Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: update ListrrAPI validate method to use correct path #906

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2024

Conversation

davidemarcoli
Copy link
Collaborator

@davidemarcoli davidemarcoli commented Nov 23, 2024

Pull Request Check List

Resolves: #issue-number-here

  • Added tests for changed code.
  • Updated documentation for changed code.

Description:

Fixes #905

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 23, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in the pull request focus on the ListrrAPI class within the listrr_api.py file. The validate method's endpoint parameter is modified from self.BASE_URL to an empty string. Additionally, the return type of the get_items_from_Listrr method is updated to reflect that it can return either a list of MediaItem objects or a list of strings. The overall structure and error handling of the methods remain largely unchanged.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/program/apis/listrr_api.py - validate method: endpoint parameter changed from self.BASE_URL to "".
- get_items_from_Listrr method: return type updated to `list[MediaItem]

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant ListrrAPI
    participant ListrrRequestHandler

    Client->>ListrrAPI: Call validate()
    ListrrAPI->>ListrrRequestHandler: Execute with endpoint ""
    ListrrAPI->>Client: Response

    Client->>ListrrAPI: Call get_items_from_Listrr(content_type, content_lists)
    ListrrAPI->>ListrrAPI: Process content lists
    ListrrAPI->>Client: Return list[MediaItem] | list[str]
Loading

🐇 "In the code where the changes reside,
A new endpoint takes a different stride.
With lists of items, both types can flow,
Clarity blooms, as we watch it grow!
A hop, a skip, a code delight,
In Listrr's world, everything feels right!" 🌼


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/program/apis/listrr_api.py (1)

Line range hint 42-89: Consider breaking down the complex method into smaller functions

The method has multiple responsibilities and could be more maintainable if split into smaller, focused functions. This would also make it easier to test individual components.

Consider refactoring into these components:

def get_items_from_Listrr(self, content_type, content_lists) -> list[str]:
    unique_ids = set()
    if not content_lists:
        return list(unique_ids)
    
    for list_id in self._filter_valid_list_ids(content_lists):
        ids = self._fetch_list_items(content_type, list_id)
        unique_ids.update(ids)
    return list(unique_ids)

def _filter_valid_list_ids(self, content_lists: list[str]) -> list[str]:
    return [list_id for list_id in content_lists if list_id and len(list_id) == 24]

def _fetch_list_items(self, content_type: str, list_id: str) -> set[str]:
    unique_ids = set()
    page, total_pages = 1, 1
    while page <= total_pages:
        try:
            data = self._fetch_page(content_type, list_id, page)
            total_pages = data.get("pages", 1)
            unique_ids.update(self._extract_ids(content_type, data.get("items", [])))
            page += 1
        except HTTPError as e:
            if e.response.status_code in [400, 404, 429, 500]:
                break
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"An error occurred: {e}")
            break
    return unique_ids

def _fetch_page(self, content_type: str, list_id: str, page: int):
    url = f"api/List/{content_type}/{list_id}/ReleaseDate/Descending/{page}"
    response = self.request_handler.execute(HttpMethod.GET, url)
    return response.data

def _extract_ids(self, content_type: str, items: list) -> set[str]:
    ids = set()
    for item in items:
        if imdb_id := item.get("imDbId"):
            ids.add(imdb_id)
        elif content_type == "Movies" and (tmdb_id := item.get("tmDbId")):
            if imdb_id := self.trakt_api.get_imdbid_from_tmdb(tmdb_id):
                ids.add(imdb_id)
    return ids
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 83418d6 and 71d6bc9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/program/apis/listrr_api.py (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/program/apis/listrr_api.py (1)

40-40: Correct fix for the validate endpoint path

The change to use an empty string as the endpoint is correct. The base URL is already handled by the ListrrRequestHandler, so passing an empty string prevents double URL prefixing.

Let's verify that this is the only instance where we might have similar URL path issues:

✅ Verification successful

The validate endpoint change is correct and no similar issues exist

The code analysis confirms that:

  1. The ListrrRequestHandler correctly handles base URL concatenation in the request module (src/program/utils/request.py line 142)
  2. No other instances of incorrect BASE_URL usage as endpoints were found in the Listrr API
  3. Other APIs (Trakt, Plex, etc.) properly use BASE_URL in their endpoint construction with specific paths
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for other potential cases where BASE_URL might be incorrectly used as an endpoint
ast-grep --pattern 'execute($_, self.BASE_URL, $_)'

Length of output: 53


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for BASE_URL usage in method calls
ast-grep --pattern 'self.BASE_URL'

# Also search for execute method calls to see all endpoint patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'execute($_, $_, $_)'

# And let's see the full content of listrr_api.py to understand the context better
rg -l "class ListrrAPI" | xargs cat

Length of output: 5701

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ def __init__(self, api_key: str):
self.trakt_api = di[TraktAPI]

def validate(self):
return self.request_handler.execute(HttpMethod.GET, self.BASE_URL)
return self.request_handler.execute(HttpMethod.GET, "")

def get_items_from_Listrr(self, content_type, content_lists) -> list[MediaItem] | list[str]: # noqa: C901, PLR0912
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚠️ Potential issue

Type annotation appears inconsistent with implementation

The method is annotated to return list[MediaItem] | list[str], but the implementation only returns a list of IMDb ID strings (list[str]). There's no code path that returns MediaItem objects.

Consider one of these fixes:

-def get_items_from_Listrr(self, content_type, content_lists) -> list[MediaItem] | list[str]:
+def get_items_from_Listrr(self, content_type, content_lists) -> list[str]:

Or if MediaItem objects should be returned, update the implementation accordingly.

📝 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.

Suggested change
def get_items_from_Listrr(self, content_type, content_lists) -> list[MediaItem] | list[str]: # noqa: C901, PLR0912
def get_items_from_Listrr(self, content_type, content_lists) -> list[str]: # noqa: C901, PLR0912

@davidemarcoli davidemarcoli merged commit 7659a37 into main Nov 28, 2024
2 checks passed
@davidemarcoli davidemarcoli deleted the bugfix/listrr-validation branch November 28, 2024 19:23
the-eversio pushed a commit to the-eversio/riven that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Listrr not functioning
2 participants