-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New Components - email_verifier_api #15503
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
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new email verification feature. A new action module is added that defines a "Verify Email" action, which asynchronously calls the email verification API using a new Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant U as User
participant A as Verify Email Action
participant E as email_verifier_api
U->>A: Request email verification (provides email)
A->>E: Invoke verifyEmail({ email })
E->>E: Call _makeRequest with email and API key
E-->>A: Return verification data
A-->>U: Provide summary message with verification result
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Tip 🌐 Web search-backed reviews and chat
✨ Finishing Touches
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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
components/email_verifier_api/email_verifier_api.app.mjs (2)
8-10
: Consider environment-specific API URLs.The base URL is hardcoded. Consider making it configurable based on the environment.
- _baseUrl() { - return "https://emailverifierapi.com/v2/"; - }, + _baseUrl() { + return this.$auth.base_url || "https://emailverifierapi.com/v2/"; + },
25-34
: Consider adding error handling.The verifyEmail method should handle API errors gracefully.
verifyEmail({ $, email, }) { + if (!email) { + throw new Error("Email parameter is required"); + } return this._makeRequest({ $, params: { email, }, + }).catch((error) => { + throw new Error(`Email verification failed: ${error.message}`); + }); },components/email_verifier_api/actions/verify-email/verify-email.mjs (1)
4-8
: Consider semantic versioning for the initial release.Since this is a new feature, consider starting with version 1.0.0 instead of 0.0.1.
- version: "0.0.1", + version: "1.0.0",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yaml
is excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
components/email_verifier_api/actions/verify-email/verify-email.mjs
(1 hunks)components/email_verifier_api/email_verifier_api.app.mjs
(1 hunks)components/email_verifier_api/package.json
(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: pnpm publish
- GitHub Check: Publish TypeScript components
- GitHub Check: Lint Code Base
- GitHub Check: Verify TypeScript components
🔇 Additional comments (4)
components/email_verifier_api/email_verifier_api.app.mjs (2)
11-24
: LGTM! Well-structured request handling.The _makeRequest method is well-implemented with:
- Default context parameter
- Proper authentication
- Flexible parameter handling
1-1
: Verify @pipedream/platform version compatibility.Let's ensure we're using a compatible version of the platform package.
✅ Verification successful
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check the installed version of @pipedream/platform npm list @pipedream/platformLength of output: 78
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check @pipedream/platform version in package.json dependencies and devDependencies echo "Checking @pipedream/platform version in package.json dependencies..." jq '.dependencies["@pipedream/platform"]' package.json 2>/dev/null || echo "No dependencies found." echo "Checking @pipedream/platform version in package.json devDependencies..." jq '.devDependencies["@pipedream/platform"]' package.json 2>/dev/null || echo "No devDependencies found." # Additionally, try to check the installed package version (if present) in node_modules echo "Checking actual installed version from node_modules (if exists)..." if [ -f "node_modules/@pipedream/platform/package.json" ]; then jq -r '.version' node_modules/@pipedream/platform/package.json else echo "node_modules/@pipedream/platform/package.json not found." fiLength of output: 755
Package Version Verified: @pipedream/platform is declared with ^1.5.1 in package.json.
Our investigation confirms that the dependency is correctly specified in package.json. Although the sandbox environment didn’t show the installed package in node_modules, the declaration of
"@pipedream/platform": "^1.5.1"
indicates that the app is set to use a compatible version of the platform package.components/email_verifier_api/package.json (2)
12-14
: LGTM! Proper publish configuration.The publishConfig with public access is correctly set.
3-3
: Verify platform dependency compatibility.The package uses @pipedream/platform ^3.0.3. Let's verify this is the latest stable version.
Also applies to: 15-17
✅ Verification successful
🌐 Web query:
What is the latest version of @pipedream/platform package?
Length of output: 2351
Platform dependency is compatible and up-to-date.
The web query confirms that the latest version of the
@pipedream/platform
npm package is 3.0.3—which matches the version specified in the package. No further changes are needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @michelle0927 lgtm! Ready for QA!
Resolves #10895
Summary by CodeRabbit