Update Resource Forms to Enhance Validation #9062
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for care-ohc ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily focus on the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
src/components/Form/FormFields/TextFormField.tsx (1)
Line range hint
32-69: Consider enhancing error handling for validation constraints.The current implementation relies on browser-native validation for min/max constraints. To improve user experience, consider adding custom error messages and validation handling.
Suggestions:
- Integrate with the existing form validation system
- Add specific error messages for min/max violations
- Consider adding a
validationModeprop to control when validation occurs (onChange, onBlur, onSubmit)- Add aria-labels for accessibility when validation fails
Would you like me to provide a code example implementing these suggestions?
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (1)
Line range hint
1-394: Consider architectural improvements for better type safety and validation consistency.While the overall implementation is solid, consider these improvements:
- Define a proper type for the form state instead of using
any:interface ResourceFormState { category: string; sub_category: number; approving_facility: { id: string } | null; assigned_facility: { id: string } | null; emergency: string; title: string; reason: string; refering_facility_contact_name: string; refering_facility_contact_number: string; required_quantity: number | null; }
- Create a consistent validation pattern across all fields using a validation schema library like Yup or Zod.
Would you like me to provide a complete example of how to implement these improvements?
src/components/Resource/ResourceDetailsUpdate.tsx (2)
51-59: LGTM! Consider enhancing error messages for better user experience.The required field validations are properly implemented, particularly for the title and description fields. The error messages are clear but could be more user-friendly.
Consider enhancing the error messages to be more descriptive:
assigned_facility_object: { - errorText: "Please Select Facility Type", + errorText: "Please select a facility to assign this resource to", }, title: { - errorText: "Title is required.", + errorText: "Please provide a title for this resource request", },
274-274: Consider adding maximum value constraints for quantity fields.While the
min={1}constraint prevents negative values as required, consider adding a reasonable maximum value to prevent unrealistic quantities.<TextFormField label="Required Quantity" name="requested_quantity" type="number" min={1} + max={9999} value={state.form.requested_quantity} onChange={handleChange} />Also applies to: 283-283
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/components/Form/FormFields/TextFormField.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceDetailsUpdate.tsx(8 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (1)
Line range hint 385-394: LGTM: Description field validation is properly implemented.
The Description field implementation meets the PR objectives with:
- Required field validation
- Error handling
- Internationalized labels and error messages
src/components/Resource/ResourceDetailsUpdate.tsx (3)
110-118: LGTM! Robust validation logic implementation.
The enhanced validation logic properly handles both facility objects and string fields, with appropriate type-specific checks.
161-161: LGTM! More intuitive validation check.
The inverted validation logic (!validateForm()) improves code readability by focusing on the positive case (valid form) rather than the negative case.
295-300: LGTM! Required fields properly implemented.
The title and description fields are now properly marked as required, fulfilling the PR objectives. The implementation includes both frontend validation (required attribute) and backend validation (through validateForm).
Also applies to: 311-313
…053/prevent-negative-quantity-and-empty-description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
32-45: Add test cases for new validation requirements.The "Create a resource request" test should include additional test cases to verify the new validation requirements:
- Attempt to create a resource with negative quantity (should fail)
- Attempt to create a resource with empty description (should fail)
This ensures the new validation logic is properly tested.
Consider adding these test cases:
it("Should not allow negative quantity in resource request", () => { // ... setup code similar to existing create test ... facilityPage.fillResourceRequestDetails( "Test User", phone_number, "Dummy", "Test title", "-10", // negative quantity "Test description", ); facilityPage.clickSubmitRequestButton(); // Verify error message or validation feedback cy.get('[data-testid="quantity-error"]').should('be.visible') .and('contain', 'Quantity must be positive'); }); it("Should not allow empty description in resource request", () => { // ... setup code similar to existing create test ... facilityPage.fillResourceRequestDetails( "Test User", phone_number, "Dummy", "Test title", "10", "", // empty description ); facilityPage.clickSubmitRequestButton(); // Verify error message or validation feedback cy.get('[data-testid="description-error"]').should('be.visible') .and('contain', 'Description is required'); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM!
The import reordering is acceptable and doesn't impact functionality.
71-74: LGTM! Well-structured facility selection step.
The addition of facility selection using a custom command enhances the test coverage and follows Cypress best practices.
…-empty-description
…-empty-description
|
|
|
Have you updated the value or is it already present there? |
|
@JavidSumra i updated the value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
src/components/Resource/ResourceDetailsUpdate.tsx (4)
52-60: Consider improving error message clarityWhile the addition of required fields for title and description is good, the error message for
assigned_facility_objectcould be more specific.Consider updating the error message to be more descriptive:
assigned_facility_object: { - errorText: "Please Select Facility Type", + errorText: "Please select an assigned facility", },
111-119: Consider enhancing type safetyWhile the validation logic is improved, consider adding TypeScript interfaces for the facility objects to make the code more type-safe and maintainable.
Consider adding:
interface FacilityObject { name: string; id: string; // other relevant properties } // Then update the form interface interface ResourceForm { approving_facility_object: FacilityObject | null; assigned_facility_object: FacilityObject | null; // other form fields }
275-279: Consider additional quantity validation improvementsWhile the min attribute and handleNegativeValue prevent negative values, consider adding these improvements:
- Add max validation to prevent unreasonably large numbers
- Validate that assigned_quantity doesn't exceed requested_quantity
Consider updating both quantity fields:
<TextFormField label="Required Quantity" name="requested_quantity" type="number" min={1} + max={999999} value={state.form.requested_quantity} onChange={handleChange} onInput={handleNegativeValue} /> <TextFormField name="assigned_quantity" type="number" min={1} + max={state.form.requested_quantity} label="Approved Quantity" value={state.form.assigned_quantity} onChange={handleChange} disabled={state.form.status !== "PENDING"} onInput={handleNegativeValue} />Also applies to: 285-291
298-303: Consider enhancing validation UXThe required attribute is correctly added to title and description fields. However, consider these UX improvements:
- Add visual indicators (like asterisks) for required fields
- Show validation messages immediately on field blur rather than only on form submission
Consider implementing a reusable required field label component:
const RequiredFieldLabel: React.FC<{label: string}> = ({label}) => ( <span> {label} <span className="text-red-500">*</span> </span> );Then use it in your form fields:
<TextFormField name="title" type="text" - label="Request Title" + label={<RequiredFieldLabel label="Request Title" />} // ... other props />Also applies to: 314-316
src/Utils/utils.ts (1)
547-560: Consider moving form-specific utilities to a dedicated moduleThis function is specifically for form validation and is tightly coupled with React's form handling. Consider:
- Moving it to a dedicated form utilities module (e.g.,
src/Utils/formUtils.tsorsrc/components/common/forms/utils.ts)- Grouping it with other form-related utilities for better organization
- Adding JSDoc documentation to explain its purpose and usage
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome
[error] 557-557: isNaN is unsafe. It attempts a type coercion. Use Number.isNaN instead.
See the MDN documentation for more details.
Unsafe fix: Use Number.isNaN instead.(lint/suspicious/noGlobalIsNan)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/Utils/utils.ts(1 hunks)src/components/Form/FormFields/TextFormField.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceDetailsUpdate.tsx(7 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- src/components/Form/FormFields/TextFormField.tsx
- src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
src/Utils/utils.ts
[error] 557-557: isNaN is unsafe. It attempts a type coercion. Use Number.isNaN instead.
See the MDN documentation for more details.
Unsafe fix: Use Number.isNaN instead.
(lint/suspicious/noGlobalIsNan)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/Resource/ResourceDetailsUpdate.tsx (2)
28-28: LGTM: Good separation of concerns
The addition of the handleNegativeValue utility import aligns with the PR objective of preventing negative values and follows good practices by keeping validation logic in a separate utility file.
Line range hint 1-341: Verify the validation behavior in edge cases
The implementation successfully addresses the PR objectives. However, let's verify the validation behavior in these edge cases:
- Form submission with zero quantities
- Copy-paste of negative values
- Browser form validation bypass
✅ Verification successful
Input validation is properly implemented to prevent negative values
The implementation successfully addresses the validation requirements:
-
The
handleNegativeValueutility function inUtils/utils.tseffectively prevents negative values by:- Removing all instances of '-' from the input value
- Ensuring the input is a valid number
- Resetting to empty if invalid
-
The form fields have proper validation:
- Both quantity fields use
min={1}for HTML5 validation - Both fields implement
handleNegativeValuefor copy-paste prevention - Required fields validation is implemented in
validateForm()
- Both quantity fields use
The implementation provides multiple layers of validation and is consistent with other resource-related components in the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other quantity validation implementations in the codebase
rg -l "handleNegativeValue|min={[1-9]" --type typescript
# Search for similar form validation patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'validateForm() {
$$$
return $_;
}'
Length of output: 257
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other quantity validation implementations in the codebase
rg -l "handleNegativeValue" --type typescript
rg -l 'min=\{1\}' --type typescript
# Search for similar form validation patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'validateForm = () => {
$$$
}'
# Search for quantity validation in utils
rg -A 5 "handleNegativeValue" --type typescript
Length of output: 290
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other quantity validation implementations in the codebase
rg -l "handleNegativeValue"
rg -l 'min=\{1\}'
# Search for similar form validation patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'const handleNegativeValue = ($$$) => {
$$$
}'
# Search for quantity validation in utils
rg -A 5 "handleNegativeValue"
Length of output: 2874
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check implementation of handleNegativeValue in utils
cat src/Utils/utils.ts
# Check form validation in ResourceCreate for consistency
rg -A 10 "validateForm" src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx
Length of output: 16354
…-negative-quantity-and-empty-description' into issues/9053/prevent-negative-quantity-and-empty-description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/Utils/utils.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
src/Utils/utils.ts
[error] 553-553: isNaN is unsafe. It attempts a type coercion. Use Number.isNaN instead.
See the MDN documentation for more details.
Unsafe fix: Use Number.isNaN instead.
(lint/suspicious/noGlobalIsNan)
…-empty-description
…-empty-description
…tion' of https://github.com/JavidSumra/care_fe into issues/9053/prevent-negative-quantity-and-empty-description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
public/locale/en.json (1)
358-358: Standardize quantity validation messages.The error messages for quantity validation should follow a consistent pattern:
assigned_quantity_error: "Value can't be smaller than 0"requested_quantity_error: "Value can't be smaller than 1"Apply this diff to standardize the messages:
- "assigned_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 0", + "assigned_quantity_error": "Value must be 0 or greater", - "requested_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 1", + "requested_quantity_error": "Value must be 1 or greater",Also applies to: 1195-1195
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
public/locale/en.json(9 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
public/locale/en.json (3)
1342-1343: LGTM: Title validation messages are clear and consistent.
The error messages for title validation are well-defined:
- Mandatory field validation: "Title for the resource request is mandatory"
- User prompt: "Please enter a title for the resource request"
671-672: LGTM: Description validation messages are clear and consistent.
The error messages for description validation are well-defined:
- Mandatory field validation: "Description is required field"
- Empty resource error: "Resource approving facility cannot be empty"
1170-1172: LGTM: Contact information validation messages are clear and consistent.
The error messages for contact information validation are well-defined:
- Name validation: "Name of the contact at the referring facility is required"
- Number validation: "Phone number of the contact at the referring facility is required"
- Number format validation: "Please enter a valid phone number"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (1)
407-410: Consider removing the min attribute from quantity inputs.While the min attribute provides client-side validation, it's better to rely on the validateForm function for consistent validation across all browsers. The HTML min attribute can be inconsistent across browsers and might conflict with the form validation.
- min={1}Also applies to: 494-496
public/locale/en.json (1)
1196-1196: Standardize quantity validation messages.The error messages for quantity validation should follow a consistent format:
- "assigned_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 0", + "assigned_quantity_error": "Value must be 0 or greater", - "requested_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 1", + "requested_quantity_error": "Value must be 1 or greater",Also applies to: 359-359
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
public/locale/en.json(9 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx(5 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9062
File: src/Routers/routes/ResourceRoutes.tsx:19-21
Timestamp: 2024-12-10T02:49:05.600Z
Learning: In the `ResourceCreate` component, `facilityId` can be optional.
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx
[error] 246-246: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 247-247: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (3)
211-220: LGTM: Validation logic for quantity fields is well-implemented.
The validation correctly enforces:
- Minimum threshold of 1 for requested quantity
- Minimum threshold of 0 for assigned quantity
- Proper type conversion using parseFloat
255-256:
Remove fallback values in submission handler.
The submission handler shouldn't provide fallback values for quantities as it bypasses the validation rules. Let the validation handle empty values instead.
- requested_quantity: parseFloat(form.requested_quantity || "1"),
- assigned_quantity: parseFloat(form.assigned_quantity || "0"),
+ requested_quantity: parseFloat(form.requested_quantity),
+ assigned_quantity: parseFloat(form.assigned_quantity),Likely invalid or redundant comment.
74-75: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Initialize quantity fields as undefined for better type safety.
Using empty strings for numeric fields could lead to validation issues. Consider using undefined for better type safety and validation.
- requested_quantity: "",
- assigned_quantity: "",
+ requested_quantity: undefined,
+ assigned_quantity: undefined,Likely invalid or redundant comment.
…-empty-description
…-empty-description
|
👋 Hi, @JavidSumra, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
…tion' of https://github.com/JavidSumra/care_fe into issues/9053/prevent-negative-quantity-and-empty-description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (2)
217-226: Enhance quantity validation logicThe current validation could be improved by:
- Handling NaN values from parseFloat
- Adding maximum value validation to prevent unreasonable quantities
case "requested_quantity": case "assigned_quantity": { if (!resourceId && field === "assigned_quantity") break; const value = form[field as keyof ResourceData]; const minVal = field === "assigned_quantity" ? 0 : 1; - if (!value || parseFloat(String(value)) < minVal) { + const numValue = parseFloat(String(value)); + if (!value || isNaN(numValue) || numValue < minVal || numValue > 1000000) { errors[field as keyof ResourceData] = errorText; } break; }
413-416: Consider removing the min attribute from quantity inputsWhile the
minattribute prevents negative values in modern browsers, it's better to handle validation invalidateFormfor a consistent user experience across all browsers.<TextFormField label={t("required_quantity")} type="number" - min={1} />Also applies to: 491-494
public/locale/en.json (1)
364-364: Standardize quantity validation messagesThe error messages for quantity validation should be consistent:
assigned_quantity_error: "Value can't be smaller than 0"requested_quantity_error: "Value can't be smaller than 1"- "assigned_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 0", + "assigned_quantity_error": "Value must be 0 or greater", - "requested_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 1", + "requested_quantity_error": "Value must be 1 or greater",Also applies to: 1276-1276
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
cypress/pageobject/Facility/FacilityCreation.ts(1 hunks)public/locale/en.json(11 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx(5 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- cypress/pageobject/Facility/FacilityCreation.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9062
File: src/Routers/routes/ResourceRoutes.tsx:19-21
Timestamp: 2024-12-10T02:49:05.600Z
Learning: In the `ResourceCreate` component, `facilityId` can be optional.
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx
[error] 252-252: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 253-253: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (2)
74-75: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Initialize quantity fields as undefined instead of empty strings
Empty strings could bypass the validation logic. Using undefined would make the validation more robust.
- requested_quantity: "",
- assigned_quantity: "",
+ requested_quantity: undefined,
+ assigned_quantity: undefined,Likely invalid or redundant comment.
261-262:
Remove fallback values in submission handler
The submission handler shouldn't provide fallback values for quantities. Instead, rely on proper validation and initialization.
- requested_quantity: parseFloat(form.requested_quantity || "1"),
- assigned_quantity: parseFloat(form.assigned_quantity || "0"),
+ requested_quantity: parseFloat(form.requested_quantity),
+ assigned_quantity: parseFloat(form.assigned_quantity),Likely invalid or redundant comment.
…-empty-description
…-empty-description
|
@nihal467 need your review |
…-empty-description
|
👋 Hi, @JavidSumra, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (2)
217-226: Enhance quantity validationWhile the minimum value validation is implemented, consider adding:
- Maximum value validation to prevent unreasonably large quantities
- Type validation to ensure numeric input
case "requested_quantity": case "assigned_quantity": { if (!resourceId && field === "assigned_quantity") break; const value = form[field as keyof ResourceData]; const minVal = field === "assigned_quantity" ? 0 : 1; - if (!value || parseFloat(String(value)) < minVal) { + const numValue = parseFloat(String(value)); + if (!value || isNaN(numValue) || numValue < minVal || numValue > 999999) { errors[field as keyof ResourceData] = errorText; } break; }
413-416: Consider removing HTML5 validation attributesWhile HTML5 validation provides a quick solution, it's better to handle all validation through the form validator to ensure consistent behavior and proper error messages.
- min={1}Also applies to: 492-493
public/locale/en.json (1)
356-356: Standardize quantity validation messagesThe error messages for quantity validation should follow a consistent pattern:
- "assigned_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 0", + "assigned_quantity_error": "Value must be 0 or greater", - "requested_quantity_error": "Value can't be smaller than 1", + "requested_quantity_error": "Value must be 1 or greater",Also applies to: 1268-1268
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Facility/FacilityCreation.ts(1 hunks)public/locale/en.json(9 hunks)src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx(5 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts
- cypress/pageobject/Facility/FacilityCreation.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9062
File: src/Routers/routes/ResourceRoutes.tsx:19-21
Timestamp: 2024-12-10T02:49:05.600Z
Learning: In the `ResourceCreate` component, `facilityId` can be optional.
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx
[error] 252-252: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
[error] 253-253: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/Resource/ResourceCreate.tsx (2)
74-75: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Initialize quantity fields as undefined instead of empty strings
Empty string initialization could bypass validation logic and cause type coercion issues. Using undefined would make the validation more robust and type-safe.
- requested_quantity: "",
- assigned_quantity: "",
+ requested_quantity: undefined,
+ assigned_quantity: undefined,Likely invalid or redundant comment.
261-262:
Remove fallback values in submission handler
Using fallback values in the submission handler could bypass validation and lead to unexpected behavior. Instead, rely on proper validation and initialization.
- requested_quantity: parseFloat(form.requested_quantity || "1"),
- assigned_quantity: parseFloat(form.assigned_quantity || "0"),
+ requested_quantity: parseFloat(form.requested_quantity),
+ assigned_quantity: parseFloat(form.assigned_quantity),Likely invalid or redundant comment.
|
Resources was cleaned up in #9439. Hold this for now (you are free to refer to it and make your changes based on those before encountering any merge conflicts). |
github-actions
bot
added
merge conflict
|
👋 Hi, @JavidSumra, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
Proposed Changes
@ohcnetwork/care-fe-code-reviewers
Merge Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests
Chores