feat: ability to create a project #9

Merged
matous-volf merged 50 commits from feat/project-create into main 2024-08-18 21:36:06 +00:00
13 changed files with 944 additions and 50 deletions
Showing only changes of commit 97c9779170 - Show all commits

829
Cargo.lock generated

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

View File

@ -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"] }
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 10:53:11 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Tip

Codebase Verification

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 the Cargo.toml to simplify dependencies unless there are plans to use it in the future.

  • No imports or usage of Dioxus's router feature were found in the codebase.
Analysis chain

Confirm Dioxus features align with project needs.

Dioxus is configured with fullstack and router features. Ensure these features are necessary for your application.

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify Dioxus features configuration in the codebase.

# Test: Search for Dioxus usage. Expect: Only necessary features are enabled.
rg --type rust 'dioxus'

Length of output: 900


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the usage of Dioxus router feature in the codebase.

# Search for Dioxus router usage in the codebase.
rg --type rust 'dioxus_router'

Length of output: 30


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Broaden the search for routing-related functionality in the codebase.

# Search for terms related to routing that might indicate the use of Dioxus router.
rg --type rust 'route|router|navigate|switch|link|redirect'

Length of output: 166


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for specific imports or usage of Dioxus's router feature.

# Search for Dioxus router module or related imports.
rg --type rust 'use dioxus::router|dioxus_router'

Length of output: 51

> [!TIP] > Codebase Verification **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 the `Cargo.toml` to simplify dependencies unless there are plans to use it in the future. - No imports or usage of Dioxus's router feature were found in the codebase. <details> <summary>Analysis chain</summary> **Confirm Dioxus features align with project needs.** Dioxus is configured with `fullstack` and `router` features. Ensure these features are necessary for your application. </details> <details> <summary>Scripts executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Verify Dioxus features configuration in the codebase. # Test: Search for Dioxus usage. Expect: Only necessary features are enabled. rg --type rust 'dioxus' ``` Length of output: 900 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of Dioxus router feature in the codebase. # Search for Dioxus router usage in the codebase. rg --type rust 'dioxus_router' ``` Length of output: 30 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Broaden the search for routing-related functionality in the codebase. # Search for terms related to routing that might indicate the use of Dioxus router. rg --type rust 'route|router|navigate|switch|link|redirect' ``` Length of output: 166 --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Check for specific imports or usage of Dioxus's router feature. # Search for Dioxus router module or related imports. rg --type rust 'use dioxus::router|dioxus_router' ``` Length of output: 51 </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
# 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"]

View File

@ -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"
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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
Analysis chain

Verify output directory path.

Ensure that the out_dir path "dist" is correctly set up in the build and deployment processes.

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/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:

#!/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

> [!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 -->

View File

@ -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
View File

@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
use crate::route::Route;
use dioxus::core_macro::rsx;
use dioxus::dioxus_core::Element;
use dioxus::prelude::*;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 10:53:11 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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> {}
}
}

View File

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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};
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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::*;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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! {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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| {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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());
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
},
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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",
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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",
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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"
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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",
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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"
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

onsubmit(event.values().get("title").unwrap_or(&String::new()).as_value());

Or handle the Option type explicitly:

if let Some(title) = event.values().get("title") {
    onsubmit(title.as_value());
} else {
    // Handle the case where the title is missing
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

Consider using a more descriptive function name.

The function name FormProject could be more descriptive. Consider naming it ProjectForm to better convey its purpose.

- pub(crate) fn FormProject(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
+ pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
Committable suggestion

‼️ 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.

pub(crate) fn ProjectForm(onsubmit: EventHandler<String>) -> Element {
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:14:51 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:15:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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
View File

@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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 commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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::*;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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! {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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| {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
});
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

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
        }
    });
}
**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 -->
matous-volf commented 2024-08-17 08:11:10 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-17 08:11:26 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

@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
View File

@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
pub(crate) mod app;
pub(crate) mod form_project;
pub(crate) mod home;

View File

@ -1,52 +1,22 @@
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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)]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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("/")]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {},
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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")]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 },
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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");
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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");
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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);
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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!(
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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)))
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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> {} );
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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);
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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! {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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" }
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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}"
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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);
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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! {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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()
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
},
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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"
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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}" }
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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!" }
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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!" }
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
} }

coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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
View File

@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
use crate::components::home::Home;
use dioxus::prelude::*;
#[derive(Clone, Routable, Debug, PartialEq)]
pub(crate) enum Route {
#[route("/")]
Home {},
}

View File

@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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::*;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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();
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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");
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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)
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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))
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:20 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("error connecting to {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:12 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

use anyhow::Context;

PgConnection::establish(&database_url)
    .with_context(|| format!("Failed to connect to database at {}", database_url))
    .expect("Failed to establish database connection");
**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
View File

@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
mod database_connection;
pub(crate) mod projects;

21
src/server/projects.rs Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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};
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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};
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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::*;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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]
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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> {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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;
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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();
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 {
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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(),
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
};
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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)
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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)
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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())
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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)
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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"))
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->
}
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

let connection = establish_database_connection().map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Failed to connect to the database: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})?;
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-16 22:39:19 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 19:24:13 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

.get_result(&mut connection)
.map_err(|e| {
    eprintln!("Error saving a new project: {}", e);
    ServerFnError::from(e)
})
**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 -->
coderabbitai[bot] commented 2024-08-18 20:12:41 +00:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Review

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.

**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 -->