Skip to content

Conversation

@MallanagoudaB
Copy link
Collaborator

@MallanagoudaB MallanagoudaB commented Sep 18, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Updated error responses in several features to return a "bad request" status instead of an "internal server error" when certain errors occur, resulting in clearer and more accurate error messages for users.

@priyanka-TL
Copy link
Collaborator

@coderabbitai review

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 30, 2025

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 30, 2025

Walkthrough

The error handling in several asynchronous methods across the entities, EntityTypes, and userRoleExtension classes was updated. Specifically, the default status code and message for unclassified errors were changed from internal_server_error to bad_request. No other logic or method signatures were modified.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Change Summary
Entities Error Handling
src/databaseQueries/entities.js
Updated default error status and message in catch blocks from internal_server_error to bad_request in multiple methods.
EntityTypes Error Handling
src/databaseQueries/entityTypes.js
Modified error handling in static methods to use bad_request as the fallback status/message instead of internal_server_error.
UserRoleExtension Error Handling
src/databaseQueries/userRoleExtension.js
Changed fallback error status/message from internal_server_error to bad_request in all asynchronous methods.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~7 minutes

Poem

A rabbit hops through code so neat,
Changing errors from five-oh-oh to four-oh-oh,
Making sure responses are sweet,
No more "internal server" woe!
Now "bad request" will greet,
Each bug a little less elite—
Review complete, thump-thump, repeat! 🐇✨

Note

⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!

Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below.

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch Fix-1944

🪧 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.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • 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 explain this code block.
    • @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 explain its main purpose.
    • @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.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this 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

@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: 5

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between faa4a60 and c44a18e.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • src/databaseQueries/entities.js (6 hunks)
  • src/databaseQueries/entityTypes.js (3 hunks)
  • src/databaseQueries/userRoleExtension.js (4 hunks)

Comment on lines +18 to +19
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Systematic misclassification of database errors across all methods.

All six database operation methods have been changed to return bad_request (400) instead of internal_server_error (500) for unclassified errors. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of HTTP status codes:

  • 400 Bad Request: Client sent invalid/malformed data
  • 500 Internal Server Error: Server-side failure (database issues, unexpected errors)

Database operation failures (connection issues, constraint violations, etc.) are server-side problems and should maintain 500 status codes.

Recommendation: Revert these changes and implement proper error classification:

} catch (error) {
	// Handle specific database errors
	if (error.name === 'ValidationError') {
		return reject({
			status: HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
			message: error.message,
			errorObject: error,
		})
	}
	
	// Default to server error for unclassified issues
	return reject({
		status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.status,
		message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.message,
		errorObject: error,
	})
}

Also applies to: 43-44, 67-68, 93-94, 147-148, 207-208

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In src/databaseQueries/entities.js at lines 18-19 and similarly at lines 43-44,
67-68, 93-94, 147-148, and 207-208, the error handling incorrectly returns HTTP
400 Bad Request for all database errors. Update the catch blocks to classify
errors properly by returning HTTP 400 only for validation errors (e.g.,
error.name === 'ValidationError') and default to HTTP 500 Internal Server Error
for all other unclassified database errors. Ensure the reject calls include the
correct status, message, and errorObject accordingly.

Comment on lines +77 to +78
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Reconsider changing database error status from 500 to 400.

Database creation failures are typically server-side issues (connection problems, constraint violations, etc.) rather than client input problems. Using bad_request (400) as the default status may mislead API consumers about the nature of the error.

Consider implementing more specific error handling:

} catch (error) {
-	return reject({
-		status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
-		message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
-		errorObject: error,
-	})
+	return reject({
+		status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.status,
+		message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.message,
+		errorObject: error,
+	})
}

Or implement more granular error classification based on error types.

📝 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
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
} catch (error) {
return reject({
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.message,
errorObject: error,
})
}
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In src/databaseQueries/entityTypes.js at lines 77-78, the default error status
for database creation failures is set to 400 (bad_request), which is misleading
since these are usually server-side errors. Change the default status to 500
(internal_server_error) instead of 400, and consider adding more specific error
handling to classify errors based on their types for more accurate status codes.

Comment on lines +131 to +132
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Database query failures should return 500, not 400.

Similar to the create method, database query failures are typically server-side issues. A 400 status code suggests the client made an invalid request, which is misleading for database operation failures.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In src/databaseQueries/entityTypes.js around lines 131 to 132, the error
handling for database query failures currently returns a 400 status code, which
incorrectly implies a client error. Update the status code to 500 to correctly
indicate a server-side error. Replace HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status with
HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.status and similarly update the message
to HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.message to reflect this change.

Comment on lines +161 to +162
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Update operation failures should return 500, not 400.

Database update failures are server-side issues and should maintain the 500 status code to properly communicate the nature of the error to API consumers.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In src/databaseQueries/entityTypes.js around lines 161 to 162, the error
handling for update operation failures currently returns a 400 status code,
which is incorrect for server-side errors. Change the default status code from
HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status (400) to
HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.status (500) to correctly indicate a
server error when the error status is not provided.

Comment on lines +21 to +22
status: error.status || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.status,
message: error.message || HTTP_STATUS_CODE.bad_request.message,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Database operation errors should use 500 status code, not 400.

All database operation failures in this class have been changed to return bad_request (400) status. This is inappropriate because database failures are typically server-side issues, not client input problems. This change could confuse API consumers about error categorization.

The affected methods (create, findOneAndUpdate, userDocuments, findOneAndDelete) should revert to using internal_server_error status for unclassified database errors.

Also applies to: 47-48, 103-104, 124-125

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In src/databaseQueries/userRoleExtension.js at lines 21-22, 47-48, 103-104, and
124-125, the error handling for database operation failures incorrectly uses the
400 bad_request status code. These should be changed to use the 500
internal_server_error status code instead, as database errors are server-side
issues. Update the error.status and error.message fallback values to
HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.status and
HTTP_STATUS_CODE.internal_server_error.message respectively in all these
locations.

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.

3 participants