refactor: normalize image validation payload after parsing#4
refactor: normalize image validation payload after parsing#4sorphwer merged 1 commit intosorphwer:mainfrom
Conversation
|
@TonloOO is attempting to deploy a commit to the sorphwer's projects Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
Summary of ChangesHello @TonloOO, 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! This pull request refactors the handling of image validation payloads by introducing a normalization step immediately after parsing. This change aims to ensure data consistency and robustness in how validation data is processed and used within the application, improving the reliability of image validation. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe 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 by creating a comment using either
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 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. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. 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
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request correctly refactors the image validation payload parsing to include a normalization step, which improves data integrity and robustness. The core logic change is sound. However, the PR also includes numerous formatting changes that consolidate multi-line className strings into single, very long lines, which harms code readability. It's recommended to separate formatting changes from logical refactoring and to adjust the formatter settings to maintain better readability.
| className={`inline-flex items-center gap-1.5 rounded-full border border-primary bg-primary/10 px-3 py-0.5 text-[10px] font-semibold uppercase tracking-[0.3em] transition hover:bg-primary/20 active:bg-primary active:text-primary-foreground ${resolvedTheme === "dark" ? "text-white" : "text-primary" | ||
| }`} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The formatting of this className template literal has been changed to a single long line, which makes it harder to read. This pattern is repeated in several places in this file (e.g., lines 345-371, 682-685, 689-690, 695-696, 702-703, 707-710, 718-719, and 800-803). For better maintainability, it's advisable to keep long strings, especially complex ones with embedded logic, split across multiple lines. If these formatting changes were applied by an automated tool, consider adjusting its configuration to avoid creating such long lines.
className={`inline-flex items-center gap-1.5 rounded-full border border-primary bg-primary/10 px-3 py-0.5 text-[10px] font-semibold uppercase tracking-[0.3em] transition hover:bg-primary/20 active:bg-primary active:text-primary-foreground ${
resolvedTheme === "dark" ? "text-white" : "text-primary"
}`}
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
No description provided.