feat(rating): add rating component #3808
Conversation
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 0e9f48a The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump. This PR includes changesets to release 19 packages
Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are. Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR |
|
Note Reviews pausedUse the following commands to manage reviews:
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
|
Someone is attempting to deploy a commit to the NextUI Inc Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
from
4237cbe to
27bdafc
Compare
macci001
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 29
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (55)
packages/components/rating/tsup.config.ts (1)
1-8: LGTM! Configuration looks good overall.The tsup configuration is well-structured and appropriate for a modern JavaScript/TypeScript project. It correctly sets up the build process for both CommonJS and ES Module formats, targets ES2019, and includes the necessary "use client" directive for React Server Components compatibility.
Consider making the configuration more flexible by using environment variables or a configuration file. This would allow for easier customization across different environments. For example:
import {defineConfig} from "tsup"; export default defineConfig({ clean: true, - target: "es2019", + target: process.env.TSUP_TARGET || "es2019", format: ["cjs", "esm"], banner: {js: '"use client";'}, });This change would allow you to override the target via an environment variable if needed, while keeping the default as ES2019.
packages/components/rating/src/index.ts (2)
4-5: LGTM: Type export is well-structured.The export of
RatingPropstype is correctly implemented and follows good TypeScript practices. It allows for easy type importing by consumers of this module.For consistency with the other export sections, consider adding a plural form to the comment:
-// export types +// export type(s) export type {RatingProps} from "./rating";
10-12: LGTM: Component exports are clear and flexible.The exports for
RatingandRatingSegmentcomponents are well-implemented, allowing for easy and flexible importing by consumers of this module.For a more concise export statement, you could combine the exports into a single line:
// export component -export {Rating}; -export {RatingSegment}; +export {Rating, RatingSegment};This change maintains the same functionality while reducing the number of lines in the file.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/required.ts (1)
1-9: LGTM! Consider adding a label for better accessibility.The
Appcomponent correctly demonstrates the usage of theRatingcomponent with the required configuration. This aligns well with the PR objectives.Consider adding a label to the
Ratingcomponent for better accessibility. For example:<div className="flex flex-col"> + <label htmlFor="required-rating">Required Rating</label> - <Rating isRequired length={5} /> + <Rating id="required-rating" isRequired length={5} /> </div>apps/docs/content/components/rating/disabled.ts (1)
10-16: Approved structure with a suggestion for improved clarity.The current structure using a
reactobject and spreading it in the default export is good for extensibility. To improve clarity, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this structure:// Object containing React component examples for documentation const react = { "/App.jsx": App, }; export default { ...react, };This addition would help other developers understand the purpose of this file structure more quickly.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/usage.ts (1)
1-8: LGTM! Consider enhancing the example.The
Appcomponent demonstrates the basic usage of theRatingcomponent, which aligns well with the PR objectives. The responsive layout is a good practice for documentation.To make the example more comprehensive, consider adding a state to demonstrate controlled usage:
const App = `import {Rating} from "@nextui-org/react"; +import {useState} from "react"; export default function App() { + const [value, setValue] = useState(2.5); return ( <div className="flex w-full flex-wrap md:flex-nowrap gap-4"> - <Rating length={5} precision={0.5} /> + <Rating + length={5} + precision={0.5} + value={value} + onChange={setValue} + /> </div> ); }`;apps/docs/content/components/rating/fillColor.ts (2)
1-8: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The implementation of the
Appcomponent as a string effectively demonstrates the usage of theRatingcomponent with a custom fill color, which aligns with the PR objectives.Consider adding a comment at the beginning of the file to explain why the component is defined as a string, as this is not a typical React component definition. This would improve clarity for other developers who might work with this file in the future.
+// This component is defined as a string for documentation/example purposes const App = `import {Rating} from "@nextui-org/react"; export default function App() { return ( <div className="flex w-full flex-wrap md:flex-nowrap gap-4"> <Rating length={5} fillColor="green" /> </div> ); }`;
10-12: LGTM! Consider using consistent file extensions.The
reactobject effectively organizes the example component for documentation or example viewing purposes.For consistency with the TypeScript codebase, consider using a
.tsxextension instead of.jsx:const react = { - "/App.jsx": App, + "/App.tsx": App, };This change would better reflect that the project is using TypeScript.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/errorMessage.ts (1)
11-13: Use .tsx extension for consistencyThe
reactobject maps a path with a ".jsx" extension to theAppcomponent. However, since this file is using TypeScript (as indicated by the .ts extension), it would be more consistent to use a ".tsx" extension for the React component file.Consider changing the path to use the ".tsx" extension:
const react = { "/App.tsx": App, };This change will maintain consistency with the TypeScript environment and accurately reflect the nature of the component file.
packages/components/rating/src/rating-context.tsx (2)
1-9: LGTM! Consider adding a brief documentation comment.The implementation of the Rating context is well-structured and follows best practices. It correctly uses the custom
createContextutility, provides a named context for debugging, and exports both the provider and a custom hook for easy consumption.Consider adding a brief JSDoc comment at the top of the file to explain the purpose of this context and how it should be used. This can help other developers understand the component's architecture at a glance.
/** * Provides a context for the Rating component. * This context should be used within a <Rating /> component wrapper. */
6-9: Consider enhancing the error message for clarity.The error message is helpful, but it could be more specific about where to find the
<Rating />component.Consider updating the error message to provide more context:
errorMessage: - "useRatingContext: `context` is undefined. Seems like you forgot to wrap all rating components within `<Rating />`", + "useRatingContext: `context` is undefined. Seems like you forgot to wrap all rating components within `<Rating />` from '@nextui-org/rating'",This change helps developers quickly identify which
<Rating />component to use and where to import it from.apps/docs/content/components/rating/description.ts (1)
1-8: LGTM! Consider adding more examples.The
Appcomponent effectively demonstrates the basic usage of the newRatingcomponent, including itslengthanddescriptionprops. The responsive layout is a good practice for documentation examples.Consider adding more examples within this component to showcase other features of the
Ratingcomponent, such as custom icons or different sizes, as mentioned in the PR objectives.apps/docs/content/components/rating/controlled.ts (2)
1-10: LGTM! Consider adding aria-label for accessibility.The implementation of the controlled Rating component is well-structured and aligns with the PR objectives. It demonstrates the use of the Rating component with controlled behavior, state management, and the ability to select ratings in half-point increments.
Consider adding an
aria-labelto the Rating component to improve accessibility. For example:- <Rating length={5} precision={0.5} onValueChange={setValue} /> + <Rating length={5} precision={0.5} onValueChange={setValue} aria-label="Rate your experience" />This will provide more context for screen reader users.
12-14: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The structure of the
reactobject is appropriate for organizing example code or documentation.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this object structure. For example:
+// Object containing example components keyed by their file paths const react = { "/App.jsx": App, };This will help other developers understand the intention behind this structure more quickly.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/heart.tsx (2)
3-9: Component declaration looks good, with a minor suggestion.The
HeartIconcomponent is correctly declared as a functional component with proper naming convention. The use of object rest spread for props is a good practice for flexibility.Consider adding an explicit return type annotation for better type safety:
- export const HeartIcon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps) => { + export const HeartIcon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps): JSX.Element => {
5-7: SVG implementation is correct, with accessibility suggestions.The SVG implementation for the heart icon is well-structured and follows React SVG best practices. The use of prop spreading on the SVG element allows for flexible customization.
Consider enhancing accessibility by adding appropriate ARIA attributes:
- <svg viewBox="0 0 50 50" {...props}> + <svg viewBox="0 0 50 50" role="img" aria-label="Heart" {...props}>This change will improve the experience for users relying on screen readers or other assistive technologies.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/index.ts (2)
1-10: LGTM! Consider using named exports for better refactoring support.The imports are well-organized and follow a consistent naming convention, which is great for maintainability. Each aspect of the Rating component is separated into its own file, promoting a clear separation of concerns.
Consider using named exports instead of default exports in the imported files. This can make refactoring easier in the future and provides better autocompletion support in IDEs. For example:
import {usage} from "./usage"; import {disabled} from "./disabled"; // ... and so onThis change would require updating the export statements in each of the imported files as well.
12-23: LGTM! Consider adding a TypeScript interface for improved type safety.The
ratingContentobject effectively aggregates all the Rating component related modules, providing a clean and centralized export. This approach allows for a single import when using the Rating component content elsewhere in the application.To enhance type safety and improve developer experience, consider adding a TypeScript interface for the
ratingContentobject. This will provide better autocompletion and type checking. Here's an example:interface RatingContent { usage: typeof import("./usage").default; disabled: typeof import("./disabled").default; required: typeof import("./required").default; sizes: typeof import("./sizes").default; description: typeof import("./description").default; controlled: typeof import("./controlled").default; customIcon: typeof import("./customIcon").default; fillColor: typeof import("./fillColor").default; customSegment: typeof import("./customSegment").default; errorMessage: typeof import("./errorMessage").default; } export const ratingContent: RatingContent = { // ... existing object properties };This change will make the type of
ratingContentexplicit and catch any potential mismatches between the imports and the object properties.apps/docs/content/components/rating/sizes.ts (2)
9-9: LGTM! Consider showcasing more Rating component features.The
Ratingcomponent is correctly implemented with thesizeprop, effectively demonstrating different sizes as per the PR objectives. Thelengthprop set to 5 is a good default choice.To further enhance this example, consider showcasing additional features of the
Ratingcomponent, such as:
- Custom icons
- Controlled input
- Precision ratings
This could provide a more comprehensive demonstration of the component's capabilities.
16-22: Export structure is functional but could be simplified.The current export structure works but seems more complex than necessary. It creates an intermediate
reactobject before spreading it into the final export.Consider simplifying the export to:
export default { "/App.jsx": App, };This achieves the same result with a more straightforward structure, unless there's a specific reason for the current approach in the context of your documentation system.
packages/components/rating/README.md (2)
1-5: Enhance the component description and fix grammar.The description provides a basic overview, but it could be more informative. Consider expanding it to include key features or use cases of the Rating Component.
Also, there's a minor grammar issue in the description.
Apply this change to improve clarity and grammar:
-Rating Component allows the user to select a value with the help of icons. +The Rating Component allows users to select a value using icons. It supports features such as custom icons, precision ratings, and various sizes.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~2-~2: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: # @nextui-org/rating Rating Component allows the user to select a v...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
15-19: Contribution section is informative.Great job encouraging contributions and providing a link to the guidelines.
Consider this minor stylistic improvement:
-Yes please! See the +Yes, please! See the🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[typographical] ~17-~17: Usually, a comma is necessary before ‘Yes’ at the end of a sentence. Did you mean “, please”?
Context: ...tui-org/rating ``` ## Contribution Yes please! See the [contributing guidelines](http...(COMMA_BEFORE_PLEASE)
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/music.tsx (2)
3-3: LGTM: Well-structured component declaration with a minor suggestion.The
MusicIconcomponent is well-named and properly exported. The use of prop spreading allows for flexible customization.Consider explicitly typing the props for better clarity:
export const MusicIcon = (props: IconSvgProps) => {This makes it clearer that the component accepts all properties defined in
IconSvgProps.
5-10: LGTM: Well-implemented SVG with a suggestion for documentation.The SVG implementation is correct and efficient, using a single path for the music icon. The use of prop spreading on the SVG element allows for flexible customization.
Consider adding a brief comment explaining the shape represented by the complex path data. This can help other developers understand the icon's structure without needing to visualize the SVG path. For example:
<svg viewBox="0 0 54.888 54.888" {...props}> <g> {/* Path represents a music note with a circular base */} <path d="M52.104,0.249c-0.216-0.189-0.501-0.275-0.789-0.241l-31,4.011c-0.499,0.065-0.872,0.489-0.872,0.992 v6.017v4.212v26.035C17.706,39.285,14.997,38,11.944,38c-5.247,0-9.5,3.781-9.5,8.444s4.253,8.444,9.5,8.444s9.5-3.781,9.5-8.444 c0-0.332-0.027-0.658-0.069-0.981c0.04-0.108,0.069-0.221,0.069-0.343V16.118l29-3.753v18.909C48.706,29.285,45.997,28,42.944,28 c-5.247,0-9.5,3.781-9.5,8.444s4.253,8.444,9.5,8.444s9.5-3.781,9.5-8.444c0-0.092-0.012-0.181-0.015-0.272 c0.002-0.027,0.015-0.05,0.015-0.077V11.227V7.016V1C52.444,0.712,52.320,0.438,52.104,0.249z" /> </g> </svg>packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/straight-emojicon.tsx (3)
5-10: Consider adjusting the SVG viewBox.The SVG element is well-structured with appropriate xmlns attributes and prop spreading. However, the viewBox value "-5.28 -5.28 26.56 26.56" seems unusual. Consider adjusting it to a more standard range, such as "0 0 16 16", unless there's a specific reason for the current values.
- viewBox="-5.28 -5.28 26.56 26.56" + viewBox="0 0 16 16"
11-15: Remove redundant clipRule attribute.The path element correctly defines the straight-faced emoji shape. However, the
clipRuleattribute is redundant when used alongsidefillRulewith the same value.Remove the redundant
clipRuleattribute:- clipRule="evenodd" d="M8 16C12.4183 16 16 12.4183 16 8C16 3.58172 12.4183 0 8 0C3.58172 0 0 3.58172 0 8C0 12.4183 3.58172 16 8 16ZM5.5 7C6.32843 7 7 6.32843 7 5.5C7 4.67157 6.32843 4 5.5 4C4.67157 4 4 4.67157 4 5.5C4 6.32843 4.67157 7 5.5 7ZM12 5.5C12 6.32843 11.3284 7 10.5 7C9.67157 7 9 6.32843 9 5.5C9 4.67157 9.67157 4 10.5 4C11.3284 4 12 4.67157 12 5.5ZM4 9V11H12V9H4Z" fillRule="evenodd"
1-18: LGTM: Well-implemented icon component with a minor suggestion.The
StraightEmojiconcomponent is well-structured, follows best practices, and should function as expected. It provides flexibility through prop spreading and has a clean, understandable implementation.To enhance accessibility, consider adding an
aria-labelprop with a default value describing the icon.Add an
aria-labelprop with a default value:-export const StraightEmojicon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps) => { +export const StraightEmojicon = ({ + 'aria-label': ariaLabel = 'Straight face emoji', + ...props +}: IconSvgProps & { 'aria-label'?: string }) => { return ( <svg viewBox="-5.28 -5.28 26.56 26.56" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlnsXlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" + aria-label={ariaLabel} {...props} > // ... (rest of the SVG content) </svg> ); };packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/angry-emojicon.tsx (2)
3-9: LGTM: Component declaration is well-structured.The
AngryEmojiconcomponent is correctly implemented as a functional component. The use of prop spreading ({...props}) on the SVG element allows for flexible customization.Consider explicitly typing the props for better clarity:
- export const AngryEmojicon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps) => { + export const AngryEmojicon = (props: IconSvgProps) => {This change makes it clearer that the component accepts all properties defined in
IconSvgProps.
5-15: SVG structure is correct, with a suggestion for consistency.The SVG element and its path are well-structured. The use of
clipRuleandfillRulewith "evenodd" is appropriate for the complex shape of the emoji.For consistency with other icon components, consider using a more standard viewBox:
- viewBox="-5.28 -5.28 26.56 26.56" + viewBox="0 0 16 16"This change may require adjusting the path data, but it would align better with common icon sizing conventions.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/happy-emojicon.tsx (2)
5-10: LGTM: SVG structure is correct. Consider documenting the viewBox choice.The SVG element is well-structured with appropriate namespace attributes. The spreading of props (
{...props}) on the SVG element allows for flexible customization.Consider adding a comment explaining the choice of viewBox values (-5.28 -5.28 26.56 26.56), as they seem to add padding around the icon. This would help other developers understand the reasoning behind these specific values.
Also applies to: 16-17
11-15: LGTM: SVG path correctly defines the happy emoji. Consider path optimization.The path element correctly uses "evenodd" for both clipRule and fillRule, which is appropriate for this icon type. The path definition appears to create a circular face with eyes and a smile, matching the component's purpose.
Consider running the SVG through an optimization tool like SVGO to potentially reduce the path complexity without losing visual fidelity. This could lead to a slightly smaller file size and potentially improved rendering performance.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (1)
3-14: LGTM: Component implementation is clean and follows best practices.The
StarIconcomponent is well-implemented as a functional React component. It correctly uses the spread operator to pass additional props to the SVG element, allowing for flexibility.Consider adding explicit prop types for better documentation:
-export const StarIcon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps) => { +export const StarIcon = ({ size, color, ...props }: IconSvgProps) => {This change would make it clearer what specific props the component expects, improving its API documentation.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/sad-emojicon.tsx (2)
5-10: Review the viewBox attribute and consider centering it.The SVG element and its attributes are well-implemented, with correct XML namespaces and proper prop spreading for customization. However, the viewBox attribute ("-11.3 -11.3 56.85 56.85") seems unusual:
- It's not centered at 0,0, which is typically preferred for easier positioning and scaling.
- It uses decimal values, which might lead to sub-pixel rendering issues in some browsers.
Consider adjusting the viewBox to a more standard format, such as "0 0 34 34" or "0 0 100 100", and adjust the path data accordingly. This would make the icon more consistent with common SVG practices and potentially improve rendering across different platforms.
11-11: LGTM: Path element effectively defines the sad emoji shape.The path data correctly defines a sad emoji face using a single, efficient path element. The use of absolute commands in the path data enhances readability and maintainability.
Minor optimization suggestion: Consider using shorthand notation for some path commands to slightly reduce the file size. For example, "L" (lineto) can often be omitted when it follows a "M" (moveto) command.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/like.tsx (2)
5-12: SVG implementation looks good, with room for minor optimization.The SVG is well-structured with a correct viewBox and grouped paths for the complex "like" icon shape. This implementation should render the icon correctly across different sizes.
Consider using relative commands in the path data for better maintainability. For example, the first path could start with:
-<path d="M53.5,26c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h-9h-3h-3.602l0.988-4.619c0.754-3.524,0.552-7.819,0.104-10.836 C34.542,3.528,31.84,0,29.013,0h-0.239C26.364,0,25.5,2.659,25.5,6c0,16.25-8,16-8,16h-2v32h15h10h4c2.209,0,4-1.791,4-4 c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h3c2.209,0,4-1.791,4-4c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h3c2.209,0,4-1.791,4-4c0-2.493-1.613-3.442-4-3.796 C49.337,30.031,47.224,30,46.5,30h3C51.709,30,53.5,28.209,53.5,26z" /> +<path d="M53.5 26c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h-15.602l0.988-4.619c0.754-3.524 0.552-7.819 0.104-10.836C34.542 3.528 31.84 0 29.013 0h-0.239C26.364 0 25.5 2.659 25.5 6c0 16.25-8 16-8 16h-2v32h29c2.209 0 4-1.791 4-4 0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h3c2.209 0 4-1.791 4-4 0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h3c2.209 0 4-1.791 4-4 0-2.493-1.613-3.442-4-3.796C49.337 30.031 47.224 30 46.5 30h3c2.209 0 4-1.791 4-4z" />This change makes the path data more readable and easier to modify in the future.
3-14: Component structure is solid, with potential for enhanced reusability.The LikeIcon component is well-structured, following React best practices and the single responsibility principle. Spreading props onto the SVG element allows for easy customization.
To enhance reusability, consider extracting the SVG paths into a separate constant:
const LIKE_ICON_PATHS = [ "M53.5,26c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h-9h-3h-3.602l0.988-4.619c0.754-3.524,0.552-7.819,0.104-10.836 C34.542,3.528,31.84,0,29.013,0h-0.239C26.364,0,25.5,2.659,25.5,6c0,16.25-8,16-8,16h-2v32h15h10h4c2.209,0,4-1.791,4-4 c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h3c2.209,0,4-1.791,4-4c0-2.209-1.791-4-4-4h3c2.209,0,4-1.791,4-4c0-2.493-1.613-3.442-4-3.796 C49.337,30.031,47.224,30,46.5,30h3C51.709,30,53.5,28.209,53.5,26z", "M52.12,29H39.5c-0.552,0-1,0.447-1,1s0.448,1,1,1h13.456c-0.657-0.403-1.488-0.653-2.456-0.796 C49.337,30.031,47.224,30,46.5,30h3C50.508,30,51.417,29.615,52.12,29z", "M53.12,37H39.5c-0.552,0-1,0.447-1,1s0.448,1,1,1h10.621c-0.703-0.615-1.613-1-2.621-1h3 C51.508,38,52.417,37.615,53.12,37z", "M50.12,45H37.5c-0.552,0-1,0.447-1,1s0.448,1,1,1h9.621c-0.703-0.615-1.613-1-2.621-1h3 C48.508,46,49.417,45.615,50.12,45z" ]; export const LikeIcon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps) => ( <svg viewBox="0 0 56 56" {...props}> <g> {LIKE_ICON_PATHS.map((d, i) => ( <path key={i} d={d} /> ))} </g> </svg> );This approach separates the icon's path data from its rendering logic, making it easier to maintain and potentially reuse the paths in other contexts.
packages/components/rating/src/rating-icon.tsx (1)
21-37: LGTM: SVG rendering with dynamic gradient looks goodThe SVG rendering with a dynamic linear gradient is well-implemented, allowing for smooth color transitions and customization. The handling of RTL layouts is a nice touch.
Consider memoizing the SVG element to optimize performance, especially if this component is rendered multiple times:
import React from 'react'; export const RatingIcon = React.memo(({offset, icon, fillColor}: RatingIconProps) => { // ... component implementation });This optimization can help reduce unnecessary re-renders when the props haven't changed.
packages/core/theme/src/components/rating.ts (1)
17-45: Variants look great, minor suggestion for improvementThe variants provide excellent customization options for the Rating component. The size, isDisabled, and disableAnimation variants are well-defined and use appropriate Tailwind classes.
Consider adding a transition to the
falsecase of thedisableAnimationvariant to ensure a smooth animation when transitioning back to the non-hovered state. Here's a suggested change:disableAnimation: { true: {}, false: { - iconSegment: "data-[hovered=true]:scale-110 transition-transform duration-50 ease-linear", + iconSegment: "transition-transform duration-50 ease-linear data-[hovered=true]:scale-110", }, },This change ensures the transition applies to both the hovered and non-hovered states.
packages/components/rating/package.json (2)
1-11: Consider enhancing the package description and review the version number.The basic metadata looks good, but there are two points to consider:
The description "Icon selection based rating component" could be more detailed. Consider expanding it to better describe the component's features and use cases.
The initial version is set to 2.0.0, which is unusual for a new component. Is this intentional, perhaps to align with the main project's version? If not, consider starting with 1.0.0.
Here's a suggestion for an enhanced description:
- "description": "Icon selection based rating component", + "description": "Customizable rating component with icon selection, precision control, and accessibility features for NextUI",
42-54: Dependencies are well-structured, consider a dependency update strategy.The dependencies section is well-organized:
- Workspace dependencies for NextUI internal packages are correctly used.
- React Aria and React Stately libraries are included, which is excellent for accessibility and state management.
However, the specific versions for external dependencies (e.g., @react-aria/utils: 3.24.1) may require regular updates.
Consider implementing a dependency update strategy:
- Use a tool like Dependabot or Renovate to automate dependency updates.
- Regularly review and update these dependencies to ensure you're using the latest features and security patches.
- Consider using caret (^) version ranges for minor updates while keeping major versions fixed to balance stability and updates.
packages/components/rating/__tests__/rating.test.tsx (3)
8-39: LGTM: Comprehensive test suite for Rating component's general functionality.The test suite covers essential aspects of the Rating component, including:
- Correct rendering
- Ref forwarding
- Description rendering
- Icon count based on length prop
These tests ensure the basic functionality of the component is working as expected.
Consider adding a test for user interaction, such as clicking on a star to change the rating. This would ensure the component responds correctly to user input.
Example:
it("should update value when a star is clicked", async () => { const {getByTestId} = render(<Rating data-testid="rating" length={5} />); const rating = getByTestId("rating"); const thirdStar = rating.querySelectorAll("[data-slot=icon]")[2]; await userEvent.click(thirdStar); expect(rating).toHaveValue("3"); });
41-106: LGTM: Thorough test suite for Rating component integration with React Hook Form.The test suite effectively covers the Rating component's integration with React Hook Form, including:
- Correct initialization with default values
- Form submission prevention when required fields are empty
- Successful form submission when all required fields are filled
The use of
userEventfor simulating user interactions is appropriate and aligns with best practices.Consider adding a test to verify that changing the rating value updates the form state correctly. This would ensure that the component is properly controlled by React Hook Form.
Example:
it("should update form state when rating changes", async () => { const user = userEvent.setup(); const fourthStar = rating2.querySelectorAll("[data-slot=icon]")[3]; await user.click(fourthStar); expect(rating2).toHaveValue("4"); // You might need to adjust how you access form values based on your setup expect(result.current.getValues().withoutDefaultValue).toBe("4"); });
1-106: Great job on the comprehensive test coverage for the Rating component!The test file provides excellent coverage for both standalone functionality and integration with React Hook Form. The tests are well-structured, focused, and cover essential aspects of the component's behavior.
To further enhance the test suite, consider adding tests for edge cases and accessibility. For example:
- Test with extreme values (e.g., very large or negative
lengthprop).- Verify keyboard navigation and ARIA attributes for accessibility.
- Test with different icon types or custom icons if supported by the component.
These additional tests would help ensure the component's robustness and inclusivity.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/customSegment.ts (1)
88-98: Consider restructuring for better separation of concernsThe current file structure, while possibly serving a specific purpose (e.g., for a documentation system), is not ideal for typical React development. Consider the following improvements:
- Separate each component into its own file for better modularity and easier maintenance.
- Use a more standard export pattern. Instead of exporting an object with file paths as keys, consider using named exports for each component.
- If this structure is required for a specific documentation or example system, consider adding a comment explaining its purpose to prevent confusion for developers who might come across this file.
Example restructure:
// IconComponents.ts export const AngryEmojicon = ({...props}) => { /* ... */ }; export const SadEmojicon = ({...props}) => { /* ... */ }; export const StraightEmojicon = ({...props}) => { /* ... */ }; export const HappyEmojicon = ({...props}) => { /* ... */ }; // App.tsx import {Rating} from "@nextui-org/react"; import {AngryEmojicon, SadEmojicon, StraightEmojicon, HappyEmojicon} from "./IconComponents"; export const App = () => { /* ... */ }; // If needed for a specific system: // customSegment.ts import {App} from "./App"; import {AngryEmojicon, SadEmojicon, StraightEmojicon, HappyEmojicon} from "./IconComponents"; export default { "/App.jsx": App, "/AngryEmojicon.jsx": AngryEmojicon, // ... other exports };This structure would improve code organization, maintainability, and adherence to React best practices.
packages/components/rating/stories/rating.stories.tsx (1)
43-154: LGTM: Comprehensive set of templates demonstrating various features.The template functions effectively showcase different aspects of the Rating component, including basic usage, form integration, controlled usage, precision settings, and customization options. This provides a robust framework for testing and visualizing the component's capabilities.
Minor suggestion for improvement:
In the
WithReactHookFormTemplate, consider adding a type annotation for thedataparameter in theonSubmitfunction:- const onSubmit = (data: any) => { + const onSubmit = (data: { rating: number }) => {This would provide better type safety and documentation for the form submission data.
apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx (2)
39-94: LGTM: Comprehensive usage examples with a suggestionThe usage examples section provides a wide range of use cases and customization options for the Rating component. The examples are well-structured and cover both basic and advanced usage.
Consider adding an example demonstrating how to use the Rating component within a form, including form submission and validation. This would provide users with a practical use case scenario.
138-173: LGTM: Comprehensive API documentation with a minor suggestionThe API section provides detailed and well-structured documentation for the Rating component's props and events. This will be very helpful for developers implementing the component.
There's a minor inconsistency in the description of the 'fillColor' prop. Consider updating the description to match the style of other props:
-| fillColor | `string` | The color which needs to be filled in the displayed icon. | `gold` | +| fillColor | `string` | The color to be filled in the displayed icon. | `gold` |This change makes the description more concise and consistent with the style of other prop descriptions.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~149-~149: You have already used this phrasing in nearby sentences. Consider replacing it to add variety to your writing.
Context: ... | The strokeColor which needs to be used in the displayed icon. ...(REP_NEED_TO_VB)
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/icons.tsx (1)
364-372: LGTM! Consider updating IconProps interface.The addition of the
clipproperty to thepathelements in theEyecomponent is a good improvement, allowing for more flexible rendering options. The implementation is consistent and maintains backwards compatibility.Consider updating the
IconPropsinterface to include theclipproperty for better type safety and documentation. You can add it like this:interface IconProps extends IconSvgProps { fill?: string; filled?: boolean; size?: string | number; height?: string | number; width?: string | number; label?: string; clip?: string; // Add this line }packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (4)
35-35: Simplify null check foriconRefSince
iconRefis always defined when usinguseRef, the checkif (!iconRef || !iconRef.current)can be simplified toif (!iconRef.current).Suggested change:
- if (!iconRef || !iconRef.current) return; + if (!iconRef.current) return;
82-82: Simplifyrefassignment by removing unnecessarymergeRefsSince only
iconRefis being passed tomergeRefs, you can directly assigniconReftoreffor simplicity.Suggested change:
- ref={mergeRefs(iconRef)} + ref={iconRef}
90-96: Enhance accessibility by providing appropriate ARIA labelsThe
inputelement of typeradiolacks accessible labels, which might cause issues for screen readers and assistive technologies. Consider adding anaria-labelor associating it with alabelelement to improve accessibility.Example:
<input className="absolute top-0 inset-0 opacity-0 cursor-pointer" name={name} type="radio" + aria-label={`Rating ${index + 1}`} onBlur={onBlur} onChange={onChange} />
91-91: SimplifyclassNameby removing unnecessary template literalSince the
classNamestring does not contain any dynamic expressions, the template literal can be replaced with a regular string.Suggested change:
- className={`absolute top-0 inset-0 opacity-0 cursor-pointer`} + className="absolute top-0 inset-0 opacity-0 cursor-pointer"packages/components/rating/src/use-rating.ts (3)
65-65: Consider providing a default value forlengthto enhance usability.In line 65,
lengthis required but could have a sensible default, improving the component's ease of use.Set a default value for
length, such as5:- length: number; + length = 5;
254-255: Dependency array includesoriginalPropsinstead of specific props.In lines 254-255, using
originalPropsin the dependency array can cause unnecessary re-renders.Specify the exact properties needed from
originalProps:- [domRef, ratingValue, slots, originalProps, originalProps.value], + [domRef, ratingValue, slots, props.value, props.defaultValue],
20-23: Add JSDoc comments toRatingValueTypefor better clarity.In lines 20-23, providing documentation helps with code maintenance and usability.
Include comments to describe the purpose of each property:
export type RatingValueType = { + /** + * The value currently hovered by the user. + */ hoveredValue: number; + /** + * The value selected by the user. + */ selectedValue: number; };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (42)
- apps/docs/config/routes.json (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/controlled.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/customIcon.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/customSegment.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/description.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/disabled.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/errorMessage.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/fillColor.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/index.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/required.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/sizes.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/components/rating/usage.ts (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx (1 hunks)
- apps/docs/public/sitemap-0.xml (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/README.md (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/tests/rating.test.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/package.json (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-context.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-icon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/use-rating.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/stories/rating.stories.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/tsconfig.json (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/tsup.config.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/core/react/package.json (1 hunks)
- packages/core/react/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/core/theme/src/components/index.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/core/theme/src/components/rating.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/angry-emojicon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/eye.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/happy-emojicon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/heart.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/icons.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/index.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/like.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/music.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/sad-emojicon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/straight-emojicon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/sun.tsx (0 hunks)
💤 Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (1)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/sun.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx
[style] ~149-~149: You have already used this phrasing in nearby sentences. Consider replacing it to add variety to your writing.
Context: ... | The strokeColor which needs to be used in the displayed icon. ...(REP_NEED_TO_VB)
packages/components/rating/README.md
[uncategorized] ~2-~2: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: # @nextui-org/rating Rating Component allows the user to select a v...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
[typographical] ~17-~17: Usually, a comma is necessary before ‘Yes’ at the end of a sentence. Did you mean “, please”?
Context: ...tui-org/rating ``` ## Contribution Yes please! See the [contributing guidelines](http...(COMMA_BEFORE_PLEASE)
🪛 Biome
packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx
[error] 74-74: The assignment should not be in an expression.
The use of assignments in expressions is confusing.
Expressions are often considered as side-effect free.(lint/suspicious/noAssignInExpressions)
🔇 Additional comments (65)
packages/components/rating/tsconfig.json (3)
1-2: LGTM: Proper extension of base configuration.Extending the root
tsconfig.jsonensures consistency with the project's overall TypeScript configuration.
9-10: LGTM: Appropriate files included for compilation.The
includearray correctly specifies the "src" directory and "index.ts" file, which should cover all necessary files for the Rating component.
3-8: Compiler options look good, but verify the necessity of the paths mapping.The
baseUrlsetting is correct for resolving relative imports. Thepathsmapping for "tailwind-variants" seems appropriate, but it's worth verifying if this explicit mapping is necessary.To check if the "tailwind-variants" package is used in the Rating component, run:
If there are no results, consider removing the
pathsmapping to simplify the configuration.✅ Verification successful
Remove unnecessary paths mapping for "tailwind-variants".
The
pathsmapping for "tailwind-variants" intsconfig.jsonis not used in the Rating component and can be safely removed to simplify the configuration.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of tailwind-variants in the Rating component # Test: Search for imports of tailwind-variants in the Rating component files rg --type typescript 'from [\'"]tailwind-variants[\'"]' packages/components/ratingLength of output: 93
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of tailwind-variants in the Rating component # Corrected Test: Search for imports of tailwind-variants in the Rating component files rg --type typescript "from ['\"]tailwind-variants['\"]" packages/components/ratingLength of output: 123
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of tailwind-variants in the Rating component # Corrected Test: Search for imports of tailwind-variants in the Rating component files rg --type ts --type tsx "from ['\"]tailwind-variants['\"]" packages/components/ratingLength of output: 119
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usage of tailwind-variants in the Rating component # Corrected Test: Search for imports of tailwind-variants in the Rating component files rg "from ['\"]tailwind-variants['\"]" packages/components/rating -g "*.ts" -g "*.tsx"Length of output: 91
packages/components/rating/src/index.ts (3)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are clear and follow best practices.The imports for
RatingandRatingSegmentcomponents are well-structured and follow the convention of importing from local files with matching names.
7-8: LGTM: Hook export is correctly implemented.The export of the
useRatinghook is well-structured and follows React best practices. This allows for flexible usage of the hook, either in conjunction with the Rating component or independently.
1-12: Great job on implementing the Rating component index!This index file is well-structured and provides a clean, organized way to export all the necessary components, types, and hooks for the Rating functionality. It follows best practices for TypeScript and React module exports, which will make it easy for consumers to use the Rating component and its related utilities.
The separation of exports into types, hooks, and components enhances the module's flexibility and supports tree-shaking in consuming applications. Overall, this is a solid implementation that sets a good foundation for the Rating component in the NextUI library.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/required.ts (2)
11-13: LGTM! Object structure is appropriate for documentation purposes.The
reactobject is well-structured for use in a documentation system or code playground, with the component accessible via a simulated file path.
15-17: LGTM! Export structure allows for future expansion.The default export using the spread operator is a good practice. It allows for easy addition of more examples in the future while maintaining a clean export structure.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/disabled.ts (1)
1-16: Implementation aligns well with PR objectives.This file successfully demonstrates the disabled state of the new Rating component, which is an important feature mentioned in the PR objectives. The implementation showcases:
- Proper import and usage of the Rating component.
- Setting a specific length (5) for the rating scale.
- Applying the disabled state.
- Responsive layout considerations.
These aspects contribute to the overall goal of creating a versatile and user-friendly rating component within the NextUI library. The file structure also supports easy integration into the documentation system, helping users understand how to implement a disabled rating in their projects.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/usage.ts (1)
10-16: LGTM! Scalable export structure.The export structure is well-designed for potential future expansion. It allows easy addition of more examples while maintaining a clean default export.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/fillColor.ts (1)
14-16: LGTM! Export structure is clean and extensible.The default export using the spread operator is a clean and extensible way to export the
reactobject. This structure allows for easy addition of more examples in the future if needed.apps/docs/content/components/rating/errorMessage.ts (1)
15-17: LGTM: Default export looks goodThe default export spreading the
reactobject is well-structured and follows good practices. It allows for easy extension of the exported object in the future if needed.apps/docs/content/components/rating/description.ts (2)
10-12: LGTM! Appropriate structure for documentation.The
reactobject is well-structured for organizing code examples. The use of the ".jsx" file extension in the key is consistent with React component files.
14-16: LGTM! Extensible export structure.The default export using the spread operator on the
reactobject is a good practice. It allows for easy addition of more examples in the future while maintaining a clean export structure.apps/docs/content/components/rating/controlled.ts (1)
16-18: LGTM! Export structure is clean and extensible.The default export structure is well-designed. It allows for easy addition of more examples in the future without changing the export statement.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/heart.tsx (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom the local types file is appropriate and follows best practices for type imports in TypeScript React components.
1-9: Overall, the HeartIcon component is well-implemented.The
HeartIconcomponent is a solid addition to the shared icons. It's implemented correctly as a functional React component, uses TypeScript for type safety, and provides a flexible SVG icon that can be easily customized through props.This component aligns well with the PR objectives and could be valuable for use in various contexts, including potentially in the new Rating component.
The suggestions provided earlier for explicit return type and accessibility improvements are minor and aimed at further enhancing the component's robustness and usability.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/index.ts (1)
1-23: Overall, excellent organization and structure for the Rating component content.This file successfully centralizes all Rating component related modules, aligning well with the PR objectives of introducing a new Rating component. The structure is clean, consistent, and easy to understand, which will greatly benefit maintainability and usability of the Rating component documentation and examples.
The suggested improvements (using named exports and adding a TypeScript interface) are minor and aimed at enhancing type safety and refactoring support. These changes would further improve the developer experience when working with this component.
Great job on implementing this foundational file for the new Rating component!
apps/docs/content/components/rating/sizes.ts (2)
1-14: LGTM! Component structure aligns with PR objectives.The
Appcomponent effectively demonstrates different sizes of theRatingcomponent, which aligns well with the PR objectives. It uses modern React practices and appears to utilize a utility-first CSS framework for styling.Note: The component is defined as a string rather than a regular React component. This approach is unusual but may be intentional for documentation or example purposes.
3-3: LGTM! Size options are well-defined.The sizes array
["sm", "md", "lg"]provides a good range of options for demonstrating theRatingcomponent's size variations. This aligns well with common design system practices and the PR objectives.packages/components/rating/README.md (2)
7-13: Installation instructions look good!The installation section provides clear instructions for both yarn and npm users, which is excellent.
21-24: License information is clear and complete.The license section properly states the project's license and provides a link to the full license text. This is excellent practice for open-source projects.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/music.tsx (2)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate import for component props.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom a local types file is a good practice for maintaining type definitions and ensuring type safety for the component props.
1-11: Great addition: MusicIcon component is well-implemented and reusable.This
MusicIconcomponent is a valuable addition to the shared icons utility package. It's concise, follows React best practices, and provides a reusable music icon that can be easily integrated into other components. The implementation aligns well with the PR objectives of enhancing the NextUI library with new components.Key strengths:
- Clear and descriptive naming
- Proper typing with IconSvgProps
- Flexible customization through prop spreading
- Efficient SVG implementation
This component serves as a good template for other icon components in the library.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/straight-emojicon.tsx (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and concise.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom the local types file is appropriate for typing the component props.
3-3: LGTM: Component declaration is well-structured.The
StraightEmojiconcomponent is correctly exported and uses appropriate naming conventions. The use of rest spread withIconSvgPropstype provides flexibility and type safety.packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/angry-emojicon.tsx (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom a local types file is appropriate and follows best practices for organizing type definitions.packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/happy-emojicon.tsx (3)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and sufficient.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom "./types" is appropriate for the component's needs.
3-3: LGTM: Component declaration is well-structured.The
HappyEmojiconcomponent is correctly declared as a functional component and exported. The use of prop spreading ({...props}) allows for flexible usage of the component.
1-18: LGTM: Well-implemented HappyEmojicon component.The
HappyEmojiconcomponent is a well-structured, self-contained SVG icon that follows React and SVG best practices. It aligns with the PR objectives of adding new components to the NextUI library and could potentially be used in the new Rating component or other contexts requiring a happy emoji icon.The component is ready for use, with minor suggestions for optimization and documentation as mentioned in previous comments.
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and appropriate.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom the local types file is suitable for typing the component props.packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/sad-emojicon.tsx (3)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct and follows best practices.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom a local types file promotes type safety and modularity.
3-3: LGTM: Component declaration and props handling are well-implemented.The
SadEmojiconcomponent is correctly defined as a functional component using arrow function syntax. The use of destructuring and spreading props ({...props}: IconSvgProps) allows for flexible attribute passing while maintaining type safety withIconSvgProps.
1-14: Overall, excellent implementation of the SadEmojicon component.The
SadEmojiconcomponent is well-implemented, following React and SVG best practices. It aligns perfectly with the PR objectives of adding new icon components to the library. The component is flexible, allowing for customization through prop spreading, and maintains type safety withIconSvgProps.Key strengths:
- Proper import and use of types
- Efficient functional component declaration
- Correct SVG structure and namespace usage
- Single, efficient path for the emoji shape
Minor suggestions for improvement have been noted in previous comments, but these are optimizations rather than critical issues. Great work on this new addition to the icon library!
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/eye.tsx (2)
19-19: Excellent enhancement to icon customization!The change from a hardcoded
strokeWidthtoprops.strokeWidthsignificantly improves the flexibility of theEyeIconcomponent. This modification allows users to customize the icon's appearance based on their specific needs, which is crucial for a versatile UI library.
26-26: Consistent application of dynamic stroke widthThis change correctly applies the dynamic
strokeWidthto the second path in the SVG, ensuring visual consistency across the entire icon. It's a good practice to maintain uniformity in SVG elements, and this modification achieves that goal effectively.packages/core/theme/src/components/index.ts (1)
15-15: LGTM! The Rating component export has been added correctly.The new export for the 'rating' component has been added in the appropriate location, maintaining the alphabetical order of the exports. This change aligns with the PR objectives to introduce a new Rating component to the NextUI library.
Let's verify if the 'rating' component file exists in the same directory:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: The 'rating.ts' file exists as expected.
The
rating.tsfile is present in thepackages/core/theme/src/components/directory, confirming that the export statementexport * from "./rating";is correctly referencing an existing component.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the rating.ts file exists in the components directory # Test: Check for the existence of the rating.ts file fd --type file --extension ts --max-depth 1 '^rating\.ts$' packages/core/theme/src/componentsLength of output: 140
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/like.tsx (1)
1-3: LGTM: Import and component declaration are well-structured.The import statement and component declaration follow React best practices. Using
IconSvgPropstype ensures type safety for SVG properties, and the rest props spread allows for flexible prop passing to the SVG element.packages/components/rating/src/rating-icon.tsx (1)
1-9: LGTM: Imports and interface definition are well-structuredThe imports are appropriate for the component's needs, and the
RatingIconPropsinterface is well-defined with optional properties, allowing for flexibility in usage.packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/index.ts (1)
36-43: LGTM! New icon exports align well with the Rating component.The added exports for star, heart, like, music, and various emoticons are excellent additions that support the new Rating component. These icons provide a range of options for customizing the rating experience, which aligns perfectly with the PR objectives of creating a versatile and user-friendly rating system.
packages/core/theme/src/components/rating.ts (3)
1-3: Imports look good!The necessary imports for creating a Tailwind CSS variant component are present and correctly sourced.
5-16: Component structure looks good, verify empty slotsThe component definition is well-structured with separate slots for different parts of the rating component. The use of Tailwind CSS classes aligns with the project's styling approach.
Could you please confirm if the empty slots for
inputandiconare intentional? If they are meant to be customizable, consider adding a comment to clarify this for other developers.
47-51: Exports are well-defined and comprehensiveThe exported types (RatingVariantProps, RatingSlots, and RatingReturnType) and the
ratingconstant provide all necessary elements for using the Rating component throughout the application. The naming conventions are consistent and clear.packages/core/react/src/index.ts (1)
46-46: LGTM: New Rating component export added successfully.The export statement for the Rating component has been correctly added and follows the existing pattern in the file. This change aligns well with the PR objectives, making the new Rating component available for use in the NextUI library.
packages/components/rating/package.json (3)
27-35: Scripts section looks well-configured.The build, development, and maintenance scripts are appropriately set up:
- Using
tsupfor building is efficient.- The
cleanscript properly removes build artifacts.- Type checking is correctly implemented.
- Pre/post pack scripts manage the package.json for publishing.
These scripts should provide a smooth development and build process for the component.
36-41: Peer dependencies are correctly specified.The peer dependencies are well-defined:
- React and React DOM versions are set to >=18, which is appropriate for using the latest features.
- The NextUI theme and system dependencies are aligned with the component's version (>=2.0.0), ensuring consistency within the NextUI ecosystem.
This configuration should prevent compatibility issues with the main NextUI library and React.
55-62: Dev dependencies look good, clarify the need for react-hook-form.The dev dependencies are well-structured:
- Workspace dependencies for NextUI internal packages are correctly used.
- clean-package is included, which aligns with the pre/post pack scripts.
- React versions are set to ^18.0.0, allowing for minor updates.
However, the inclusion of react-hook-form (^7.51.3) as a dev dependency is noteworthy.
Could you clarify the purpose of including react-hook-form? If it's used for testing or examples, consider moving it to a separate examples or test-utils package to keep the main component package lean.
To verify its usage, you can run the following command:
If there are no matches, consider removing this dependency.
packages/core/react/package.json (1)
87-87: LGTM: New Rating component dependency added correctly.The addition of
"@nextui-org/rating": "workspace:*"to the dependencies is consistent with the PR objectives and follows the same pattern as other @nextui-org dependencies in this file. This change correctly integrates the new Rating component into the NextUI React package.To ensure consistency across the project, let's verify that the Rating component is properly added to other relevant files:
packages/components/rating/__tests__/rating.test.tsx (1)
1-7: LGTM: Import statements are well-organized and complete.The import statements cover all necessary dependencies for the tests, including React, testing utilities, React Hook Form, and the Rating component.
apps/docs/content/components/rating/customSegment.ts (2)
33-49: Consistent with previous componentsThis component is structurally similar to the AngryEmojicon. Please refer to the first comment about refactoring these string-based components into actual function components for better maintainability and tooling support.
51-67: Consistent with previous componentsThis component is structurally similar to the AngryEmojicon and StraightEmojicon. Please refer to the first comment about refactoring these string-based components into actual function components for better maintainability and tooling support.
packages/components/rating/stories/rating.stories.tsx (1)
1-41: LGTM: Imports and Storybook configuration are well-structured.The imports cover all necessary dependencies, including React, Storybook, theme components, and icons. The default export correctly sets up the Storybook configuration for the Rating component, including customizable properties like size, disabled state, and animation settings.
apps/docs/public/sitemap-0.xml (5)
1-76: XML structure and consistency: ApprovedThe XML structure is well-formed and consistent throughout the sitemap. All URLs follow the same format with correct elements (loc, lastmod, changefreq, priority). The lastmod date (2024-09-26T15:07:32.437Z) is consistently applied across all URLs, indicating a proper sitemap update.
9-10: New URLs added: Verify alignment with PR objectivesNew URLs have been added for the following components and blog posts:
- Components: calendar, date-input, date-picker, date-range-picker, range-calendar, rating
- Blog posts: v2.3.0, v2.4.0
The addition of the rating component aligns with the PR objectives. However, the date-related components (calendar, date-input, date-picker, date-range-picker, range-calendar) are not mentioned in the PR objectives.
Could you please clarify if the date-related components are part of this PR or if they were added in a separate change?
Also applies to: 20-20, 27-29, 43-44
14-58: Existing component URLs maintained: ApprovedAll previously existing component URLs are still present in the sitemap, and no URLs have been removed. This ensures the continuity of documentation for all components.
3-76: Metadata consistency: ApprovedThe metadata for changefreq (daily) and priority (0.7) is consistent across all URLs in the sitemap. This uniformity is beneficial for maintaining a consistent crawl pattern for search engines.
1-76: Sitemap update: Generally approved, clarification neededThe sitemap has been successfully updated with the following improvements:
- Addition of the new Rating component URL.
- Inclusion of new blog post URLs for versions v2.3.0 and v2.4.0.
- Consistent update of the lastmod date across all URLs.
- Maintenance of existing component URLs.
- Consistent metadata (changefreq and priority) across all URLs.
However, the inclusion of new date-related component URLs (calendar, date-input, date-picker, date-range-picker, range-calendar) raises a question about the scope of this PR.
Could you please clarify if these date-related components are intended to be part of this PR, or if they were added in a separate change? If they are part of this PR, consider updating the PR description to reflect these additional components.
apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx (3)
1-16: LGTM: Clear and concise introductionThe header and introduction provide a clear overview of the Rating component. The inclusion of ComponentLinks and CarbonAd components appears to be consistent with the documentation structure.
17-37: LGTM: Comprehensive installation and import instructionsThe installation and import sections provide clear instructions for various package managers and import methods. The use of PackageManagers and ImportTabs components ensures consistency with other component documentation.
98-127: LGTM: Comprehensive Slots and Data Attributes documentationThe Slots and Data Attributes sections provide clear and concise information about the component's structure and available attributes. This information is valuable for developers who need to customize or style the Rating component.
apps/docs/config/routes.json (1)
315-321: LGTM: New Rating component entry added correctly.The new entry for the Rating component has been added with all the necessary fields and follows the established structure. The information provided is consistent with other component entries.
packages/components/rating/src/use-rating.ts (4)
165-171: Verify initial state handling inuseControlledStatehook.In lines 165-171, when neither
props.valuenorprops.defaultValueis provided, the initial state might not be set correctly.Ensure that
useControlledStateinitializes properly to avoid unexpected behavior when no value is provided.
114-130: Unused destructured properties inprops.Between lines 114-130, some properties destructured from
propsmay not be used.Review the destructured properties and remove any that are unnecessary to clean up the code.
178-178: VariableisIconWrapperHoveredmight not be used.At line 178,
isIconWrapperHoveredis obtained fromuseHoverbut may not be utilized in the component.Ensure that
isIconWrapperHoveredis used where appropriate or remove it to simplify the code.
299-299:⚠️ Potential issuePossible variable conflict with
slotsin return object.At line 299,
slotsmight be overridden ifotherPropscontains aslotsproperty.Avoid potential conflicts by excluding
slotsfrom...otherPropswhen returning:return { // existing properties... getErrorMessageProps, - ...otherProps, + ...restOfProps, };Ensure
restOfPropsexcludes properties likeslotsthat are already defined.Likely invalid or redundant comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx (2)
39-89: LGTM: Comprehensive usage examples with a suggestion for enhancementThe usage examples section is well-structured and covers a wide range of use cases and customization options for the Rating component. Each example is clearly presented with a CodeDemo component.
To further enhance this section, consider adding an example demonstrating how to use the Rating component within a form context, showing form submission and validation integration.
139-167: Minor improvements for API documentationThe API documentation for Rating Props is comprehensive and well-structured. However, there are two minor points that could be improved:
The description for the 'strokeColor' prop (line 150) uses the phrase "needs to be" twice, which is repetitive. Consider rephrasing to: "The stroke color to be used for the displayed icon."
The 'validationState' prop (line 164) is marked as deprecated in favor of 'isInvalid'. To ensure clarity for developers, consider adding a note about when this deprecation occurred (e.g., which version) and when it will be removed completely.
These small changes will enhance the clarity and maintainability of the API documentation.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~150-~150: You have already used this phrasing in nearby sentences. Consider replacing it to add variety to your writing.
Context: ... | The strokeColor which needs to be used in the displayed icon. ...(REP_NEED_TO_VB)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-icon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/use-rating.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/stories/rating.stories.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/angry-emojicon.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (7)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-icon.tsx
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx
- packages/components/rating/src/rating.tsx
- packages/components/rating/src/use-rating.ts
- packages/components/rating/stories/rating.stories.tsx
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/angry-emojicon.tsx
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx
[style] ~150-~150: You have already used this phrasing in nearby sentences. Consider replacing it to add variety to your writing.
Context: ... | The strokeColor which needs to be used in the displayed icon. ...(REP_NEED_TO_VB)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
apps/docs/content/docs/components/rating.mdx (3)
1-38: LGTM: Comprehensive introduction and installation guideThe introduction, metadata, and installation sections are well-structured and provide clear instructions for users. The inclusion of multiple package manager commands and import options is particularly helpful.
101-128: LGTM: Clear documentation of Slots and Data AttributesThe Slots and Data Attributes sections provide comprehensive and well-organized information. This documentation is valuable for developers who need to customize or style the Rating component. The clear breakdown of slots and explanation of data attributes will greatly assist in component integration and manipulation.
168-174: LGTM: Clear documentation of Rating EventsThe Rating Events section in the API documentation is concise and clear. It effectively describes the two main events ('onChange' and 'onValueChange') associated with the Rating component, providing developers with the necessary information to handle user interactions properly.
wingkwong
requested review from
wingkwong
and removed request for
jrgarciadev
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to the APG, a Rating is essentially a type of radio button, so it would be ideal to build it using the existing useRadioGroup hook.
The React Aria team has also responded in the same way.
adobe/react-spectrum#4754 (comment)
|
Hi @ryo-manba, Just trying to understand more, why should we add a dependency of |
|
@macci001 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (1)
97-97: Simplify ref assignment by removing unnecessarymergeRefs.Since only a single ref
iconRefis used, usingmergeRefsis unnecessary. This simplification can improve code clarity.Replace:
- ref={mergeRefs(iconRef)} + ref={iconRef}
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- packages/components/rating/package.json (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating.tsx (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
packages/components/rating/package.json (2)
Learnt from: macci001 PR: nextui-org/nextui#3808 File: packages/components/rating/package.json:11-18 Timestamp: 2024-09-27T12:25:01.644Z Learning: In this repository, component packages have their `main` field in `package.json` pointing to `src/index.ts`, following the existing pattern.Learnt from: macci001 PR: nextui-org/nextui#3808 File: packages/components/rating/package.json:11-18 Timestamp: 2024-10-08T16:35:03.605Z Learning: In this repository, component packages have their `main` field in `package.json` pointing to `src/index.ts`, following the existing pattern.
🔇 Additional comments (5)
packages/components/rating/package.json (5)
1-26: Package metadata looks good!The package metadata is well-defined and follows the project's conventions. The main field correctly points to "src/index.ts", which aligns with the existing pattern in this repository for component packages.
27-35: Scripts section is well-definedThe scripts cover all necessary development tasks, including building, cleaning, type-checking, and packaging. The use of tsup for building is a good choice for TypeScript projects.
36-41: Peer dependencies are correctly specifiedThe peer dependencies list includes React, React DOM, and necessary NextUI packages. The version ranges are appropriate, ensuring compatibility while allowing flexibility.
42-55: Dependencies are well-chosen with a focus on accessibilityThe dependencies list includes necessary NextUI workspace packages and several React Aria and React Stately packages. This selection indicates a strong focus on accessibility and proper state management, which is commendable for a UI component.
56-64: Dev dependencies and clean-package config look good, but clarification neededThe dev dependencies and clean-package configuration are well-defined. However, could you clarify the purpose of including react-hook-form as a dev dependency? Is it used in testing or examples for the rating component?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for the delayed review.
I have a couple of feature requests.
-
Enable keyboard operation. You can refer to these behaviors as a guide:
ARIA Radio Rating Example
MUI Rating Component
Proper usage of RadioGroup should naturally address this issue. -
Allow selection of 0. Currently, it's not possible to reset the selection back to 0 after choosing a value.
| const Input = useMemo( | ||
| () => ( | ||
| <VisuallyHidden> | ||
| <input {...getInputProps()} /> | ||
| </VisuallyHidden> | ||
| ), | ||
| [value, ratingValue, setRatingValue, getInputProps], | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is for supporting the react-hook-form, this is where the register props will be passed on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Proper usage of RadioGroup should naturally address this issue.
Seems like I was not using the radio group in correct way. Remove the input in 4fca944
Thanks for the suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like we do need input.
On checking again, without input the defaultValues of the hook-form does not function properly. Since, the radioGroup component does not store the selectedValue, we would need to have input component on the rating side which will store the selectedValue.
This input component will get the ref from the register of hook-form and its value will be the selectedValue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (1)
3-3: Consider adding explicit return type for improved type safety.While the current declaration is correct, adding an explicit return type can improve type safety and documentation.
Consider updating the component declaration as follows:
-export const StarIcon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps) => { +export const StarIcon = ({...props}: IconSvgProps): JSX.Element => {This change makes the component's return type explicit, which can help catch potential errors and improve code readability.
packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (2)
10-14: Add JSDoc comments to improve code documentation.Consider adding JSDoc comments to the
RatingSegmentPropsinterface to enhance code documentation and provide better context for each prop. This will improve code readability and maintainability.Here's an example of how you could add JSDoc comments:
/** * Props for the RatingSegment component. */ interface RatingSegmentProps { /** The index of the rating segment. */ index: number; /** Custom icon to be displayed in the segment. */ icon?: React.ReactNode; /** Color to fill the icon when selected. */ fillColor?: string; }
127-142: LGTM with a suggestion for improved accessibility.The component's return statement is well-structured and follows React best practices. The use of data attributes for styling is a good approach. To further improve accessibility, consider adding an
aria-labelto the outer div to provide more context for screen readers.Here's a suggested minor improvement:
return ( <div ref={mergeRefs(iconRef)} className={segmentStyles} data-hovered={dataAttr(isHovered)} data-slot="segment" onPointerUp={onPointerUp} aria-label={`Rating ${index + 1} of ${totalRatings}`} {...hoverProps} > <RatingIcon fillColor={fillColor} icon={icon} offset={isRTL ? offsetRTL : offset} /> {radioButtons} </div> );This addition will provide more context to screen readers, enhancing the overall accessibility of the component. Note that you'll need to pass
totalRatingsas a prop or derive it from the context.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating.tsx (1 hunks)
- packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/components/rating/src/rating.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
packages/utilities/shared-icons/src/star.tsx (2)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import of
IconSvgPropsfrom "./types" is appropriate for typing the component props.
1-16: Overall assessment: Good implementation with room for improvements.The StarIcon component is well-structured and functional. To further enhance it, consider implementing the suggested improvements:
- Add explicit return type to the component declaration.
- Enhance SVG accessibility and reusability with additional attributes.
- Optimize performance through memoization and SVG path optimization.
- Implement explicit size handling for better usability.
These changes will result in a more robust, accessible, and performant icon component.
packages/components/rating/src/rating-segment.tsx (1)
16-30: LGTM: Well-structured component definition and context usage.The component definition and context extraction are well-implemented. The use of the
useRatingContexthook and comprehensive destructuring of the context values demonstrate good React practices and attention to performance.
|
@coderabbitai pause |
✅ Actions performedReviews paused. |
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
3 times, most recently
from
857f753 to
2cde719
Compare
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
3 times, most recently
from
3f9efd9 to
31632ad
Compare
|
Applied the reviews in the commit 31632ad |
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
3 times, most recently
from
10dfe43 to
51cdaef
Compare
| // if we use `react-hook-form`, it will set the input value using the ref in register | ||
| // i.e. setting ref.current.value to something which is uncontrolled | ||
| // hence, sync the state with `ref.current.value` | ||
| useSafeLayoutEffect(() => { | ||
| if (!domRef.current || !domRef.current.value) return; | ||
| setRatingValue({ | ||
| hoveredValue: Number(domRef.current.value), | ||
| selectedValue: Number(domRef.current.value), | ||
| }); | ||
| }, [domRef.current]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the same approach applied to the radio group as well?
It feels a bit odd to add special handling just for a specific library.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use similar approach in use-input.ts in Input Component.
In Radio group while using the react-hook-form as below:
const {
register
} = useForm({
defaultValues: {
radio: "defaultValue"
}
})
the defaultValue would not be visible on the radioGroup, but ref will get populated with the defaultValue. That is when we submit the form, the form data will have "defaultValue" for the field.
To avoid this, the above way is used here.
|
Hey @macci001 please fix the conflicts |
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
from
1ab8ad6 to
dd38a8f
Compare
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
from
dd38a8f to
374136d
Compare
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
from
9a8eeb4 to
38f17fe
Compare
|
@ryo-manba applied your suggestions here.
Screen.Recording.2024-11-06.at.5.01.39.PM.movScreen.Recording.2024-11-06.at.5.00.38.PM.mov |
macci001
force-pushed
the
macci001/add-rating-component
branch
from
38f17fe to
0e9f48a
Compare
Closes #3807
📝 Description
⛳️ Current behavior (updates)
🚀 New behavior
Screen.Recording.2024-09-27.at.1.15.29.PM.mov
Screen.Recording.2024-09-27.at.1.17.37.PM.mov
Screen.Recording.2024-09-27.at.1.18.21.PM.mov
💣 Is this a breaking change (Yes/No): No
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Ratingcomponent with customizable icons and various configurations.RatingIconandRatingSegmentcomponents for enhanced flexibility in rating displays.Documentation
@nextui-org/ratingpackage detailing installation and usage.Ratingcomponent with detailed API sections and examples.Ratingcomponent.Tests
Ratingcomponent to ensure functionality and integration with forms.