Skip to content

Conversation

fit2bot
Copy link
Contributor

@fit2bot fit2bot commented Mar 7, 2025

perf: Translate

@fit2bot fit2bot requested a review from a team March 7, 2025 08:53
},
{
label: this.$t('ExecutionID'),
value: 'execution_id'
}
]
},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The main difference between the provided options is that the 'label' key is not listed in one of them. Additionally, a new option with the label "Status" has been added to one of the options lists. No obvious issues or irregularities are found in these changes. To optimize this code further, it could be useful to include more specific instructions on each item's usage based on its values (e.g., execution IDs versus pending states) for better understanding and maintainability.

}
]
},
{
label: this.$t('Execution'),
label: this.$t('ExecutionID'),
value: 'execution_id'
}
]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There aren't any obvious syntax errors or inefficiencies in these lines of code. However, you might want to consider improving readability if the documentation comments could be used as part of the label keys rather than concatenating them after each value. The structure looks good, excepting slight inconsistency between "label" property with its actual key being executedId which is not defined in the doc (you use Execution). For optimization, if there's an array with duplicate values, it would help maintain performance efficiency and possibly reduce space complexity by removing duplicates at import time.

However, these modifications are minor since these properties do not seem related directly to function execution itself other than they're common labels in the context. It seems fine for now but further review for consistency across all documents may enhance maintenance and understanding clarity!

@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ export default {
},
{
name: 'ignoreFail',
title: this.$t('ignoreFail'),
title: this.$t('IgnoreFail'),
can: this.$hasPerm('accounts.view_changesecretrecord'),
type: 'primary',
callback: ({ row }) => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is no apparent bug in the given code snippet. It appears to be a standard React component that handles conditional rendering based on certain conditions (in this case, whether an account's secret record exists). There are no unusual syntax or logical errors.

However, it would be beneficial if the function callback used here was more detailed; we could consider refactoring its behavior, making it slightly more descriptive:

import { PrimaryButton } from '@shopify/checkout-react-components';

export const IgnoreFailureButton = ({
  row,
}: {
  row: ChangesSecretRecordRow & {
    // The object contains data specific to the secret record being viewed.
    ignoreSuccess?: boolean;
    ...OtherFieldsThatApplyHere
  }
}) => {
  const handleButtonClick = () => {
    console.log("button has been clicked"); 
  };

  return (
    <PrimaryButton onClick={handleButtonClick} >
      {'Ignore Failure'}
    </SecondaryButton>
  );
};

This change ensures clarity of what action will happen when the button is clicked, thereby enhancing accessibility and user experience for end-users. However, these changes are minor and do not significantly impact the overall functionality or performance of the current piece of code.

Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Mar 7, 2025

@feng626 feng626 merged commit 5fe00b4 into pam Mar 7, 2025
5 of 6 checks passed
@feng626 feng626 deleted the pr@pam@translate branch March 7, 2025 08:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants