OpenWF/SpaceNinjaServer
12
6
Fork 14
Code Issues 42 Pull Requests 2 Actions Packages Projects Releases Activity

feat: dojo research #689

Merged
Sainan merged 6 commits from guild-tech into main 2025-01-03 00:06:50 -08:00
Conversation 4 Commits 6 Files Changed 7 +6
1 changed files with 6 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit 3a84781945 - Show all commits

6
src/controllers/api/guildTechController.ts
View File

@ -34,11 +34,17 @@ export const guildTechController: RequestHandler = async (req, res) => {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
} else if (data.Action == "Contribute") { } else if (data.Action == "Contribute") {
const contributions = data as IGuildTechContributeFields; const contributions = data as IGuildTechContributeFields;
const techProject = guild.TechProjects!.find(x => x.ItemType == contributions.RecipeType)!; const techProject = guild.TechProjects!.find(x => x.ItemType == contributions.RecipeType)!;
if (contributions.RegularCredits > techProject.ReqCredits) {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
contributions.RegularCredits = techProject.ReqCredits;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
const miscItemChanges = []; const miscItemChanges = [];
for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
const reqItem = techProject.ReqItems.find(x => x.ItemType == miscItem.ItemType); const reqItem = techProject.ReqItems.find(x => x.ItemType == miscItem.ItemType);
if (reqItem) { if (reqItem) {
if (miscItem.ItemCount > reqItem.ItemCount) {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
miscItem.ItemCount = reqItem.ItemCount;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
reqItem.ItemCount -= miscItem.ItemCount; reqItem.ItemCount -= miscItem.ItemCount;
miscItemChanges.push({ miscItemChanges.push({
ItemType: miscItem.ItemType, ItemType: miscItem.ItemType,

coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

⚠️ Potential issue

"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.
The code deducts the indicated contribution from techProject.ReqCredits and reqItem.ItemCount without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp ReqCredits or ItemCount to a minimum of zero.

- techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits;
+ techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max(
+   0,
+   techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits
+ );
 
 for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) {
   ...
   reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max(
     0,
     reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount
   );
   ...
 }

Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.

_:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ _:warning: Potential issue_ **"Contribute" action needs item and credit boundary checks.** The code deducts the indicated contribution from `techProject.ReqCredits` and `reqItem.ItemCount` without validating whether the user truly has enough resources. Consider adding inventory checks to ensure negative resource values are not introduced. Additionally, watch out for potential overshoot: the code does not clamp `ReqCredits` or `ItemCount` to a minimum of zero. ```diff - techProject.ReqCredits -= contributions.RegularCredits; + techProject.ReqCredits = Math.max( + 0, + techProject.ReqCredits - contributions.RegularCredits + ); for (const miscItem of contributions.MiscItems) { ... reqItem.ItemCount = Math.max( 0, reqItem.ItemCount - miscItem.ItemCount ); ... } ``` > Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff. <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2025-01-02 17:37:00 -08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review
Copy Link

💡 Codebase verification

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing

Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation:

  1. Directly accesses ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!] without validating if the recipe exists
  2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same RecipeType
  3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors

The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues:

  • Validates recipe existence
  • Prevents duplicate projects
🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.
Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same RecipeType isn't already present or that the RecipeType actually exists in ExportDojoRecipes.research. You might want to:

  1. Verify the recipe is valid.
  2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled.
 if (!recipe) {
   return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" });
 }
+if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) {
+  return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" });
+}

Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase.

Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation.

Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure.

Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Error: No shell scripts found

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController
ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") {
  $$$
}'

# Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure
rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes"

Length of output: 4617

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation
ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = {
  $$$
}'

# Check if there's any validation for RecipeType
rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2

Length of output: 93

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern
rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5

# Check how RecipeType is used in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_];
  $$$'

Length of output: 1234

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2

# Look for any other validation related to TechProjects
rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2

Length of output: 390

_:bulb: Codebase verification_ _:hammer_and_wrench: Refactor suggestion_ **Recipe validation and duplicate project checks are missing** Based on the code analysis, the review comment is correct. The current implementation: 1. Directly accesses `ExportDojoRecipes.research[data.RecipeType!]` without validating if the recipe exists 2. Has no checks to prevent duplicate projects with the same `RecipeType` 3. Uses the recipe object without null checks, which could cause runtime errors The suggested fix in the review comment is appropriate as it addresses both issues: - Validates recipe existence - Prevents duplicate projects <details> <summary>🔗 Analysis chain</summary> **Check for duplicate or invalid project requests in "Start" action.** Currently, there is no validation to ensure a project of the same `RecipeType` isn't already present or that the `RecipeType` actually exists in `ExportDojoRecipes.research`. You might want to: 1. Verify the recipe is valid. 2. Ensure duplicates are either prevented or handled. ```diff if (!recipe) { return res.status(400).json({ error: "Unknown recipe type" }); } +if (guild.TechProjects?.some(p => p.ItemType === data.RecipeType)) { + return res.status(400).json({ error: "This project already exists" }); +} ``` --- Let me verify the concerns by checking the codebase. --- Let me check the ExportDojoRecipes structure and any existing validation. --- Let me try a different approach to check the validation and recipe structure. --- Let me check one more thing to verify the duplicate project handling. </details> <details> <summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Error: No shell scripts found --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Search for recipe validation and duplicate checks in guildTechController ast-grep --pattern 'if (data.Action == "Start") { $$$ }' # Also check the ExportDojoRecipes structure rg -l "ExportDojoRecipes" ``` Length of output: 4617 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check ExportDojoRecipes structure and validation ast-grep --pattern 'const ExportDojoRecipes = { $$$ }' # Check if there's any validation for RecipeType rg "RecipeType.*validation" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 93 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Look for the ExportDojoRecipes definition with a more flexible pattern rg "ExportDojoRecipes.*=" -A 5 # Check how RecipeType is used in the controller ast-grep --pattern 'const recipe = ExportDojoRecipes.research[$_]; $$$' ``` Length of output: 1234 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Check if there's any existing duplicate check for TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*some" -A 2 # Look for any other validation related to TechProjects rg "TechProjects.*find" -A 2 ``` Length of output: 390 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->