Enhance FraudFundsTransferRequest with optional fields and validation…#414
Open
rcabrera-py wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Enhance FraudFundsTransferRequest with optional fields and validation…#414rcabrera-py wants to merge 3 commits into
rcabrera-py wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
… logic - Added optional fields: clabe, bank_code, and tipo_pago. - Implemented validation to ensure either clabe or bank_code is provided, and tipo_pago is required when bank_code is used. - Updated tests to cover new validation scenarios and parameterized input for better coverage.
Contributor
WalkthroughFraudFundsTransferRequest now accepts destination via either CLABE or bank_code with tipo_pago. The clabe field is now optional; new optional fields bank_code and tipo_pago were added. An after-model validator requires at least one of clabe or bank_code, and requires tipo_pago when bank_code is provided. A new FraudFundsTransferTipoPago IntEnum was introduced and exported. A BankCode annotated type and validator were added and exported. Tests were expanded with parametrized valid and invalid cases. Package version bumped to 2.1.38.dev2. Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #414 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 16 16
Lines 1490 1509 +19
=========================================
+ Hits 1490 1509 +19
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Harness.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
tests/test_types.py (1)
720-734: ⚡ Quick winAdd invalid cases for blank
bank_codeto lock the new contract.Current invalid coverage misses
bank_code=''/ whitespace-only, which should fail under the “destination required” rule. Adding these cases will prevent regressions once the model validator is tightened.Suggested test additions
`@pytest.mark.parametrize`( 'data, expected_error', [ (dict(user_id='US123'), 'clabe or bank_code required'), + ( + dict(user_id='US123', bank_code=''), + 'clabe or bank_code required', + ), + ( + dict(user_id='US123', bank_code=' '), + 'clabe or bank_code required', + ), ( dict(user_id='US123', bank_code='40012'), 'tipo_pago required when using bank_code', ), ], )🤖 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 `@tests/test_types.py` around lines 720 - 734, Test coverage misses blank/whitespace-only bank_code cases: update the param list in test_fraud_funds_transfer_request_invalid to include entries for dict(user_id='US123', bank_code='') and dict(user_id='US123', bank_code=' ') with expected_error 'clabe or bank_code required' so FraudFundsTransferRequest validation (the model used in test_fraud_funds_transfer_request_invalid) rejects empty/whitespace bank_code values.
🤖 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 `@cuenca_validations/types/requests.py`:
- Around line 330-340: validate_destination currently treats empty or
whitespace-only bank_code as present because it only checks for None; update the
validation to consider bank_code missing when it's None or blank/whitespace by
checking trimmed/string truthiness (e.g., treat bank_code as provided only if
bank_code and bank_code.strip()); use that same presence logic for both the
clabe-or-bank_code requirement and the tipo_pago dependency so that an empty
bank_code does not bypass the "clabe or bank_code required" rule and does not
trigger the tipo_pago-required branch incorrectly.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@tests/test_types.py`:
- Around line 720-734: Test coverage misses blank/whitespace-only bank_code
cases: update the param list in test_fraud_funds_transfer_request_invalid to
include entries for dict(user_id='US123', bank_code='') and
dict(user_id='US123', bank_code=' ') with expected_error 'clabe or bank_code
required' so FraudFundsTransferRequest validation (the model used in
test_fraud_funds_transfer_request_invalid) rejects empty/whitespace bank_code
values.
🪄 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 497b4363-fe43-4a81-b457-71dce0dbb1d0
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
cuenca_validations/types/requests.pycuenca_validations/version.pytests/test_types.py
- Bumped version to 2.1.38.dev1. - Introduced FraudFundsTransferTipoPago enum for payment types. - Updated FraudFundsTransferRequest to use FraudFundsTransferTipoPago for tipo_pago field. - Modified tests to validate new tipo_pago values.
- Introduced BankCode as a validated type for bank codes. - Implemented validation logic to ensure bank codes are valid. - Updated FraudFundsTransferRequest to use BankCode for the bank_code field. - Enhanced tests to cover invalid bank code scenarios.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 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 `@cuenca_validations/types/general.py`:
- Line 5: The current import of BANK_NAMES and membership check in
validate_bank_code is using a non-public symbol; replace the usage with
clabe.get_bank_name(bank_code) instead: import get_bank_name (or call
clabe.get_bank_name) and call it inside validate_bank_code, treat any
falsy/exception result as invalid and raise the same validation error message
("Not a valid bank code"); ensure you remove the BANK_NAMES import and validate
that bank_code is the expected 3-digit code before calling get_bank_name to
match clabe's API.
🪄 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: a9821e9f-dcb7-40b7-9bf5-e2fd86757deb
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
cuenca_validations/types/__init__.pycuenca_validations/types/general.pycuenca_validations/types/requests.pycuenca_validations/version.pytests/test_types.py
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- cuenca_validations/version.py
- cuenca_validations/types/requests.py
- tests/test_types.py
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
… logic
Summary by CodeRabbit