feat: ability to create a project #9
829
Cargo.lock
generated
@ -9,7 +9,14 @@ edition = "2021"
|
|||||||
[dependencies]
|
[dependencies]
|
||||||
diesel = { version = "2.2.2", features = ["postgres"] }
|
diesel = { version = "2.2.2", features = ["postgres"] }
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
dioxus = { version = "0.5", features = ["web", "router"] }
|
dioxus = { version = "0.5", features = ["fullstack", "router"] }
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
# Debug
|
# Debug
|
||||||
dioxus-logger = "0.5.1"
|
dioxus-logger = "0.5.1"
|
||||||
|
dotenvy = "0.15.7"
|
||||||
|
serde = "1.0.208"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[features]
|
||||||
|
default = []
|
||||||
|
server = ["dioxus/axum"]
|
||||||
|
web = ["dioxus/web"]
|
||||||
|
@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ name = "todo-baggins"
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
# Dioxus App Default Platform
|
# Dioxus App Default Platform
|
||||||
# web, desktop, fullstack
|
# web, desktop, fullstack
|
||||||
default_platform = "web"
|
default_platform = "fullstack"
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
# `build` & `serve` dist path
|
# `build` & `serve` dist path
|
||||||
out_dir = "dist"
|
out_dir = "dist"
|
||||||
![]()
Output directory path "dist" is not utilized in build scripts. The
Analysis chainVerify output directory path. Ensure that the Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script:
Length of output: 102 Script:
Length of output: 87 > [!TIP]
> Codebase Verification
**Output directory path "dist" is not utilized in build scripts.**
The `out_dir` setting in `Dioxus.toml` is not referenced in any build scripts or configuration files. This suggests that the "dist" directory might not be correctly set up in the build and deployment processes. Please ensure that the output directory is properly integrated into the build system.
- Location: `Dioxus.toml`
<details>
<summary>Analysis chain</summary>
**Verify output directory path.**
Ensure that the `out_dir` path "dist" is correctly set up in the build and deployment processes.
</details>
<details>
<summary>Scripts executed</summary>
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
```shell
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and usage of the output directory path.
# Test: Search for the usage of the output directory in build scripts. Expect: Correct setup.
rg --type toml --type sh 'dist'
```
Length of output: 102
---
Script:
```shell
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for references to `out_dir` in the repository to verify its usage.
# Test: Look for usage of `out_dir` in build scripts and configuration files.
rg 'out_dir' --type toml --type sh --type json --type yaml
```
Length of output: 87
</details>
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ stdout_logfile_maxbytes=0
|
|||||||
redirect_stderr=true
|
redirect_stderr=true
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
[program:dx]
|
[program:dx]
|
||||||
command=dx serve --port 8000
|
command=dx serve
|
||||||
directory=/srv/app
|
directory=/srv/app
|
||||||
autostart=true
|
autostart=true
|
||||||
autorestart=true
|
autorestart=true
|
||||||
|
11
src/components/app.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
|
|||||||
|
use crate::route::Route;
|
||||||
|
use dioxus::core_macro::rsx;
|
||||||
|
use dioxus::dioxus_core::Element;
|
||||||
|
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
||||||
![]() Consider import optimization. Ensure that all imported modules are necessary for the current implementation. If any are unused, consider removing them to keep the code clean. **Consider import optimization.**
Ensure that all imported modules are necessary for the current implementation. If any are unused, consider removing them to keep the code clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#[component]
|
||||||
|
pub(crate) fn App() -> Element {
|
||||||
|
rsx! {
|
||||||
|
Router::<Route> {}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
}
|
23
src/components/form_project.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
|||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::core_macro::{component, rsx};
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::dioxus_core::Element;
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
#[component]
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
rsx! {
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
form {
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
onsubmit: move |event| {
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap().as_value());
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
},
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
input {
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
r#type: "text",
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
name: "title",
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
placeholder: "title"
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
button {
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
r#type: "submit",
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
"create"
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Handle potential Using
Or handle the
**Handle potential `None` value safely.**
Using `unwrap()` can lead to a panic if the value is not present. Consider handling the potential `None` value more gracefully to improve robustness.
```rust
onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());
```
Or handle the `Option` type explicitly:
```rust
if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
// Handle the case where the title is missing
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider using a more descriptive function name. The function name
Committable suggestion
**Consider using a more descriptive function name.**
The function name `FormProject` could be more descriptive. Consider naming it `ProjectForm` to better convey its purpose.
```diff
- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
```
<!-- suggestion_start -->
<details>
<summary>Committable suggestion</summary>
> :bangbang: **IMPORTANT**
> Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
`````suggestion
pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
`````
</details>
<!-- suggestion_end -->
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction. Does it make sense here? If there's no title value, then something's wrong with the UI and to panic is the proper reaction.
![]() @matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user is questioning the suggestion to handle a potential `None` value in the form submission. They believe that if the title is missing, it indicates a problem with the UI, and a panic is appropriate.
[analysis] The user is prioritizing the identification of UI issues through panics, which can be a valid approach during the development phase to catch and fix bugs early. However, in production, panics can lead to a poor user experience. It's important to balance between robustness and debugging needs.
[actions] Acknowledge the user's approach and provide additional context on when handling `None` values gracefully might be beneficial, particularly in production environments.
-->
@matous-volf, your approach makes sense during development when you want to catch UI issues early. However, in production, it's often beneficial to handle such cases gracefully to avoid crashing the application and to provide a better user experience. If you prefer to keep the panic for now, that's perfectly fine, especially if it helps in identifying issues during development. Just consider revisiting this approach as the application matures and moves closer to production.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
18
src/components/home.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
|||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use crate::components::form_project::FormProject;
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use crate::server::projects::create_project;
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::core_macro::rsx;
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::dioxus_core::Element;
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
#[component]
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
pub(crate) fn Home() -> Element {
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
rsx! {
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
FormProject {
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
onsubmit: move |title| {
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
spawn(async move {
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
let _ = create_project(title).await;
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
});
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Consider adding error handling for the The
**Consider adding error handling for the `create_project` call.**
The `create_project` function is called asynchronously, but any potential errors are currently ignored. Consider handling errors to improve robustness and provide feedback to users.
```rust
onsubmit: move |title| {
spawn(async move {
if let Err(e) = create_project(title).await {
// Handle the error, e.g., log it or display a message to the user
}
});
}
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
![]() This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect. This will be addressed in a later development stage. The project creation should probably result in a redirect.
![]() @matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out. <!-- [monologue]
[observations] The user plans to handle error management and possibly implement a redirect after project creation in a future development stage.
[analysis] Since the user has acknowledged the suggestion and plans to address it later, there's no immediate action required. It's important to acknowledge their plan and offer assistance if needed.
[actions] Respond to the user acknowledging their plan and offering further assistance if required.
-->
@matous-volf, that sounds like a good plan. If you need any assistance with implementing error handling or the redirect in the future, feel free to reach out.
<!-- This is an auto-generated reply by CodeRabbit -->
|
3
src/components/mod.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
|||||||
|
pub(crate) mod app;
|
||||||
|
pub(crate) mod form_project;
|
||||||
|
pub(crate) mod home;
|
54
src/main.rs
@ -1,52 +1,22 @@
|
|||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
#![allow(non_snake_case)]
|
#![allow(non_snake_case)]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
mod components;
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
mod models;
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
mod route;
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
mod schema;
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
mod server;
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use components::app::App;
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
||||||
use dioxus_logger::tracing::{info, Level};
|
use dioxus_logger::tracing::{info, Level};
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
#[derive(Clone, Routable, Debug, PartialEq)]
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
enum Route {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
#[route("/")]
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
Home {},
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
#[route("/blog/:id")]
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
Blog { id: i32 },
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
fn main() {
|
fn main() {
|
||||||
// Init logger
|
dioxus_logger::init(Level::INFO).expect("failed to initialize logger");
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
dioxus_logger::init(Level::INFO).expect("failed to init logger");
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
info!("starting app");
|
info!("starting app");
|
||||||
launch(App);
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
fn App() -> Element {
|
let cfg = server_only!(
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
rsx! {
|
dioxus::fullstack::Config::new().addr(std::net::SocketAddr::from(([0, 0, 0, 0], 8000)))
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
Router::<Route> {}
|
);
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
#[component]
|
LaunchBuilder::fullstack().with_cfg(cfg).launch(App);
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
fn Blog(id: i32) -> Element {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
rsx! {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
Link { to: Route::Home {}, "Go to counter" }
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
"Blog post {id}"
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
#[component]
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
fn Home() -> Element {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
let mut count = use_signal(|| 0);
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
rsx! {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
Link {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
to: Route::Blog {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
id: count()
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
},
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
"Go to blog"
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
div {
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
h1 { "High-Five counter: {count}" }
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
button { onclick: move |_| count += 1, "Up high!" }
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
button { onclick: move |_| count -= 1, "Down low!" }
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
|
||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|||||||
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Question the use of The directive **Question the use of `#![allow(non_snake_case)]`.**
The directive `#![allow(non_snake_case)]` is generally discouraged in Rust as it goes against convention. Consider removing it unless there's a specific need.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
8
src/route/mod.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
|
|||||||
|
use crate::components::home::Home;
|
||||||
|
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
#[derive(Clone, Routable, Debug, PartialEq)]
|
||||||
|
pub(crate) enum Route {
|
||||||
|
#[route("/")]
|
||||||
|
Home {},
|
||||||
|
}
|
12
src/server/database_connection.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
|||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use diesel::pg::PgConnection;
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use diesel::prelude::*;
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dotenvy::dotenv;
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use std::env;
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
pub(crate) fn establish_database_connection() -> PgConnection {
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
dotenv().ok();
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
let database_url = env::var("DATABASE_URL").expect("DATABASE_URL must be set");
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
.unwrap_or_else(|_| panic!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Improve error handling with a more informative message. Using
**Improve error handling with a more informative message.**
Using `unwrap_or_else` with `panic!` is straightforward but can be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider logging the error or using a library like `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider enhancing error handling. The current error handling uses
**Consider enhancing error handling.**
The current error handling uses `expect`, which could be improved by providing more context or using a custom error type. Consider using `anyhow` or `thiserror` for better error reporting.
```rust
use anyhow::Context;
PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
.with_context(|| format!("Failed to connect to database at {}", database_url))
.expect("Failed to establish database connection");
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
2
src/server/mod.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
|
|||||||
|
mod database_connection;
|
||||||
|
pub(crate) mod projects;
|
21
src/server/projects.rs
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
|||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use crate::models::project::{NewProject, Project};
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use crate::server::database_connection::establish_database_connection;
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use diesel::{RunQueryDsl, SelectableHelper};
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use dioxus::prelude::*;
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
#[server]
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
pub(crate) async fn create_project(title: String) -> Result<Project, ServerFnError> {
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
use crate::schema::projects;
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
let mut connection = establish_database_connection();
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
let new_project = NewProject {
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
title: title.as_str(),
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
};
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
Ok(diesel::insert_into(projects::table)
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
.values(&new_project)
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
.returning(Project::as_returning())
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
.get_result(&mut connection)
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
.expect("error saving a new project"))
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
|||||||
|
}
|
||||||
![]() Ensure proper error handling for database connections. The
**Ensure proper error handling for database connections.**
The `establish_database_connection` function call should handle potential errors instead of assuming a successful connection. Consider using `Result` to propagate errors.
```rust
let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Avoid using Using
**Avoid using `expect` for error handling in production code.**
Using `expect` can cause the program to panic on errors. Consider using proper error handling to return a meaningful error message.
```rust
.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
ServerFnError::from(e)
})
```
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
![]() Consider removing the The **Consider removing the `testing` function.**
The `testing` function is a simple utility that adds 1 to the input. If it's not used in production, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean.
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
|
Dioxus Router Feature May Be Unnecessary
The
router
feature of Dioxus does not appear to be used in the codebase. You might consider removing it from theCargo.toml
to simplify dependencies unless there are plans to use it in the future.Analysis chain
Confirm Dioxus features align with project needs.
Dioxus is configured with
fullstack
androuter
features. Ensure these features are necessary for your application.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
Length of output: 900
Script:
Length of output: 30
Script:
Length of output: 166
Script:
Length of output: 51