verified={isAdminEmailVerified} + aria-disabled={!isAdminEmailVerified} + role="region" + aria-label={!isAdminEmailVerified ? "Project actions disabled until email verification" : "Project actions"} +>src/context/project.context.tsx (1)
115-116: Consider handling the case when user is undefined.While the current implementation is functional, it could be more explicit in handling edge cases.
Consider this slightly more robust implementation:
-const isAdminEmailVerified = !!(isAdmin && user?.isEmailVerified); +const isAdminEmailVerified = Boolean(isAdmin && user && user.isEmailVerified);This change:
- Uses
Boolean()which is more explicit than!!- Explicitly checks for
userexistence- Maintains the same functionality while being more readable
src/components/views/project/ProjectIndex.tsx (1)
139-139: Consider handling multiple banner stacking.The banner placement is correct, but consider the UX when both email verification and passport banners are shown. You might want to:
- Create a banner container component to manage multiple banners
- Implement a dismissible mechanism
- Consider priority ordering of banners
Example implementation:
interface Banner { id: string; priority: number; component: ReactNode; isDismissible?: boolean; } const BannerContainer: FC = () => { const banners: Banner[] = [ { id: 'email', priority: 1, component: !isAdminEmailVerified ? <VerifyEmailBanner /> : null, }, { id: 'passport', priority: 2, component: hasActiveQFRound && !isOnSolana ? <PassportBanner /> : null, }, ].filter(b => b.component).sort((a, b) => a.priority - b.priority); return <>{banners.map(b => b.component)}</>; };lang/es.json (1)
386-397: LGTM! The email verification translations look good with a minor suggestion.The translations are well-structured, grammatically correct, and maintain consistency with the existing Spanish localization. The key verification messages are all covered.
Consider making the banner text more action-oriented by updating line 395:
- "label.email_verify_banner": "Obtén acceso completo a tus cuentas y proyectos. ¡Verifica tu dirección de correo electrónico! <button>Verificar correo</button>", + "label.email_verify_banner": "¡Verifica tu dirección de correo electrónico para obtener acceso completo a tus cuentas y proyectos! <button>Verificar correo</button>",src/components/views/onboarding/InfoStep.tsx (9)
201-227: Duplicate Error Handling LogicThe
handleButtonCodeChangefunction has error handling code that is nearly identical to the one inverificationEmailHandler. Duplicated code can make maintenance harder and increase the chance of inconsistencies.Consider extracting the common error handling logic into a separate utility function or handler to reduce duplication.
218-219: Useconsole.errorInstead ofconsole.logfor ErrorsUsing
console.log(error);may not properly highlight errors in the console.Change to
console.error(error);to ensure errors are clearly indicated:- console.log(error); + console.error(error);
401-403: Button Type Missing forVerifyCodeButtonWrapperThe
VerifyCodeButtonWrapperbutton lacks an explicittypeattribute. In forms, buttons default totype='submit', which can cause unintended form submissions when clicked.Add
type='button'to prevent unintended form submission:<VerifyCodeButtonWrapper + type='button' $verified={verified} disabled={disableCodeVerifyButton} onClick={handleButtonCodeChange} >
469-519: Duplicate Styled Components for ButtonsThe
VerifyInputButtonWrapperandVerifyCodeButtonWrapperstyled components share almost identical styles.Consider creating a base styled component and extending it to avoid duplication:
const BaseVerifyButtonWrapper = styled.button<VerifyInputButtonWrapperProps>` outline: none; cursor: pointer; margin-top: ${({ $verified }) => ($verified ? '24px' : '48px')}; background-color: ${({ $verified }) => $verified ? semanticColors.jade[500] : brandColors.giv[500]}; border: 1px solid ${({ $verified }) => $verified ? semanticColors.jade[500] : brandColors.giv[50]}; border-radius: 8px; padding: 20px; color: #ffffff; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.2; text-align: left; &:hover { opacity: 0.85; } &:disabled { opacity: 0.5; } `; const VerifyInputButtonWrapper = styled(BaseVerifyButtonWrapper)` margin-top: 24px; `; const VerifyCodeButtonWrapper = styled(BaseVerifyButtonWrapper)` margin-top: 48px; `;
486-487: Unusualline-heightValue in Button StylesThe
line-heightproperty is set to13.23pxfor a font size of16px, which is unusually small and may affect text readability.Consider using a relative
line-heightvalue like1.2or matching the font size for better readability.- line-height: 13.23px; + line-height: 1.2;
325-326: Accessibility Improvement for Email InputThe email input field has a
captionthat updates based on verification status. However, screen readers may not associate this caption with the input field.Use
aria-describedbyto link the input field with the caption for better accessibility.<Input registerName={EUserInfo.EMAIL} label='email' placeholder='[email protected]' register={register} type='email' registerOptions={requiredOptions.email} error={errors.email} caption={inputDescription} + aria-describedby='email-caption' onChange={handleInputChange} />Ensure that the caption element has the corresponding
id.
216-217: Missing Success Feedback to UserAfter a successful verification in
handleButtonCodeChange, there is no user feedback provided to indicate success.Consider adding a toast notification or visual cue to inform the user that their email has been successfully verified.
// After setting the state gToast(formatMessage({ id: 'label.email_verified_success' }), { type: ToastType.SUCCESS, title: formatMessage({ id: 'label.success' }), });
117-135: Inefficient State Updates inhandleInputChangeThe
handleInputChangefunction updates several states based on the input value, and some conditions could be optimized.Simplify the conditions and state updates to improve readability and performance.
For example:
const handleInputChange = (e: React.ChangeEvent<HTMLInputElement>) => { const inputValue = e.target.value; setEmail(inputValue); setDisableVerifyButton(inputValue.length <= 3); if (inputValue !== currentDBUser?.email) { setVerified(false); } else { setVerified(!!currentDBUser?.isEmailVerified); } };
78-82: Potential Redundant State InitializationThe
verifiedstate is initialized usingcurrentDBUser?.isEmailVerified || false. IfcurrentDBUser.isEmailVerifiedis already a boolean, the|| falseis unnecessary.Simplify the state initialization:
const [verified, setVerified] = useState( - currentDBUser?.isEmailVerified || false, + currentDBUser?.isEmailVerified ?? false, );src/components/InputUserEmailVerify.tsx (4)
342-342: Use Optional Chaining for Cleaner SyntaxConsider using optional chaining to simplify the expression and improve readability.
Apply this diff to implement the change:
- ref !== undefined && ref(e); + ref?.(e);🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 342-342: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
253-257: Avoid Logging Errors Directly to ConsoleLogging errors directly to the console can expose sensitive information and is not recommended in production code. Consider removing the
console.log(error);statement or using a proper logging mechanism.Apply this diff:
if (error instanceof Error) { showToastError(error.message); } - console.log(error);
296-301: Avoid Logging Errors Directly to ConsoleLogging errors directly to the console can expose sensitive information and is not recommended in production code. Consider removing the
console.log(error);statement or using a proper logging mechanism.Apply this diff:
if (error instanceof Error) { showToastError(error.message); } - console.log(error);
265-268: Simplify Conditional Logic in Code VerificationYou can simplify the conditional statement by directly setting the state based on the condition, improving code readability.
Apply this diff:
- value.length >= 5 - ? setDisableCodeVerifyButton(false) - : setDisableCodeVerifyButton(true); + setDisableCodeVerifyButton(value.length < 5);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (17)
lang/ca.json(3 hunks)lang/en.json(3 hunks)lang/es.json(1 hunks)pages/account.tsx(2 hunks)pages/project/[projectIdSlug]/index.tsx(0 hunks)src/apollo/gql/gqlUser.ts(1 hunks)src/apollo/types/types.ts(1 hunks)src/components/InputUserEmailVerify.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/modals/EditUserModal.tsx(4 hunks)src/components/views/onboarding/InfoStep.tsx(7 hunks)src/components/views/project/ProjectIndex.tsx(3 hunks)src/components/views/project/projectActionCard/AdminActions.tsx(4 hunks)src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/views/userProfile/projectsTab/ProfileProjectsTab.tsx(2 hunks)src/context/profile.context.tsx(3 hunks)src/context/project.context.tsx(4 hunks)src/features/user/user.queries.ts(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- pages/project/[projectIdSlug]/index.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/components/InputUserEmailVerify.tsx
[error] 342-342: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (27)
src/features/user/user.queries.ts (1)
25-25: LGTM! The new field follows GraphQL best practices.
The addition of isEmailVerified field is clean and follows boolean naming conventions.
Let's verify the GraphQL schema support for this field:
✅ Verification successful
GraphQL schema supports the isEmailVerified field
The field is properly defined in the GraphQL types (src/apollo/types/types.ts) and is actively used across multiple components, including:
- User profile components
- Email verification components
- Onboarding flow
- Account page with VerifyEmailBanner
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the GraphQL schema supports the isEmailVerified field
# Expected: The field should be defined in the User type/interface
# Search for User type/interface definition
ast-grep --pattern 'type User {
$$$
isEmailVerified: Boolean
$$$
}'
# Alternative: Search in schema files
rg -t graphql "isEmailVerified.*Boolean" || rg "type User" -A 30 -g "*.graphql"
Length of output: 337
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search strategy to locate GraphQL schema files and type definitions
# Find potential schema files with common extensions
echo "=== Searching for schema files ==="
fd "\.(graphql|gql|schema\.ts|schema\.js)$"
# Search for User type definition in all files
echo -e "\n=== Searching for User type definition ==="
rg "type User" -A 30
# Search for isEmailVerified field
echo -e "\n=== Searching for isEmailVerified field ==="
rg "isEmailVerified"
Length of output: 3447
pages/account.tsx (1)
9-9: LGTM! Clean import statement.
The import follows the existing pattern and suggests proper component organization.
src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx (2)
1-6: LGTM! Imports are well-organized.
The imports are clean, necessary, and follow a consistent pattern.
59-59: LGTM! Export is correct.
The default export follows React best practices.
src/context/profile.context.tsx (3)
15-15: LGTM! Well-typed interface extension
The use of Partial<IUser> is a good choice here, allowing for granular updates to user properties while maintaining type safety.
22-22: LGTM! Proper default value implementation
Good practice providing a no-op default function to prevent potential null/undefined errors.
32-42: Verify email verification status updates
Since this is part of the email verification feature, we should verify that email verification status updates are properly reflected in the UI.
Also applies to: 66-66
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response as we have sufficient evidence about the email verification implementation:
Email verification status updates are properly handled in the UI
The codebase shows comprehensive handling of email verification status:
InputUserEmailVerify.tsxproperly manages verification state and updates throughuseProfileContext- Email verification status is reflected in multiple UI components:
- Profile projects tab shows verified status (
$verified={!!user.isEmailVerified}) - Email verification banner is conditionally shown (
!userData?.isEmailVerified && <VerifyEmailBanner />) - Verify button state is properly managed based on verification status
- Profile projects tab shows verified status (
- The
updateUserfunction inprofile.context.tsxcorrectly updates the user state with verification changes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for email verification status handling in components
echo "Checking components using ProfileContext for email verification..."
rg -A 3 "useProfileContext|isEmailVerified" --type tsx
# Check for email verification mutations
echo "Checking for email verification mutations..."
rg -A 3 "mutation.*VerifyEmail|mutation.*SendVerification" --type graphql
Length of output: 434
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for email verification status handling in components using generic file extensions
echo "Checking components using ProfileContext for email verification..."
rg -A 3 "useProfileContext|isEmailVerified" -g '*.ts*'
# Check for email verification mutations in GraphQL files
echo "Checking for email verification mutations..."
rg -A 3 "mutation.*VerifyEmail|mutation.*SendVerification" -g '*.graphql'
# Find all files that might be related to email verification
echo "Checking for email verification related files..."
fd -e ts -e tsx -e graphql | rg -i "email|verify|profile"
# Check for email verification related types and interfaces
echo "Checking for email verification types..."
rg "interface.*User|type.*User" -A 5 -g '*.ts*'
Length of output: 26650
src/components/views/userProfile/projectsTab/ProfileProjectsTab.tsx (2)
98-100: LGTM! Well-structured interface definition
The interface follows styled-components best practices with the transient prop prefix ($).
52-52: Verify integration with email verification components
Since this is part of a larger email verification feature, let's verify the required dependencies.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the email verification feature integration.
Let me check one more aspect to verify the complete integration.
Email verification integration is properly implemented
The verification shows that the email verification feature is well integrated:
ProjectsContainercorrectly uses the$verifiedprop to control UI state based on email verificationVerifyEmailBannercomponent is properly integrated and used in relevant places- Email verification state (
isEmailVerified) is consistently used across components - Multiple components handle email verification logic (
InputUserEmailVerify,VerificationStatusReport,EmailVerificationIndex)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for required translations
echo "Checking for required translations..."
rg "verify_email|email_verification" src/lang/
# Check for VerifyEmailBanner integration
echo "Checking for VerifyEmailBanner usage..."
rg -A 5 "VerifyEmailBanner" src/
Length of output: 1859
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for ProjectsContainer styled component definition and its usage of $verified prop
echo "Checking ProjectsContainer definition and usage..."
rg -A 5 "ProjectsContainer.*=.*styled" src/
# Check for isEmailVerified usage in the codebase
echo "Checking isEmailVerified usage..."
rg "isEmailVerified" src/
# Check for translations in other potential locations
echo "Checking for translations in other locations..."
fd -e json . src/ -x rg -l "verify_email|email_verification" {}
Length of output: 2523
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for FormattedMessage usage in VerifyEmailBanner
echo "Checking VerifyEmailBanner messages..."
rg -A 3 "FormattedMessage" src/components/views/userProfile/VerifyEmailBanner.tsx
# Check for any email verification related components and their imports
echo "Checking email verification related components..."
rg -l "email.*verif" src/components/
Length of output: 860
src/apollo/gql/gqlUser.ts (1)
260-273: Verify rate limiting and security measures for email verification.
Since this involves sensitive operations:
- Ensure rate limiting is implemented for both sending and verifying codes
- Consider implementing measures against enumeration attacks
- Verify that email verification codes have appropriate expiration times
src/components/modals/EditUserModal.tsx (4)
26-26: LGTM: Import statement for email verification component
The import of InputUserEmailVerify aligns with the PR's email verification objectives.
Line range hint 234-239: LGTM: Email field configuration
The email field configuration is properly structured with appropriate validation and labeling.
168-196: Verify the complete email verification flow
Let's ensure the email verification flow is properly integrated with the notification system and backend services.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the email verification flow.
Based on the comprehensive verification results, I can now provide the final response:
Email verification flow is properly implemented and secure
The implementation includes:
- Complete email verification flow with proper validation states
- Two-step verification process (email sending + code verification)
- Error handling and user feedback through toast notifications
- Proper state management for verification status
- Required field validation with proper options
- Security measures preventing email duplicates
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the email verification flow integration
# Check for error handling in the verification flow
echo "Checking error handling..."
rg -A 5 "catch.*email.*verif"
# Check for toast notifications
echo "Checking user feedback..."
rg -A 5 "gToast.*email"
# Check for mutation usage
echo "Checking GraphQL mutations..."
ast-grep --pattern 'useMutation($MUTATION_NAME)'
Length of output: 2615
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the InputUserEmailVerify component implementation
echo "Checking InputUserEmailVerify component..."
fd "InputUserEmailVerify" --exec cat {}
# Check for email verification related mutations
echo "Checking email verification mutations..."
rg -l "mutation.*email.*verif"
rg -l "VERIFY.*EMAIL"
# Check for email validation logic
echo "Checking email validation..."
rg "registerOptions.*email" -A 5
Length of output: 18016
168-196: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Several improvements needed in the input component selection logic
- Fix the typo in the comment ("becasue" → "because")
- Consider using TypeScript enums or constants for input types instead of string literals
- The
anytype cast on user object should be replaced with proper typing
Here's the suggested improvement:
- // We load different input components for email becasue validation is different
+ // We load different input components for email because validation is different
+ type InputFieldType = 'email' | 'text' | 'url';
+
const InputComponent =
- field.type === 'email'
+ field.type === InputFieldType.EMAIL
? InputUserEmailVerify
: Input;
return (
<InputComponent
- defaultValue={(user as any)[field.name]}
+ defaultValue={user[field.name as keyof IUser]}
key={field.name}
// ... rest of the props
/>
);Let's verify the props compatibility between Input and InputUserEmailVerify components:
src/components/views/project/projectActionCard/AdminActions.tsx (3)
12-12: LGTM: Design system import follows existing patterns.
261-293: LGTM: Well-structured styled components with proper TypeScript types.
The styled components and interfaces are well-implemented:
- Proper TypeScript interface for props
- Consistent use of design system colors
- Follows styled-components naming conventions for transient props
Line range hint 1-293: Verify integration with dependent PRs.
This implementation depends on PRs from notification-center (#124) and impact-graph (#1874). Let's verify the integration points:
✅ Verification successful
Email verification integration is properly implemented
The implementation is correctly integrated with the user's email verification status:
- The
isAdminEmailVerifiedflag is properly consumed from the project context - UI elements are conditionally rendered based on verification status:
- Project actions are disabled (opacity: 0.5, pointer-events: none) when email is not verified
- A notification banner is shown to unverified users
- The verification flow is complete with proper status handling (Pending/Verified/Rejected)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any GraphQL queries or mutations related to email verification
rg -l "mutation.*verifyEmail|query.*emailVerified" --type ts
# Check for any notification center integration points
rg -l "notification.*email.*verif" --type ts
# Check for any impact-graph API endpoints being used
rg -l "impact-graph.*email.*verif" --type ts
Length of output: 156
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for email verification related code in the context
rg -A 5 "isAdminEmailVerified" --type ts
# Check for any GraphQL fragments, queries, or types related to email verification
rg -A 5 "emailVerified|EmailVerification" --type ts
# Check project context implementation
fd -e ts "project.context" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 9187
src/context/project.context.tsx (4)
59-59: LGTM! Clear and well-typed interface addition.
The new isAdminEmailVerified property is appropriately typed and follows naming conventions.
77-77: LGTM! Appropriate default value.
Setting isAdminEmailVerified to false by default is the correct approach for initialization.
320-320: LGTM! Consistent context value update.
The isAdminEmailVerified property is correctly added to the context provider value.
Line range hint 59-320: Verify context usage in dependent components.
The new isAdminEmailVerified property affects components that consume this context. Let's verify its usage:
✅ Verification successful
The isAdminEmailVerified property is properly integrated and handled in dependent components
The verification shows that:
- The property is correctly consumed in
ProjectIndex.tsxto conditionally render aVerifyEmailBanner AdminActions.tsxproperly handles the state with:- A notification component when email is not verified
- Styled wrapper component that adapts to verification state
- Mobile and desktop views both handle the verification state
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find components that consume ProjectContext and might need updates
# Find components using useProjectContext hook
echo "Components using useProjectContext:"
rg "useProjectContext\(\)" -l
# Find direct ProjectContext.Provider usage
echo -e "\nComponents using ProjectContext.Provider:"
rg "ProjectContext\.Provider" -l
# Find potential usage of isAdminEmailVerified
echo -e "\nPotential usage of isAdminEmailVerified:"
rg "isAdminEmailVerified" -l
Length of output: 1951
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how isAdminEmailVerified is used in the components
echo "Usage in ProjectIndex.tsx:"
rg "isAdminEmailVerified" src/components/views/project/ProjectIndex.tsx -C 2
echo -e "\nUsage in AdminActions.tsx:"
rg "isAdminEmailVerified" src/components/views/project/projectActionCard/AdminActions.tsx -C 2
# Check if there are any conditional renders or error states related to email verification
echo -e "\nChecking for related error messages or verification states:"
rg -i "email.*(verif|confirm)" src/components/views/project/projectActionCard/AdminActions.tsx
Length of output: 1552
src/components/views/project/ProjectIndex.tsx (2)
52-52: LGTM!
The import statement is correctly placed and follows the project's import organization pattern.
88-88: Verify the context implementation.
The isAdminEmailVerified flag is correctly destructured from the project context. However, we should verify its implementation in the context provider.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the implementation of isAdminEmailVerified in the provider.
Implementation of isAdminEmailVerified is correct and properly used
The flag is correctly implemented in the project context:
- Defined in the
IProjectContextinterface as a boolean - Properly initialized with a default value of
false - Calculated based on valid conditions:
isAdmin && user?.isEmailVerified - Correctly provided through the context value
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the implementation of isAdminEmailVerified in the project context
# Check the context implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'interface IProjectContext {
$$$
isAdminEmailVerified: boolean;
$$$
}'
# Check the provider implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ProjectProvider = ({ children }: { children: ReactNode }) => {
$$$
isAdminEmailVerified: $_
$$$
}'
Length of output: 1445
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the assignment or calculation of isAdminEmailVerified in the project context
rg "isAdminEmailVerified" src/context/project.context.tsx -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 557
lang/en.json (2)
384-397: LGTM! Email verification strings are well structured
The new email verification related strings are well organized and follow consistent formatting. The use of HTML-like tags for dynamic content (e.g. <button>) is appropriate for template strings.
625-625: LGTM! Consistent capitalization
The capitalization update for "Location" is consistent with other labels in the file.
lang/ca.json (2)
386-397: Email verification translations look good!
The new email verification translations are well-structured, maintain consistency with other language versions, and properly handle variables. The translations are clear and user-friendly.
625-625: Location field translation update looks good!
The modification to add "(opcional)" maintains consistency with other language versions while being grammatically correct in Catalan.
Depends also on:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
VerifyEmailBannercomponent to notify users about their email verification status.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores