Skip to content

Conversation

@Oksamies
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 19, 2025

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch 11-19-refactor_loader_functions_to_improve_error_handling_and_simplify_response_structure_in_package_source_tab

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

This was referenced Nov 19, 2025
message: "Failed to load source",
source: undefined,
};
throwUserFacingPayloadResponse({
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

  1. Nitpick: this could be defined as variable outside the loader and then used by both loaders.
  2. Offtopic: packageListing.tsx seems to always render link to this tab even if the source doesn't exists. Not ideal UX and not up to feature parity
  3. On the legacy site accessing source tab for a mod that doesn't have source available doesn't show 404. I personally think showing 404 here would be ok if we didn't link to the non-existent page ourselves. If Add ESLint #2 above isn't fixed, I think this page should show non-404 page that tells the user the source isn't available. I don't have a strong opinion on which one we do, but we should do one.

);
}

export function ErrorBoundary() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I didn't get any response the last time I suggested using export { NimbusDefaultRouteErrorBoundary as ErrorBoundary } from "cyberstorm/utils/errors/NimbusErrorBoundary";. Does that not work or do you think it's a bad idea otherwise?

@Oksamies Oksamies changed the base branch from 11-19-_ts-api-react-actions_enhance_error_handling_in_api_actions_and_hooks_with_user-facing_error_mapping to graphite-base/1617 December 2, 2025 13:09
@Oksamies Oksamies force-pushed the 11-19-refactor_loader_functions_to_improve_error_handling_and_simplify_response_structure_in_package_source_tab branch from aeff7bd to 643d845 Compare December 2, 2025 13:10
@Oksamies Oksamies changed the base branch from graphite-base/1617 to 11-19-_ts-api-react-actions_enhance_error_handling_in_api_actions_and_hooks_with_user-facing_error_mapping December 2, 2025 13:11
@Oksamies Oksamies changed the base branch from 11-19-_ts-api-react-actions_enhance_error_handling_in_api_actions_and_hooks_with_user-facing_error_mapping to graphite-base/1617 December 3, 2025 01:46
@Oksamies Oksamies force-pushed the 11-19-refactor_loader_functions_to_improve_error_handling_and_simplify_response_structure_in_package_source_tab branch from 643d845 to 1f8b5db Compare December 3, 2025 01:46
@Oksamies Oksamies changed the base branch from graphite-base/1617 to 11-19-_ts-api-react-actions_enhance_error_handling_in_api_actions_and_hooks_with_user-facing_error_mapping December 3, 2025 01:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants