fix: interface UnCancel(#57) #58
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve modifications to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant TestSuite
participant UnCancelToken
participant UnCanceledError
TestSuite->>UnCancelToken: Request cancellation
UnCancelToken->>UnCanceledError: Create instance with isUnCanceledError
UnCanceledError-->>UnCancelToken: Return instance
UnCancelToken-->>TestSuite: Return reason
TestSuite->>TestSuite: Verify isUnCanceledError is true
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 uni-network 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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
packages/core/src/core/UnCanceledError.ts (1)
5-5: LGTM! Consider consolidating property definitionsThe type annotation
: trueimproves type safety by making it a literal type. However, you have two definitions ofisUnCanceledError:
- As an instance property with initialization
- As a prototype property
While this works, you could consolidate these into just the prototype definition since it's a constant value.
- isUnCanceledError: true = true;packages/core/src/core/UnCancelToken.test.ts (1)
34-34: Consider adding more test cases for type safetyWhile the added assertion is good, consider adding tests for:
- Type compatibility between
UnCancelinterface andUnCanceledErrorclass- Edge cases where
reasonmight be aPromiseLike<UnCancel>This would ensure the type definition changes are thoroughly tested.
Example test case:
it('ensures type compatibility between UnCancel and UnCanceledError', () => { const error: UnCancel = new UnCanceledError(); expect(error.isUnCanceledError).toBe(true); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
packages/core/src/core/UnCancelToken.test.ts(1 hunks)packages/core/src/core/UnCancelToken.ts(1 hunks)packages/core/src/core/UnCanceledError.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
packages/core/src/core/UnCancelToken.ts (1)
6-6: LGTM! Type definition now correctly reflects implementation
The addition of isUnCanceledError: true to the UnCancel interface properly aligns with the UnCanceledError implementation, fixing the type constraint issue mentioned in the PR objectives.
Description 描述
UnCancel的类型定义仅有message属性，但isUnCancel中使用isUnCanceledError判断，导致类型无法正确约束。
Linked Issues 关联的 Issues
#57
Additional context 额外上下文
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
isUnCanceledErrorin theUnCancelinterface to indicate an uncanceled error.Bug Fixes
UnCancelTokenclass by adding an assertion to validate thereasonproperty.Documentation
isUnCanceledErrorproperty in theUnCanceledErrorclass.