-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: add memo field to tx detail #145
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce enhancements to the transaction handling in the application. Specifically, an optional Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #145 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 56.38% 57.04% +0.66%
==========================================
Files 152 145 -7
Lines 16213 14426 -1787
==========================================
- Hits 9141 8230 -911
+ Misses 7072 6196 -876 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
hooks/useQueries.ts (1)
959-959
: Add test coverage for memo transformation.The memo transformation logic lacks test coverage. Please add tests to verify:
- Memo extraction from transaction body
- Memo inclusion in transformed transactions
- Handling of transactions without memos
Would you like me to help generate test cases for the memo transformation logic?
Also applies to: 972-972
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
components/bank/components/historyBox.tsx
(1 hunks)components/bank/modals/txInfo.tsx
(1 hunks)hooks/useQueries.ts
(3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
hooks/useQueries.ts
[warning] 942-943: hooks/useQueries.ts#L942-L943
Added lines #L942 - L943 were not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (3)
components/bank/modals/txInfo.tsx (1)
93-95
: LGTM! Memo field implementation looks good.
The implementation follows the existing pattern and properly handles cases where memo is undefined.
components/bank/components/historyBox.tsx (1)
22-22
: LGTM! TransactionGroup interface updated correctly.
The optional memo field is properly typed and aligns with the PR objectives.
hooks/useQueries.ts (1)
942-943
: LGTM! Clean memo extraction implementation.
The memo extraction is implemented correctly using optional chaining and object spread syntax.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 942-943: hooks/useQueries.ts#L942-L943
Added lines #L942 - L943 were not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We did it the same way I believe Lgtm!
Fixes #140
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes