Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

added boundary fix #1339

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

added boundary fix #1339

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nitish-egov
Copy link
Collaborator

@nitish-egov nitish-egov commented Jan 13, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Updated boundary data processing to use localized headers, potentially improving data accuracy during bulk upload operations.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 13, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the boundaryBulkUpload function in the campaignUtils.ts file. The key change involves replacing the hierarchy parameter with localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet when calling the updateBoundaryData function. This suggests a shift in how boundary data is processed, specifically using localized headers instead of the previous hierarchy-based approach for updating boundary information.

Changes

File Change Summary
health-services/project-factory/src/server/utils/campaignUtils.ts Modified boundaryBulkUpload function to use localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet instead of hierarchy when calling updateBoundaryData

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • jagankumar-egov

Poem

🐰 Boundaries shift like rabbit's leap,
Headers localized, secrets to keep
Data dancing to a new refrain
In CodeRabbit's algorithmic domain
A subtle change, yet profound and neat! 🌈

Finishing Touches

  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9dbb1d7 and 09504fa.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • health-services/project-factory/src/server/utils/campaignUtils.ts (1 hunks)

@@ -3170,7 +3170,7 @@ const autoGenerateBoundaryCodes = async (
latLongData = result.latLongData;
boundaryData = result.updatedData;
}
const updatedBoundaryData = updateBoundaryData(boundaryData, hierarchy);
const updatedBoundaryData = updateBoundaryData(boundaryData, localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codebase verification

The change introduces a bug in boundary data processing

Using localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet instead of hierarchy in updateBoundaryData will break the key filtering logic. The function expects the hierarchy parameter to match the actual keys in boundaryData, but localized headers won't match these keys, resulting in no data being processed.

  • Line 3173: Revert to using the original hierarchy array in updateBoundaryData(boundaryData, hierarchy)
🔗 Analysis chain

LGTM! The change improves localization support.

The replacement of hierarchy with localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet in the updateBoundaryData function call correctly integrates with the localization system, ensuring boundary data is processed using localized headers.

Run the following script to verify the localization integration:

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the localization system is properly integrated with boundary data processing.
# Test: Search for localization-related function calls and their usage with boundary data.

# Check for localization function usage
rg -A 5 "getLocalizedHeaders.*boundarySheet|updateBoundaryData.*localizedHeaders"

# Check for boundary data processing with localization
ast-grep --pattern 'updateBoundaryData($_, $localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet)'

Length of output: 779


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find the declaration and initialization of localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet
rg -B 5 "localizedHeadersOfBoundarySheet\s*=" 

# Find the implementation of updateBoundaryData function
ast-grep --pattern 'function updateBoundaryData($params) {
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 778


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Find the complete implementation of updateBoundaryData
rg -B 2 -A 10 "function updateBoundaryData"

Length of output: 2719

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant