refactor : typescript integration in src/simulator/src/app.ts #431
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on TypeScript integration for the simulator source files. The changes involve converting the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Tip 🌐 Web search-backed reviews and chat
✨ Finishing Touches
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 (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for circuitverse ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
src/simulator/src/hotkey_binder/view/panel.ui.ts (3)
7-38: Check for missing conversion/parsing of stored keys
IfuserKeysordefaultKeysare stored as JSON strings via localStorage, consider parsing them (e.g.,JSON.parse(...)) before usage. This will prevent runtime type errors and better align with standard usage oflocalStorage.
44-57: Ensure robust approach to clearing duplicate keys
Currently, theoverridefunction just sets the duplicate key’s value to an empty string. There may be cases where the user wants to retain a previously mapped key or be notified of conflicts. Adding a user prompt or highlight of the conflict could improve the UX.
73-79: Potential confirmation or toast for successful submission
After callingsetUserKeys()and then updating the UI, consider offering some feedback to the user (e.g., a confirmation message) to indicate that their hotkey changes have been saved.src/simulator/src/app.ts (3)
6-6: Consider using an enum instead of a union type forDeviceType
While the union type works fine here, an enum might be beneficial if you anticipate more types or advanced usage in the future.
33-37: Potentially define a more specific interface or type for subcircuits
Currently,subcircuitsis aRecord<string, unknown>. Consider creating a dedicated interface if subcircuits in your codebase follow a known structure or have specialized fields, improving type safety.
Line range hint
39-243: Consider externalizing circuit configuration data
While it’s valid to keep the circuit configuration inline, consider moving large configuration objects likejsinto a separate JSON or a config file. This can reduce clutter in your main source file, improve readability, and allow easier updates or dynamic loading.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/simulator/src/app.ts(2 hunks)src/simulator/src/hotkey_binder/view/panel.ui.js(0 hunks)src/simulator/src/hotkey_binder/view/panel.ui.ts(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/simulator/src/hotkey_binder/view/panel.ui.js
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/simulator/src/hotkey_binder/view/panel.ui.ts (2)
1-2: Confirm usage oflocalStorage.get()vs. the standardlocalStorage.getItem()
It appears you are callinglocalStorage.get('userKeys')andlocalStorage.get('defaultKeys')instead of the standard browser API methodlocalStorage.getItem(). Kindly verify if this comes from a custom storage utility or if it should be switched tolocalStorage.getItem()to ensure compatibility.
62-69: Good use of DOM manipulation for closing the edit interface
Hiding elements and clearing text content is straightforward and maintainable. Keep it up.src/simulator/src/app.ts (1)
8-20: Interfaces align well with the circuit concept
TheDeviceinterface is cleanly designed.bitsis mandatory whilenet,order, and others are properly marked optional, which is good for maintainability.
|
The failure here is due to code climate, 17 lines of code in updateHTML cannot be written in 5 lines @niladrix719 @JoshVarga |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/simulator/src/types/app.types.ts (1)
3-15: Consider refactoring the Device interface for better maintainability.The interface could be improved by:
- Extracting memory-specific properties into a separate interface
- Creating dedicated types for port configurations
Consider this refactor:
interface PortConfig { clock_polarity?: boolean; } interface MemoryDevice { abits: number; words: number; offset?: number; memdata?: (number | string)[]; } interface Device { type: DeviceType; net?: string; order?: number; bits: number; label?: string; rdports?: PortConfig[]; wrports?: PortConfig[]; } interface Device extends Partial<MemoryDevice> {}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/simulator/src/app.ts(2 hunks)src/simulator/src/types/app.types.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/simulator/src/app.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/simulator/src/types/app.types.ts (2)
17-20: LGTM!The Endpoint interface is well-defined with appropriate required properties.
22-26: LGTM!The Connector interface is well-structured using the Endpoint interface for connection points.
| export interface CircuitConfiguration { | ||
| devices: {[key: string]: Device}; | ||
| connectors: Connector[]; | ||
| subcircuits: Record<string, unknown>; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve type safety of the CircuitConfiguration interface.
Two potential improvements:
- Consider using a more specific key type for devices if possible
- The
subcircuitstype is too permissive withunknown
Consider this refactor:
// If you have a specific set of device IDs
type DeviceId = string; // Or a more specific union type if applicable
// If subcircuits have a specific structure
interface Subcircuit {
// Add appropriate properties
}
export interface CircuitConfiguration {
devices: Record<DeviceId, Device>;
connectors: Connector[];
subcircuits: Record<string, Subcircuit>;
}| @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ | |||
| type DeviceType = 'Input' | 'Output' | 'Memory'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Verify if the DeviceType union type covers all possible device types.
Please confirm that these are all the possible device types in the circuit simulator. Common device types that might be missing: 'Gate', 'FlipFlop', 'Counter', etc.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for device type strings in the codebase
rg -g '*.{ts,js}' -i "type['\"]?\s*[:=]\s*['\"](?:Input|Output|Memory|Gate|FlipFlop|Counter)" src/simulator/Length of output: 1144
DeviceType union missing at least one reported device type.
- The union type in
src/simulator/src/types/app.types.tsis defined as'Input' | 'Output' | 'Memory'. - Our search identified that
Counteris being used (insrc/simulator/src/modules/Counter.js) as an object type, yet it isn’t included in the union. - Verify if other device types (e.g.,
'Gate','FlipFlop') should also be added.
Fixes #414
@niladrix719 @JoshVarga @Arnabdaz @devartstar
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Refactor
Chores