Partner plugin mock #64
Conversation
…Type_STATUS_TYPE_FAILURE
VjeraTurk
requested review from
evlekht and
Noctunus
and removed request for
evlekht
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/accommodation_product_info.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/accommodation_search.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
* Add cm-account setup instructions to README.MD --------- Co-authored-by: Ekrem Seren <[email protected]>
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces several modifications across various files related to accommodation services in a gRPC framework. Key changes include the initialization of request headers, the addition of new JSON files for structured data, and the implementation of new server methods for handling accommodation product information, lists, and searches. Additionally, the server implementation is restructured to integrate new service versions while removing outdated methods. Documentation has been enhanced to provide comprehensive specifications for accommodation functionalities. Changes
Poem
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: 24
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/cache/cache.go (1)
80-85: Refactor Cleanup Logic to Avoid DuplicationThe logic for cleaning up expired cache entries is duplicated across multiple methods.
Extract the cleanup logic into a shared function:
func (c *searchCache) cleanupExpiredEntriesV1() { now := time.Now() for k, item := range c.cache_v1 { if now.After(item.expiry) { delete(c.cache_v1, k) } } } // Use in SetV1 func (c *searchCache) SetV1(key string, results []*accommodationv1.AccommodationSearchResult) { c.mu.Lock() defer c.mu.Unlock() c.cleanupExpiredEntriesV1() // Add new entry... }Repeat similar refactoring for other cache types.
Also applies to: 111-116, 142-147, 173-178
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/server.go (2)
78-80: Consider Refactoring Repeated Response Header InitializationThe initialization of the
ResponseHeaderwith a success status is repeated across multiple methods. To enhance maintainability and reduce code duplication, consider creating a helper function to generate a successful response header.Example:
func newSuccessHeader() *typesv1.ResponseHeader { return &typesv1.ResponseHeader{ Status: typesv1.StatusType_STATUS_TYPE_SUCCESS, } }Then, you can use it in your responses:
Header: newSuccessHeader(),Also applies to: 256-258, 296-296, 357-359, 378-380, 553-555, 591-593
753-755: Remove Commented-Out Code If No Longer NeededThe accommodation V2 service registrations are commented out. If these services are deprecated or replaced by the new handlers, consider removing the commented code to keep the codebase clean.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/accommodation.md (3)
161-165: Improve clarity in date restrictions documentation.The sentence structure is redundant and could be clearer.
-There are restrictions on the travel period. Searching accommodations for travel period outside of mentioned dates is considered invalid - meaning there are no bookings available. +Travel period restrictions: Searches outside the following dates will return no available bookings:🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~161-~161: This phrase is redundant. Consider using “outside”.
Context: ...rching accommodations for travel period outside of mentioned dates is considered invalid -...(OUTSIDE_OF)
7-27: Add language specifications to code blocks.The documentation contains multiple code blocks without language specifications, which affects syntax highlighting and readability.
Add language specifications to the code blocks:
- Response message examples should use
json- Request message examples should use
jsonAlso applies to: 60-77, 81-149, 180-234, 241-252, 257-264
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
7-7: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
41-55: Enhance mock data documentation structure.The mock data sections use inconsistent heading levels and contain trailing punctuation.
-### Mock data service available supplier codes for testing: +## Mock Data Service + +### Available Supplier Codes🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
41-41: Expected: h2; Actual: h3
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
41-41: Punctuation: ':'
Trailing punctuation in heading(MD026, no-trailing-punctuation)
49-49: Punctuation: ':'
Trailing punctuation in heading(MD026, no-trailing-punctuation)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/data/properties.json (2)
40-53: Consider data privacy best practicesEven in mock data, it's recommended to:
- Use obviously fake email domains (e.g.,
@example.com)- Use standard placeholder phone numbers (e.g., +1 555-0123)
- Consider if exact coordinates are necessary for mock data
This helps prevent accidental exposure of real contact information and maintains consistent privacy practices across development and production environments.
Also applies to: 786-799, 1029-1042
330-332: Optimize mock data size and structure
- The height value of 7500 pixels at line 331 appears to be a typo
- Room descriptions are identical across properties
- Language versions follow the same pattern for all properties
Consider:
- Fixing the image height value
- Reducing redundancy in descriptions while maintaining testing value
- Using a more compact structure for repeated data patterns
- "height": 7500, + "height": 750,Also applies to: 645-682, 886-923, 1136-1173
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (22)
examples/rpc/client.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/accommodation.md(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/accommodation_product_info.json(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/accommodation_search.json(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/mint.json(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/validation.json(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_info.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_list.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_list.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_search.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/mint/v1/mint_v1.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/mint/v2/mint_v2.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v1/validation_v1.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v2/validation_v2.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/mint_v2.go(0 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/ping/v1/ping_handler.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/server.go(10 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/cache/cache.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/data/mock_data.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/data/properties.json(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/mint_v2.go
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/data/mock_data.go
- examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/validation.json
- examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/accommodation_product_info.json
- examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/mint.json
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/accommodation.md
[style] ~161-~161: This phrase is redundant. Consider using “outside”.
Context: ...rching accommodations for travel period outside of mentioned dates is considered invalid -...
(OUTSIDE_OF)
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/accommodation.md
5-5: Expected: h2; Actual: h3
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time
(MD001, heading-increment)
41-41: Expected: h2; Actual: h3
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time
(MD001, heading-increment)
41-41: Punctuation: ':'
Trailing punctuation in heading
(MD026, no-trailing-punctuation)
49-49: Punctuation: ':'
Trailing punctuation in heading
(MD026, no-trailing-punctuation)
7-7: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
60-60: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
81-81: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
180-180: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
241-241: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
257-257: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🔇 Additional comments (18)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/services/cache/cache.go (2)
13-27: Simplify or Remove Specialized Cache Structures
The cache implementations for V1 and V2 are almost identical, differing mainly in the types used.
Consider generalizing the cache structures using Go generics (if using Go 1.18 or later) or interfaces to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
Also applies to: 29-43
1-196: Evaluate the Necessity of Caching for Static Mock Data
Implementing caching for static mock data may introduce unnecessary complexity.
Consider whether the caching mechanism is essential for the mock service. If real-time data changes are not expected, simplifying or omitting the cache could enhance maintainability.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_search.go (3)
43-46:
Handle JSON Unmarshalling Error Properly
Attempting to proceed after a failed unmarshal can result in runtime errors with invalid data.
Consider returning the error:
if err != nil {
log.Printf("Error unmarshalling properties: %v", err)
+ return nil, err
}80-81:
Correct Travel Period Validation Logic
The validation condition may not behave as expected due to operator precedence.
Adjust the condition for clarity:
- if query.TravelPeriod.GetStartDate().GetYear() != 2025 || query.TravelPeriod.GetStartDate().GetMonth() != 6 || query.TravelPeriod.GetStartDate().GetDay() <= 1 &&
- query.TravelPeriod.GetEndDate().GetYear() != 2025 || query.TravelPeriod.GetEndDate().GetMonth() != 6 || query.TravelPeriod.GetEndDate().GetDay() >= 30 {
+ if (query.TravelPeriod.GetStartDate().GetYear() != 2025 || query.TravelPeriod.GetStartDate().GetMonth() != 6 || query.TravelPeriod.GetStartDate().GetDay() < 1) ||
+ (query.TravelPeriod.GetEndDate().GetYear() != 2025 || query.TravelPeriod.GetEndDate().GetMonth() != 6 || query.TravelPeriod.GetEndDate().GetDay() > 30) {239-239:
Check for Empty Address Slice Before Accessing
Accessing the first element of Address without checking can cause an index out of range error.
Ensure the Address slice is not empty before accessing:
if len(prop.Property.ContactInfo.Address) > 0 {
address := prop.Property.ContactInfo.Address[0]
// Proceed with address
} else {
// Handle absence of address appropriately
}examples/rpc/partner-plugin/server.go (1)
782-782: Ping Service Registration Updated Correctly
The PingServiceServer is now registered with the correct handler &handlers_ping_v1.PingServiceV1Server{}. Good job on updating the registration to use the new handler implementation.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/ping/v1/ping_handler.go (2)
1-1: Adjust Package Name for Consistency
Consider renaming the package to handlers_ping_v1 to align with the package's directory structure and avoid potential naming conflicts with other handler packages.
Apply this change:
-package handlers
+package handlers_ping_v118-33: Ping Method Implementation Looks Good
The Ping method correctly implements the PingServiceServer interface, handles metadata extraction, and responds with the appropriate message.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/mint/v1/mint_v1.go (2)
33-33: Utilizing UUID for MintId Generation
Using uuid.New().String() to generate a unique MintId ensures that each minting operation is uniquely identified.
36-36: ValidationId Properly Included in Response
Including ValidationId from the request in the response maintains consistency in the validation process.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/docs/example-messages/accommodation_search.json (1)
14-21: Travel Dates Are Realistic
The travel period dates in the search queries are set to realistic future dates, which is appropriate for testing and development purposes.
Also applies to: 36-43
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/mint/v2/mint_v2.go (2)
33-33: Correct Use of UUID for MintId
Generating the MintId using uuid.New().String() ensures unique identifiers for each minting transaction.
37-37: ValidationId Correctly Set from Request
Including the ValidationId from the request in the response ensures proper tracking and consistency in the booking process.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_list.go (1)
24-26:
Fix error handling issues (duplicate of v1)
The same error handling issues present in v1 exist here:
- Metadata extraction error is only logged
- JSON unmarshalling error is ignored
- SendHeader error is not checked
See the fixes suggested in the v1 review.
Also applies to: 37-40, 58-58
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v1/validation_v1.go (2)
26-29:
Improve error handling for metadata extraction
Similar to other handlers, metadata extraction error is only logged.
See the fix suggested in the accommodation handler review.
67-67:
Add error handling for SendHeader
The grpc.SendHeader call could fail but the error is not checked.
See the fix suggested in the accommodation handler review.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v2/validation_v2.go (1)
18-19: LGTM! Good practice using compile-time interface check.
The use of a compile-time interface check ensures the implementation satisfies the interface contract.
examples/rpc/client.go (1)
82-82: LGTM! Proper initialization of request header.
The change ensures that the request header is properly initialized instead of being nil, which aligns with the protocol requirements.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v2/validation_v2.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v2/validation_v2.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/book/validation/v2/validation_v2.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ation_product_info.go Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go (7)
1-16: LGTM: Package structure and imports are well-organized
The package structure follows good practices with clear separation of protocol-specific imports and internal dependencies.
17-20: LGTM: Clean interface implementation
Good practice using compile-time interface compliance check with var _ accommodationv2grpc.AccommodationProductInfoServiceServer = (*AccommodationProductInfoV2Server)(nil).
129-137: LGTM: Well-implemented helper function
The containsProperty function is well-documented and correctly implements duplicate checking based on supplier codes.
24-26:
Improve metadata error handling
The current error handling for metadata extraction only logs the error but continues execution, which could lead to issues downstream.
if err := md.ExtractMetadata(ctx); err != nil {
log.Print("error extracting metadata")
+ return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to extract metadata: %w", err)
}37-40:
Improve JSON unmarshaling error handling
The error handling for JSON unmarshaling only logs the error but continues with potentially invalid data.
err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(jsonProperties), &properties)
if err != nil {
log.Printf("Error unmarshalling properties: %v", err)
+ return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to unmarshal properties: %w", err)
}46-46:
Check for empty supplier codes slice
The condition only checks for nil but doesn't handle empty slices.
-if req.SupplierCodes != nil {
+if len(req.SupplierCodes) > 0 {91-95:
Avoid modifying shared property data
Direct modification of property fields could have unintended side effects if the property is referenced elsewhere.
if (len(filteredDescriptions) > 0 || len(filteredRoomDescriptions) > 0) && !containsProperty(filteredProperties, property) {
+ propertyCopy := *property
+ propertyCopy.LocalizedDescriptions = filteredDescriptions
+ propertyCopy.LocalizedRoomDescriptions = filteredRoomDescriptions
+ filteredProperties = append(filteredProperties, &propertyCopy)
- property.LocalizedDescriptions = filteredDescriptions
- property.LocalizedRoomDescriptions = filteredRoomDescriptions
- filteredProperties = append(filteredProperties, property)
}
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v2/accommodation_product_info.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ation_product_info.go Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…ation_product_list.go Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_list.go (1)
37-49: Enhance JSON unmarshalling error handlingWhile the error handling returns an appropriate response, consider adding more context to help with debugging.
Apply this diff:
err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(jsonProperties), &properties) if err != nil { - log.Printf("Error unmarshalling properties: %v", err) + log.Printf("Error unmarshalling properties from mock_data.PropertiesJSON: %v", err) return &accommodationv1.AccommodationProductListResponse{ Header: &typesv1.ResponseHeader{ Status: typesv1.StatusType_STATUS_TYPE_FAILURE, Alerts: []*typesv1.Alert{{ - Message: "Internal server error", + Message: "Failed to process accommodation properties", Type: typesv1.AlertType_ALERT_TYPE_ERROR, }}, }, }, nil }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_info.go(1 hunks)examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_list.go(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_info.go
🔇 Additional comments (4)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_product_list.go (4)
1-16: LGTM: Package structure and imports are well-organized.
The package name and import organization follow Go conventions, and all imports are being utilized.
17-20: LGTM: Good use of compile-time interface check.
The empty struct and interface implementation check follow Go best practices.
24-26:
Improve error handling for metadata extraction
The current implementation logs the error but continues execution, which could lead to undefined behavior if metadata is required for downstream operations.
Apply this diff:
if err := md.ExtractMetadata(ctx); err != nil {
- log.Print("error extracting metadata")
+ log.Printf("error extracting metadata: %v", err)
+ return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to extract metadata: %w", err)
}67-67:
Add error handling for SendHeader
The grpc.SendHeader call could fail but the error is not checked.
Apply this diff:
-grpc.SendHeader(ctx, md.ToGrpcMD())
+if err := grpc.SendHeader(ctx, md.ToGrpcMD()); err != nil {
+ log.Printf("Failed to send header: %v", err)
+ return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to send header: %w", err)
+}…ation_search.go Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go (1)
1-290: Add unit tests for the mock serviceThe code lacks unit tests which are crucial for ensuring the reliability of the mock service.
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive unit tests for this mock service? I can create test cases covering:
- Query validation
- Travel period validation
- Property filtering
- Price calculations
- Error handling scenarios
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go (1)
238-241:
Add bounds checking for array access
Accessing Address[0] without checking array bounds could cause a panic.
- var address = prop.Property.ContactInfo.Address[0]
- if address.GeoTree.CityOrResort == geoTreeLocation.CityOrResort && address.GeoTree.Country == geoTreeLocation.Country && address.GeoTree.Region == geoTreeLocation.Region {
+ if len(prop.Property.ContactInfo.Address) == 0 {
+ continue
+ }
+ address := prop.Property.ContactInfo.Address[0]
+ if address.GeoTree != nil && address.GeoTree.CityOrResort == geoTreeLocation.CityOrResort &&
+ address.GeoTree.Country == geoTreeLocation.Country &&
+ address.GeoTree.Region == geoTreeLocation.Region {Likely invalid or redundant comment.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ation_search.go Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go (4)
78-92: Make travel period validation configurableHardcoding the valid date range to June 2025 reduces the flexibility of the mock service for testing different scenarios. Consider making the date range configurable to allow testing with various periods.
158-163: Consider making price values configurableHardcoding the price value to
"100"limits the mock's usefulness for testing different pricing scenarios. Consider fetching prices from the mock data or making them configurable.
25-25: Use consistent naming conventionsVariable names like
search_generic_paramsandavailable_propertiesuse underscores. In Go, the convention is to use camelCase for variable names. Consider renaming them tosearchGenericParamsandavailablePropertiesfor consistency.Also applies to: 96-96
27-27: Use structured logging instead offmt.PrintfUsing
fmt.Printffor logging is not ideal. Consider using thelogpackage or another structured logging library for better logging practices.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go (4)
29-31: Handle error from metadata extraction
The error from md.ExtractMetadata(ctx) is logged but not returned, which may lead to processing requests with invalid metadata.
42-45: Return error after failed JSON unmarshalling
If json.Unmarshal fails, the error is logged but the function continues, potentially leading to processing invalid properties data. Consider returning the error to prevent unintended behavior.
155-155: Add nil check for query.Travellers before accessing
Accessing query.Travellers without checking if it's nil may cause a panic. Add a nil check before calling getTravellerIds(query.Travellers).
238-238: Check for empty Address slice before accessing
Accessing prop.Property.ContactInfo.Address[0] without checking if Address is non-empty may cause a panic. Ensure that the slice has at least one element before accessing.
examples/rpc/partner-plugin/handlers/accommodation/v1/accommodation_search.go
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Description:
This pull request introduces a basic functional partner plugin mock service to the CMB repository, intended to provide a simple implementation. The mock service simulates responses for defined partner service calls, offering static, meaningful example data.
Changes:
Added service handlers for:
Added caching:
This caching strategy ensures that the price used at every stage of the booking process is consistent and validated, preventing discrepancies and potential issues.
Search & Cache: When a user call the AccomodationSearch service, the AccommodationSearchResult message is cached with search_id as the key.
Validate & Cache: To validate a chosen accommodation, the search_id is sent to a validation service. This service:
Retrieves the cached search results using the search_id.
Extracts the PriceDetail from the results.
Caches the PriceDetail, this time associated with the validation_id as the key.
Mint & Retrieve: The validation_id is then passed to the "mint" service (likely the booking confirmation stage). This service retrieves the validated PriceDetail from the cache using the validation_id.
nilvalues replaced with empty values forresponseHeaderand other proto valuesSummary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores