New demo #133
New demo #133
Conversation
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several modifications across various Java classes and updates the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/ExtendingAppLayoutDemo.java (2)
18-18: Consider making the iframe source configurableThe hardcoded "/view" path might not work in all deployment scenarios. Consider making this configurable through a constructor parameter or configuration property.
- IFrame iframe = new IFrame("/view"); + public static final String DEFAULT_VIEW_PATH = "/view"; + private final String viewPath; + + public ExtendingAppLayoutDemo() { + this(DEFAULT_VIEW_PATH); + } + + public ExtendingAppLayoutDemo(String viewPath) { + this.viewPath = viewPath; + IFrame iframe = new IFrame(this.viewPath);
14-14: Add class-level documentationConsider adding Javadoc to describe the purpose of this demo class and how it should be used.
+/** + * Demo component that showcases how to extend AppLayout. + * This demo loads a custom AppLayout implementation in an iframe. + * + * @see com.flowingcode.vaadin.addons.applayout.AppLayoutDemoView + */ public class ExtendingAppLayoutDemo extends Div {src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemo.java (1)
16-23: LGTM with a minor suggestionThe iframe implementation is clean and follows best practices. Consider adding error handling for cases where the iframe content fails to load.
public AppLayoutDemo() { setClassName("wrap-iframe"); IFrame iframe = new IFrame("/applayout-full"); iframe.setClassName("frame"); iframe.setSizeFull(); iframe.getElement().setAttribute("frameBorder", "0"); + iframe.getElement().addEventListener("error", event -> { + add(new Span("Failed to load demo content")); + }); add(iframe); }src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleInternalView.java (1)
28-28: Consider updating route pathThe route path "internal-view" doesn't follow the same naming pattern as the class. Consider updating it to "sample-internal-view" for consistency.
-@Route("internal-view") +@Route("sample-internal-view")src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemoView.java (1)
3-3: Update copyright header templateThe copyright header mentions "Template Add-on" instead of "App Layout Addon".
- * Template Add-on + * App Layout Addonsrc/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java (1)
Line range hint
29-42: Consider externalizing image paths and stylesThe implementation could be improved in several ways:
- Image paths are hardcoded which makes them less maintainable
- Multiple inline styles could be moved to CSS classes
- Menu items are hardcoded without clear demo purpose
Consider these improvements:
- Extract image paths to constants or configuration:
+ private static final String AVATAR_PATH = "frontend/images/avatar.png"; + private static final String LOGO_PATH = "frontend/images/applogo.png";
- Move styles to CSS:
// Add to your styles.css .menu-header { text-align: center; } .avatar-image { width: 80px; margin-top: 20px; } .user-title { display: block; font-size: large; font-weight: bold; width: 100%; }
- Consider making menu items configurable or more meaningful for the demo:
- setMenuItems(new MenuItem("Item 1"), new MenuItem("Item 2")); + setMenuItems( + new MenuItem("Dashboard", () -> showDashboard()), + new MenuItem("Settings", () -> showSettings()) + );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
pom.xml(3 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java(2 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleInternalView.java(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleView.java(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemo.java(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemoView.java(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/DemoView.java(2 hunks)src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/ExtendingAppLayoutDemo.java(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (14)
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/ExtendingAppLayoutDemo.java (1)
13-13: Verify the layout class configuration
Let's ensure the AppLayoutDemoView class is properly configured as a layout class.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the AppLayoutDemoView class.
Let me check one more thing about the DemoLayout class since AppLayoutDemoView uses it as a parent layout.
Layout class configuration is valid but through a different mechanism
The layout configuration is valid but works through a chain of layouts. AppLayoutDemoView is configured as a @ParentLayout(DemoLayout.class) where DemoLayout properly implements RouterLayout. This is a valid Vaadin layout configuration that allows nested layouts.
- AppLayoutDemoView is annotated with @ParentLayout(DemoLayout.class)
- DemoLayout implements RouterLayout interface
- The route path "applayout/extending-applayout-demo" is properly registered
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify AppLayoutDemoView configuration
# Check if AppLayoutDemoView is annotated with @RouterLayout
ast-grep --pattern 'class AppLayoutDemoView $$$implements RouterLayout$$$'
# Check for any references to this route path
rg "applayout/extending-applayout-demo" --type java
Length of output: 297
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for AppLayoutDemoView class definition and its annotations
rg "class AppLayoutDemoView" -B 5 -A 2 --type java
# Search for RouterLayout import
rg "import.*RouterLayout" --type java
# Search for any other classes extending AppLayoutDemoView
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ extends AppLayoutDemoView'
Length of output: 1203
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check DemoLayout class implementation
rg "class DemoLayout" -B 5 -A 2 --type java
# Check AppLayout class since it's part of the main source
rg "class AppLayout" -B 5 -A 2 --type java
Length of output: 3437
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemo.java (1)
13-13: Verify route path consistency
The route value "applayout/applayout-demo" seems to create a nested path. Ensure this aligns with the application's routing structure and that AppLayoutDemoView is properly configured as a parent layout.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify the parent layout configuration with additional checks.
Let me check the TabbedDemo class to understand the complete inheritance chain.
Let me try a broader search to understand the routing structure.
Route path structure appears consistent
The route path "applayout/applayout-demo" follows a consistent pattern within the application:
- Parent route "applayout" is defined in AppLayoutDemoView
- Similar nested structure is used in "applayout/extending-applayout-demo"
- AppLayoutDemoView is correctly used as a parent layout in multiple child routes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other route definitions to verify consistency
rg -t java "@Route.*applayout.*" --no-filename
Length of output: 292
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check AppLayoutDemoView class definition and its router layout implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class AppLayoutDemoView $$$implements RouteLayout$$$'
# Also check for any other relevant annotations on AppLayoutDemoView
rg -B2 -A2 "class AppLayoutDemoView"
Length of output: 664
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check TabbedDemo class definition and its router layout implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'class TabbedDemo $$$implements RouteLayout$$$'
# Also check for any other relevant annotations and inheritance on TabbedDemo
rg -B2 -A2 "class TabbedDemo"
# Check if there are any other route configurations using TabbedDemo
rg -t java "@Route.*TabbedDemo" --no-filename
Length of output: 148
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for RouteLayout implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'implements RouteLayout'
# Search for TabbedDemo class with more context
rg -B5 -A5 "class TabbedDemo" -g "*.java"
# Search for parent layouts in route definitions
rg -t java "layout\s*=.*\.class"
Length of output: 691
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleView.java (2)
Line range hint 29-34: LGTM: Simple and focused implementation
The view implementation is clean and minimal, appropriately serving its purpose as a sample view for testing.
28-28: Verify CustomAppLayout reference
The route layout has been changed to use CustomAppLayout. Let's ensure this class exists and is properly configured.
✅ Verification successful
CustomAppLayout reference is valid and properly implemented
The CustomAppLayout class exists and is properly implemented as a subclass of AppLayout with a complete constructor that sets up menu items, header, logo, and title components. The route layout reference in SampleView is correct and safe to use.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for CustomAppLayout class definition
ast-grep --pattern 'class CustomAppLayout {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 54
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for CustomAppLayout using ripgrep
rg "CustomAppLayout" -l
Length of output: 236
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any class definition containing CustomAppLayout using a more flexible pattern
ast-grep --pattern 'class CustomAppLayout'
Length of output: 44
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for files with 'layout' in their name to find potential layout classes
fd "layout" -i
Length of output: 1015
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of CustomAppLayout.java to verify its implementation
cat src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java
Length of output: 1872
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleInternalView.java (2)
30-34: LGTM: Clean implementation
The view implementation is straightforward and serves its purpose well.
29-29: Review @ignore annotation usage
The @ignore annotation is retained here while it was removed from SampleView. Consider if this inconsistency is intentional or if the annotation should be removed here as well.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the test classes to understand the usage pattern better.
Let me check the SampleView class to understand why @ignore was removed there while being retained in SampleInternalView.
Let me check if there are any test classes that might be using these views to understand if the @ignore annotation serves a specific purpose.
Now I have enough context to provide the final response:
@ignore annotation should be retained
The @ignore annotation serves different purposes in these views:
- SampleInternalView is used as a navigation target in ApplayoutDemoView's menu items and should be ignored from test execution
- SampleView is used as a demo source example (referenced by @demosource) and doesn't need the @ignore annotation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for other @Ignore usage in test files
rg -t java "@Ignore" --no-filename
Length of output: 42
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context around the @Ignore annotations and check test class implementations
rg -t java -B 3 -A 3 "@Ignore"
# Also check for any Route annotations to understand the test structure
rg -t java "@Route"
Length of output: 1525
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of both sample view classes
echo "=== SampleView.java ==="
cat src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleView.java
echo -e "\n=== SampleInternalView.java ==="
cat src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleInternalView.java
Length of output: 2318
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for references to both sample views in test files
rg -t java "SampleView|SampleInternalView" -B 2 -A 2
Length of output: 2399
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/DemoView.java (1)
33-33: LGTM! Route forwarding updated correctly
The forwarding to AppLayoutDemoView aligns with the new demo structure mentioned in the AI summary.
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemoView.java (1)
34-39: LGTM! Demo initialization looks good
The constructor properly initializes both demos and sets the appropriate size. The structure follows the demo patterns consistently.
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java (1)
Line range hint 29-42: Verify resource availability
Ensure that the referenced images exist in the correct frontend paths.
✅ Verification successful
Resource paths verified successfully
The image files are present at the correct locations:
src/test/resources/META-INF/resources/frontend/images/avatar.pngsrc/test/resources/META-INF/resources/frontend/images/applogo.png
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the image files exist in the frontend directory
fd -t f "avatar.png|applogo.png" -p
Length of output: 168
pom.xml (2)
18-18: LGTM: Property definition follows best practices
The new property flowingcode.commons.demo.version is properly defined with an explicit version.
58-62: LGTM: Dependency management setup is correct
The commons-demo dependency is properly declared in the dependencyManagement section with version reference.
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java (3)
Line range hint 1-365: Core demo implementation LGTM!
The overall implementation is well-structured and maintains good separation of concerns. The demo functionality, including menu creation, settings management, and content display, remains robust and unchanged.
234-234: Verify SampleInternalView configuration
The internal navigation target has been changed from InternalView to SampleInternalView.
Let's verify the new view class is properly configured:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the configuration of SampleInternalView and any remaining references to ensure everything is properly coordinated.
Navigation target properly configured
The change from InternalView to SampleInternalView is correctly implemented:
SampleInternalViewexists and is properly configured with@Route("internal-view")- The class is a test view (under
src/test) with appropriate test annotations - No other references to the old
InternalViewremain except for the changed menu item
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if SampleInternalView exists and has proper route configuration
ast-grep --pattern 'class SampleInternalView {
$$$
}'
# Check for any remaining references to the old InternalView
rg -l "InternalView" --type java
Length of output: 231
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check SampleInternalView implementation and route configuration
cat src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleInternalView.java
# Check the context of InternalView references in ApplayoutDemoView
rg "InternalView" -A 2 -B 2 src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java
Length of output: 1456
49-49: Verify route change impact and test inclusion
The route path has been changed from "applayout" to "applayout-full". Additionally, the removal of @ignore annotation means this view will now be included in test execution.
Let's verify there are no hardcoded references to the old route:
✅ Verification successful
Route change is safe and properly integrated
The route change from "applayout" to "applayout-full" is safe and properly integrated in the demo structure:
- The main demo view
AppLayoutDemoViewuses route "applayout" - The full demo
AppLayoutDemocorrectly references the new route in its iframe:/applayout-full - The route change doesn't affect any other components or configurations
- The demo structure maintains proper navigation hierarchy
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to the old route path
rg -l "applayout\"" --type java
# Search for any test configurations that might need updating
rg -l "AppLayoutDemoView" --type xml --type java
Length of output: 520
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of these files to understand the route usage
rg -A 5 -B 5 "applayout\"" src/main/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/AppLayout.java
rg -A 5 -B 5 "applayout\"" src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemoView.java
# Check if there are any route-related configurations in the demo files
rg -A 5 -B 5 "@Route" src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/AppLayoutDemo.java
rg -A 5 -B 5 "@Route" src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/ExtendingAppLayoutDemo.java
rg -A 5 -B 5 "@Route" src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/DemoView.java
Length of output: 2717
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java") | ||
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleView.java") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix inconsistent package paths in @demosource annotations
The package paths in the @demosource annotations don't match the actual package structure. They should be updated to include "vaadin":
-@DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java")
-@DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleView.java")
+@DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java")
+@DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/SampleView.java")📝 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.
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java") | |
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/SampleView.java") | |
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/CustomAppLayout.java") | |
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/vaadin/addons/applayout/SampleView.java") |
| @DemoSource("/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java") | ||
| @DemoSource("/frontend/styles/app-layout/demo-styles.css") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Update DemoSource paths to match actual file locations
The DemoSource annotation paths need to be corrected to match the actual file locations in the codebase:
- The demo view is located at
/src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java - The CSS file is located at
/src/test/resources/META-INF/resources/frontend/styles/app-layout/demo-styles.css
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify DemoSource paths
The DemoSource annotation path /src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ doesn't match the actual package path com.flowingcode.vaadin.addons.applayout. This could cause the demo source to not be found correctly.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the existence of the referenced files
fd -t f "ApplayoutDemoView.java" -x echo "Found demo view: {}"
fd -t f "demo-styles.css" -p "frontend/styles/app-layout" -x echo "Found CSS: {}"
Length of output: 345
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the actual content and location of the demo view file
cat ./src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java
# Let's search for any demo-styles.css file in the repository
fd -t f "demo-styles.css" -x echo "Found CSS: {}"
# Let's also check the package declaration in the demo view
grep -n "package" ./src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.java
Length of output: 13091
| @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ | |||
| * limitations under the License. | |||
| * #L% | |||
| */ | |||
| package com.flowingcode.addons.applayout; | |||
| package com.flowingcode.vaadin.addons.applayout; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Package restructuring needs attention - multiple files still using old package
The verification reveals that multiple source files are still using the old package structure com.flowingcode.addons.applayout. This includes both main and test classes that need to be updated to maintain consistency with the new package structure.
Key files requiring package updates:
- Main source files:
src/main/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/AppLayout.javasrc/main/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/MenuItem.javasrc/main/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ToolbarIconButton.java- And other core components in the same package
- Test source files:
src/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/ApplayoutDemoView.javasrc/test/java/com/flowingcode/addons/applayout/integration/*- And related test classes
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify package restructuring impact
The package has been moved from com.flowingcode.addons.applayout to com.flowingcode.vaadin.addons.applayout. This change might affect other classes that depend on this package.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to the old package
rg "com\.flowingcode\.addons\.applayout" --type java
Length of output: 4073
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>com.flowingcode.vaadin.addons.demo</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>commons-demo</artifactId> | ||
| <scope>test</scope> | ||
| </dependency> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Warning: Multiple commons-demo dependencies found with different scopes
The verification revealed that there are two declarations of the commons-demo dependency in pom.xml:
- One without a test scope
- Another with test scope
This could lead to potential conflicts or unintended usage in production code. The dependency should be declared only once with a consistent scope.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM: Test scope is appropriate
The commons-demo dependency is correctly scoped as 'test' in the dependencies section.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the commons-demo dependency usage is confined to test files
# Search for commons-demo imports outside test directories
rg -l "import.*commons.demo" --type java | grep -v "/test/"
Length of output: 59
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search approach
# 1. First, let's check all Java files that might use commons-demo
rg -l "commons.demo" --type java
# 2. Let's also check the pom.xml for any other commons-demo references
rg "commons.demo" pom.xml -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 828
Reapplying this PR because apparently it was rebased and lost
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
AppLayoutDemo,AppLayoutDemoView, andExtendingAppLayoutDemo.AppLayoutDemo.Improvements
commons-demolibrary.Bug Fixes