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 (
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @jbh010204, 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 implemented changes to enhance the login ID validation process and improve global exception handling for validation errors. The primary goal is to ensure that login IDs adhere to a specific pattern during duplication checks and that any validation failures are caught and reported with more precise error messages. This makes the API more robust and user-friendly by providing clearer feedback on invalid inputs.
Highlights
- Enhanced Login ID Validation: The custom
@LoginIdPatternannotation is now directly applied to theloginIdparameter in theisLoginIdAvailableendpoint, ensuring consistent pattern validation during login ID duplication checks. - Refined Custom Annotation Behavior: The
@LoginIdPatternannotation was updated to remove the redundant@NotBlankconstraint and include@ReportAsSingleViolation, streamlining how validation messages are reported for this specific pattern. - Improved Global Exception Handling: New exception handlers for
HandlerMethodValidationExceptionandConstraintViolationExceptionhave been added toGlobalExceptionHandler, providing more specific and informative error responses for various validation failures across the application.
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 adds validation to the login ID format when checking for its availability. This is achieved by creating a custom @LoginIdPattern annotation and applying it to the controller endpoint. The changes also include adding and refining exception handlers for validation errors.
My review focuses on improving the new exception handlers. I've pointed out an incorrect error code and a potential information leak in one handler, and a typo in another. Applying these suggestions will make the error responses more consistent and secure.
| @ExceptionHandler(HandlerMethodValidationException.class) | ||
| public ResponseEntity<?> handleHandlerMethodValidation(HandlerMethodValidationException ex) { | ||
| notifyIfNeeded(ex); | ||
| ErrorResponse response = ErrorResponse.builder() | ||
| .status(HttpStatus.BAD_REQUEST.value()) | ||
| .code("TYPE_MISMATCH") | ||
| .message(ex.getMessage().toLowerCase(Locale.ROOT)) | ||
| .build(); | ||
| return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.BAD_REQUEST).body(response); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The exception handler for HandlerMethodValidationException has a couple of issues:
- The error code is set to
"TYPE_MISMATCH", which is incorrect for a validation error. It should be"VALIDATION_ERROR"to be consistent with other validation-related handlers. - Using
ex.getMessage()for the error message can expose internal implementation details to the client, which is not ideal. It's better to extract just the validation message, similar to how it's done inhandleConstraintViolation.
Here's a suggested improvement to extract a clean message and use the correct error code. You might need to add an import for org.springframework.context.MessageSourceResolvable if it's not already present.
@ExceptionHandler(HandlerMethodValidationException.class)
public ResponseEntity<?> handleHandlerMethodValidation(HandlerMethodValidationException ex) {
notifyIfNeeded(ex);
String message = ex.getAllValidationResults().stream()
.flatMap(result -> result.getResolvableErrors().stream())
.map(org.springframework.context.MessageSourceResolvable::getDefaultMessage)
.findFirst()
.orElse("유효성 검사에 실패했습니다.");
ErrorResponse response = ErrorResponse.builder()
.status(HttpStatus.BAD_REQUEST.value())
.code("VALIDATION_ERROR")
.message(message)
.build();
return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.BAD_REQUEST).body(response);
}| .orElse("유효성 검사에 실패했습니다."); | ||
| ErrorResponse response = ErrorResponse.builder() | ||
| .status(HttpStatus.BAD_REQUEST.value()) | ||
| .code("VAILDATION_ERROR") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a typo in the error code. It should be "VALIDATION_ERROR" instead of "VAILDATION_ERROR".
.code("VALIDATION_ERROR")1 participant
✨ 구현한 기능
📢 논의하고 싶은 내용
🎸 기타