Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @wlgns12370, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
I've refactored the profile input process to better handle gender values, specifically by modifying how they are validated and processed. This change simplifies the "SignUpProfileRequest" DTO by removing redundant validation logic and centralizes the gender validation within the "Gender" enum itself. This makes the code cleaner and more maintainable.
Highlights
- Gender Validation Refactor: The logic for validating gender input has been moved from "SignUpProfileRequest" to the "Gender" enum itself, utilizing "Gender.fromName()".
- Simplified Profile Request DTO: The "SignUpProfileRequest" DTO no longer contains a "validatedGender()" method, reducing its responsibility and simplifying its structure.
- Centralized Gender Handling: "ProfileService" now directly uses "Gender.fromName()" when updating user information, aligning with the centralized validation approach.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request refactors the profile creation process to accept gender values in Korean (e.g., '남자', '여자') instead of English ('MALE', 'FEMALE'). While the intent is clear, the implementation introduces a regression in error handling for invalid gender inputs. My review focuses on restoring the previous, more robust error handling, which returned a 400 Bad Request for invalid values, instead of the new behavior which would likely cause a 500 Internal Server Error. The suggestions aim to centralize the validation logic in the DTO for consistency and maintainability.
| user.updateUserInfo(Gender.fromName(request.gender()), request.userName(), | ||
| request.phoneNumber(), request.birth()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To maintain consistency and proper error handling as suggested for SignUpProfileRequest, this should also use the proposed validatedGender() method. This ensures that invalid gender values are handled gracefully with a proper CustomRuntimeException before this method is called, and avoids duplicating the conversion logic.
| user.updateUserInfo(Gender.fromName(request.gender()), request.userName(), | |
| request.phoneNumber(), request.birth()); | |
| user.updateUserInfo(request.validatedGender(), request.userName(), | |
| request.phoneNumber(), request.birth); |
✨ 구현한 기능