[CHORE] 마무리 수정 - #53
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 34 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough진보성 분석 선택을 Changes진보성 로직 선택과 입력 폼
리포트 생성과 섹션 렌더링
활동기록 탭과 탐색 상태
폰트와 화면 스타일
Estimated code review effort: 4 (Complex) | ~45 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3 | ❌ 2❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1📝 Generate docstrings 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![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
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@src/app/`(report)/myhistory/[id]/report/page.tsx:
- Around line 60-62: Update hasContent to return true only when the analysis
object contains meaningful, non-empty values, treating empty arrays, empty
strings, and equivalent blank entries as absent; apply the same predicate to the
additional section-rendering usage around the related content checks so sections
with only empty tables or placeholders are not rendered.
In `@src/components/analysis/InventiveStep/Comparision/ComparisionPatentBox.tsx`:
- Around line 25-27: 긴 특허번호와 제목이 카드 너비를 넘지 않도록 제목 요소에 text-wrap 및 break-words
클래스를 추가하세요. ComparisionPatentBox.tsx의 주인용·부인용 제목(25-27, 40-42)과
TechComparision.tsx의 1차·2차 참고문헌 제목(28-30, 43-45) 모두에 동일하게 적용하고, 전체 제목 내용은 유지하세요.
In `@src/hooks/useInventiveStepAnalysis.ts`:
- Around line 208-216: Remove the saveStoredSelection call from the
setSelectedLogics updater in useInventiveStepAnalysis. Keep the updater pure by
only computing and returning the next Set, then add a useEffect that persists
the current selectedLogics whenever selectedLogics or analysisId changes.
In `@src/hooks/useReport.ts`:
- Around line 82-100: Update the RP001 recovery flow in useReport so a getReport
failure is handled before falling through to the create-error mapping: preserve
the refetch error’s ApiError code/message or network-error message, set the
corresponding request error, clear the result as appropriate, and return. Keep
the existing CREATE_REPORT_ERROR_MESSAGES handling only for failures from report
creation.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 51ae2455-8abf-4107-817d-36cb07e75ce6
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/app/fonts/PretendardVariable.woff2is excluded by!**/*.woff2
📒 Files selected for processing (24)
src/app/(main)/analysis/[id]/[patentId]/page.tsxsrc/app/(report)/myhistory/[id]/report/page.tsxsrc/app/fonts.tssrc/app/globals.csssrc/app/layout.tsxsrc/components/analysis/InventiveStep/Comparision/ComparisionPatentBox.tsxsrc/components/analysis/InventiveStep/LogicCards/ArgumentForm_A.tsxsrc/components/analysis/InventiveStep/LogicCards/ArgumentForm_B.tsxsrc/components/analysis/InventiveStep/LogicCards/ArgumentForm_C.tsxsrc/components/analysis/InventiveStep/LogicCards/ArgumentForm_D.tsxsrc/components/myhistory/Tab.tsxsrc/components/report/InventiveStep.tsxsrc/components/report/InventiveStepReportComponents/TechComparision.tsxsrc/components/report/NoveltyComparision.tsxsrc/components/report/Overview.tsxsrc/components/sidebar/PreviousSearchItem.tsxsrc/components/sidebar/Sidebar.tsxsrc/hooks/useInventiveStepAnalysis.tssrc/hooks/useMyHistory.tssrc/hooks/useReport.tssrc/hooks/useSearchForm.tssrc/lib/api/analysis.tssrc/types/inventiveStep.type.tssrc/types/report.type.ts
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- src/types/inventiveStep.type.ts
- src/types/report.type.ts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/hooks/useSearchForm.ts (1)
269-273: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win
hasAdditionalInfo를 명시적인 boolean으로 만들어 주세요.현재
||체인의 결과 타입은boolean이 아니라 마지막으로 truthy한string입니다. 조건문에서는 동작하지만 변수명과 타입 의도가 어긋나므로, 명시적인 boolean으로 고정하면 TypeScript 가독성과 유지보수성이 좋아집니다.As per path instructions: TypeScript의 타입 안정성, 가독성, 유지보수성을 중점적으로 검토해야 합니다.
제안
- const hasAdditionalInfo = - priorArtReference.trim() || - differentiationNotes.trim() || - measurementConditions.trim() || - measurementResults.trim(); + const hasAdditionalInfo = [ + priorArtReference, + differentiationNotes, + measurementConditions, + measurementResults, + ].some((value) => value.trim().length > 0);🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@src/hooks/useSearchForm.ts` around lines 269 - 273, Update the hasAdditionalInfo expression in the relevant search form logic to explicitly produce a boolean while preserving the existing truthiness checks across priorArtReference, differentiationNotes, measurementConditions, and measurementResults.Source: Path instructions
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Nitpick comments:
In `@src/hooks/useSearchForm.ts`:
- Around line 269-273: Update the hasAdditionalInfo expression in the relevant
search form logic to explicitly produce a boolean while preserving the existing
truthiness checks across priorArtReference, differentiationNotes,
measurementConditions, and measurementResults.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: ad8ce7a1-7c80-4389-92de-6ee792703689
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/hooks/useSearchForm.tssrc/lib/api/case.tssrc/types/case.type.ts
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- src/types/case.type.ts
- src/lib/api/case.ts
[CHORE] 마무리 수정
2 participants
📌 작업 내용
✅ 변경 사항
🔗 관련 이슈
Closes #6
Closes #12
Closes #42
🧪 체크리스트
📸 스크린샷
없음
💬 리뷰 요청 사항
기타
Summary by CodeRabbit
새로운 기능
개선 사항