refactor: migrate from remix-routes to safe-routes for type-safe routing #7
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request encompasses a comprehensive transition from the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
Visit the preview URL for this PR (updated for commit 1837c09): https://remix-spa-example--pr7-feat-safe-routes-b8ljnghv.web.app (expires Mon, 09 Dec 2024 01:30:38 GMT) 🔥 via Firebase Hosting GitHub Action 🌎 Sign: 48e666b485811f0b1bcd4fa4838b32a205a3ce05 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
app/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsx (1)
Line range hint
7-7: Consider translating the Japanese comment for better maintainabilityThe comment explains that the request is created here because the clientLoader's request doesn't include the hash.
- const request = new Request(location.href) // clientLoader の request には hash が含まれないのでここで作る + const request = new Request(location.href) // Creating new request here as clientLoader's request doesn't include the hashapp/routes/auth+/sign_out/route.tsx (1)
Line range hint
27-31: Consider consolidating sign-out methodsThe file implements two separate sign-out methods: one using
useFetcherand another usingForm. Consider consolidating these to maintain a single source of truth for the sign-out functionality.export const useSignOut = () => { const fetcher = useFetcher() return { signOut: () => { fetcher.submit({}, { method: 'POST', action: $path('/auth/sign_out') }) } } } export default function SignOutPage() { - return ( - <Form method="POST" action={$path('/auth/sign_out')}> - <Button>サインアウト</Button> - </Form> - ) + const { signOut } = useSignOut() + return <Button onClick={signOut}>サインアウト</Button> }Also applies to: 39-43
app/routes/welcome+/_index/route.tsx (1)
Line range hint
19-43: Consider implementing i18n for better internationalizationThe component contains hardcoded Japanese text. Consider implementing an internationalization solution for better maintainability and future localization support.
app/routes/$handle+/_index/route.tsx (1)
Line range hint
42-50: Consider adding error boundary for unauthorized accessThe unauthorized error is thrown directly. Consider adding an error boundary to handle this case more gracefully.
if (user.handle !== handle) { - throw new Error('Unauthorized') + throw json( + { message: 'You are not authorized to perform this action' }, + { status: 403 } + ) }app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.edit/route.tsx (3)
Line range hint
31-40: Consider extracting duplicated authorization logicThe authorization check is duplicated between clientLoader and clientAction. Consider extracting this into a shared utility function to improve maintainability and reduce duplication.
+const verifyPostOwnership = async (request: Request, handle: string) => { + const user = await requireUser(request, { failureRedirect: $path('/') }) + if (handle !== user.handle) throw data(null, { status: 403 }) + return user +} export const clientLoader = async ({ request, params: { handle, id }, }: Route.ClientLoaderArgs) => { - const user = await requireUser(request, { failureRedirect: $path('/') }) - if (handle !== user.handle) throw data(null, { status: 403 }) + const user = await verifyPostOwnership(request, handle) const post = await getUserPostById(handle, id) if (!post) throw data(null, { status: 404 }) return { handle, id, post, user } } export const clientAction = async ({ request, params: { handle, id }, }: Route.ClientActionArgs) => { - const user = await requireUser(request, { failureRedirect: $path('/') }) - if (handle !== user.handle) throw data(null, { status: 403 }) + const user = await verifyPostOwnership(request, handle)Also applies to: 44-53
Line range hint
54-69: Consider adding error boundary for form submission failuresThe form submission handling could benefit from additional error handling for network failures or unexpected server errors.
if (submission.value.intent === 'update') { + try { await updateUserPost(handle, { id, uid: user.uid, handle, title: submission.value.title, content: submission.value.content, publishedAt: null, }) throw redirect($path('/:handle/posts/:id', { handle, id })) + } catch (error) { + return { + lastResult: submission.reply({ + formErrors: ['Failed to update post. Please try again.'], + }), + } + } }
Line range hint
95-106: Add confirmation dialog for delete actionThe delete action should have a confirmation dialog to prevent accidental deletions.
<Form method="POST"> <Button variant="ghost" size="sm" className="rounded-full" name="intent" value="delete" type="submit" + onClick={(e) => { + if (!confirm('Are you sure you want to delete this post?')) { + e.preventDefault() + } + }} > <ArrowLeftIcon className="h-4 w-4" /> </Button> </Form>app/services/auth.ts (2)
Line range hint
91-125: Add JSDoc examples for isAuthenticated overloadsThe function overloads improve type safety but could benefit from documentation showing usage examples.
+/** + * Checks if the user is authenticated and handles redirects based on the options. + * + * @example + * // Simple check without redirects + * const user = await isAuthenticated(request) + * + * @example + * // Redirect on success + * await isAuthenticated(request, { successRedirect: '/dashboard' }) + * + * @example + * // Redirect on failure + * const user = await isAuthenticated(request, { failureRedirect: '/login' }) + * + * @example + * // Redirect on both success and failure + * await isAuthenticated(request, { + * successRedirect: '/dashboard', + * failureRedirect: '/login' + * }) + */ export async function isAuthenticated(request: Request): Promise<AppUser | null>
Line range hint
19-19: Consider replacing global userHandle with context or state managementUsing a global variable for userHandle could lead to race conditions or state inconsistencies in certain scenarios. Consider using React Context or a proper state management solution.
-let userHandle: string | undefined = undefined +export const UserHandleContext = createContext<{ + userHandle: string | undefined + setUserHandle: (handle: string | undefined) => void +}>({ + userHandle: undefined, + setUserHandle: () => {}, +}) const verifyOnboarded = async (request: Request, user: User) => { - if (userHandle) return userHandle + const { userHandle, setUserHandle } = useContext(UserHandleContext) + if (userHandle) return userHandle const account = await getAccountByUID(user.uid) if (account) { - userHandle = account.id + setUserHandle(account.id) return userHandle }Also applies to: 51-68
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
README.md(1 hunks)app/components/AppFooter.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/$handle+/_index/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id._index/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.delete/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.edit/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/_index.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/_public+/_layout.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/auth+/sign_in/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/auth+/sign_out/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/home.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/welcome+/_index/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/routes/welcome+/create_account/route.tsx(1 hunks)app/services/auth.ts(1 hunks)app/services/google-auth.ts(1 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)vite.config.ts(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.delete/route.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (19)
app/routes/home.tsx (1)
1-2: LGTM! Verify API compatibility.
The import change from remix-routes to safe-routes looks correct. However, let's verify that the $path API usage remains compatible.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search showed consistent usage patterns across the codebase, but we need to verify the type definitions and package dependencies to ensure full compatibility.
The import change looks safe and compatible
Based on the evidence:
- The
$pathusage pattern is consistent across the entire codebase, showing uniform parameter passing and route definition styles - The project has proper dependency setup with
safe-routesv1.0.0 - The project's typecheck script includes
safe-routes typegen, indicating proper type generation and validation - No type errors were found in the codebase related to
$pathusage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent $path API usage across the codebase
# Look for any potential incompatibilities or different usage patterns
# Search for all $path usages to verify consistent patterns
rg '\$path\(' -A 2
# Search for any potential type errors or incompatibilities in TypeScript files
rg 'Type.*error.*\$path' --type ts
Length of output: 9461
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the type definitions and usage patterns between both libraries
# First, let's find the type definition of $path in safe-routes
rg -A 5 "export.*\$path" --type ts
# Then, check for any type-related imports or declarations
ast-grep --pattern 'import { $path } from $src'
# Finally, let's check the package.json to see both dependencies
cat package.json | grep -A 5 -B 5 "safe-routes"
Length of output: 859
app/services/google-auth.ts (1)
1-1: Verify callback URL compatibility.
The callback URL is a critical path in the authentication flow. While the import change looks correct, we should verify that the callback URL format remains compatible with Google OAuth configuration.
Also applies to: 7-7
✅ Verification successful
Callback URL implementation is correct and compatible
The verification shows that the callback URL implementation is secure and compatible:
- The
$pathusage ingoogle-auth.tsis correctly integrated with the Google OAuth flow - The callback URL is properly handled in the authentication flow through
buildCallbackURL - Route handlers in
auth/google.callback/route.tsxcorrectly use the authenticateCallback - The implementation includes proper security measures (state and nonce validation)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify callback URL usage and configuration
# Look for any OAuth callback URL configurations that might need updates
# Search for callback URL configurations
rg 'callbackURL.*\$path' -A 2
# Search for any Google OAuth related environment variables or configs
rg 'GOOGLE.*CALLBACK|REDIRECT' --type env --type ts
Length of output: 261
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the callback URL implementation and its usage
# First, let's see the full implementation of google-auth.ts
cat app/services/google-auth.ts
# Check for any environment variable configurations
fd -e .env -e .env.example -X cat
# Look for any Google OAuth strategy configurations
rg -A 5 "GoogleStrategy"
# Search for any route handlers using the callback path
ast-grep --pattern 'route($$$).get("/auth/google/callback",$$$)'
Length of output: 662
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of the google-auth library and route handlers
# Check the implementation of createGoogleAuthenticator
cat app/libs/google-auth.ts
# Look for route definitions using the exported authenticate functions
rg -A 3 "authenticate.*google"
# Search for any tests related to Google authentication
fd -e test.ts -e spec.ts -e test.tsx -e spec.tsx -X rg "google.*auth|auth.*google" {}
Length of output: 4421
vite.config.ts (1)
6-6: Verify safe-routes plugin configuration and build output.
The plugin change from remixRoutes to safeRoutes looks correct. However, we should verify:
- If
safeRoutesplugin requires any additional configuration options - That the route generation works correctly during build
Also applies to: 15-15
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the plugin configuration and its requirements.
Plugin configuration is correctly set up and being used throughout the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The
safe-routesplugin is properly configured invite.config.tswith the default configuration - The package is correctly installed (v1.0.0) and integrated into the typecheck script
- The
$pathutility fromsafe-routesis being consistently used across multiple route files - Type generation is properly set up in the build pipeline through the typecheck script
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify safe-routes plugin configuration and generated routes
# Look for any plugin configuration examples or documentation references
# Search for any safeRoutes plugin configuration in the codebase
rg 'safeRoutes\(.*\)' --type ts
# Search for any route type generation scripts in package.json
rg '"(scripts|typecheck)".*safe-routes' --type json
Length of output: 204
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any configuration files or documentation for safe-routes
fd -e md -e json -e ts -e js safe-routes
# Look for any imports or usage of safe-routes in the codebase
rg "from ['|\"]safe-routes" -A 2
# Check package.json for safe-routes dependency
rg "safe-routes" package.json
Length of output: 3845
app/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsx (1)
2-2: Verify redirect paths after library migration
The code looks good, but let's verify that the path parameters are correctly typed with the new safe-routes library.
Also applies to: 13-17
✅ Verification successful
Path parameters are correctly typed and used with safe-routes library
The verification shows that:
- The
$pathfunction is correctly used with the/:handleparameter in the callback route - The parameter is properly typed with the user's handle value
- No TypeScript errors are found in the codebase
- The library is consistently imported and used across multiple routes
- Strict TypeScript checking is enabled in the configuration
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all usages of $path with the :handle parameter
ast-grep --pattern '$path("/:handle", { handle: $_ })'
# Search for potential type errors in path usage
rg -l "TS2345.*Argument of type.*path" || echo "No type errors found"
Length of output: 148
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check how $path is actually used in the callback route
rg -A 5 "\$path" "app/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsx"
# Let's also check for any TypeScript errors in the file
rg "type|interface" "app/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsx"
# Search for all $path usages in the codebase for comparison
rg -A 2 "\$path\("
Length of output: 145
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the callback route file
cat "app/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsx"
# Let's also check for any files importing safe-routes
rg -l "from 'safe-routes'"
# Check for any TypeScript configuration that might affect type checking
fd "tsconfig.*json" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 2059
app/routes/auth+/sign_out/route.tsx (1)
2-2: LGTM! Path usage is consistent
The migration to safe-routes is properly implemented across all usages of $path in this file.
Also applies to: 8-8, 13-13, 28-28, 40-40
app/routes/welcome+/_index/route.tsx (1)
Line range hint 9-15: Verify the navigation flow after authentication
The navigation logic in clientLoader looks correct, but let's verify the complete flow.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the navigation patterns to ensure completeness.
Navigation flow after authentication is consistent and secure
The verification confirms that the navigation logic in clientLoader is correct and consistent with the application's authentication patterns:
- All authenticated routes properly use
requireAuth/requireUserwithfailureRedirectto '/' - Handle-based redirects are consistently implemented across routes using
$path('/:handle', { handle: user.handle }) - The flow properly handles both authenticated and unauthenticated states
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for consistent navigation patterns across routes
rg -A 2 "requireAuth.*failureRedirect"
# Verify handle parameter usage
ast-grep --pattern 'redirect($path("/:handle", { handle: $_ }))'
Length of output: 1123
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check all redirects to handle-based routes
rg -A 2 'redirect.*handle'
# Check handle-based route definitions
fd "route.tsx" --exec grep -l "/:handle"
# Check other potential auth-related redirects
rg -A 2 'failureRedirect|successRedirect'
Length of output: 6043
app/routes/_public+/_layout.tsx (1)
1-2: LGTM! Verify other route imports
The migration from remix-routes to safe-routes is correctly implemented. The $path usage in Link components maintains type safety.
Let's verify consistent import usage across route files:
✅ Verification successful
Migration to safe-routes is complete and consistent
The verification shows that:
- No remaining imports from
remix-routeswere found in the codebase - The
$pathimport fromsafe-routesis consistently used across all route files and components that need routing functionality
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any remaining remix-routes imports
rg "from ['|\"]remix-routes['|\"]"
# Verify safe-routes import pattern
rg "from ['|\"]safe-routes['|\"]"
Length of output: 1144
app/components/AppFooter.tsx (1)
2-3: LGTM! Import and usage are correct
The migration to safe-routes is properly implemented in the AppFooter component, maintaining type-safe routing in all navigation links.
app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id._index/route.tsx (1)
3-4: LGTM! Verify type inference for dynamic routes
The migration to safe-routes is correctly implemented. The $path usage with dynamic parameters (handle and id) maintains type safety.
Let's verify type inference for dynamic routes:
✅ Verification successful
Type safety is properly implemented for dynamic routes
The code shows proper type safety implementation through:
- Parameters validation using
zx.parseParamswith Zod schema - Correct usage of
$pathwith typed parameters in multiple Link components - Proper type inference through the Route type namespace (
Route.ClientLoaderArgsandRoute.ComponentProps)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find all dynamic route parameters to ensure they're properly typed
ast-grep --pattern 'params: { $$$handle$$$, $$$id$$$ }'
# Check for proper path parameter usage
ast-grep --pattern '$path("/:$_", { $$$params$$$ })'
Length of output: 112
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try different patterns to find route parameter usage
# Search for $path function calls
ast-grep --pattern '$path($$$)'
# Search for Link components with $path
ast-grep --pattern '<Link to={$path($$$)}'
# Search for route parameter types
rg -l "params.*handle.*id" --type tsx
Length of output: 4817
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual route file content to verify type safety
cat "app/routes/\$handle+/posts.\$id._index/route.tsx"
# Search for type definitions related to params
rg "type.*Params" --type ts --type tsx
# Check for loader function that might contain param types
rg "loader.*params" --type ts --type tsx -A 2
Length of output: 2489
package.json (1)
12-12: Verify complete migration from remix-routes
The changes look good, but let's ensure the complete removal of remix-routes.
Also applies to: 43-43
✅ Verification successful
Migration from remix-routes is complete and correct
The verification confirms that:
- No references to "remix-routes" exist in the codebase
- The package.json correctly shows the removal of remix-routes and addition of safe-routes@^1.0.0
- The typecheck script has been properly updated to use safe-routes
- The routing system uses remix-flat-routes and @react-router/remix-config-routes-adapter, which are the correct dependencies
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to remix-routes
# Search for any remaining remix-routes references in the codebase
rg "remix-routes" --type ts --type tsx --type json
# Check package-lock.json or pnpm-lock.yaml for any remaining dependencies
fd -e json -e yaml -x grep -l "remix-routes" {}
Length of output: 128
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search without file type restrictions
# and handle possible file extensions separately
# Search for any remaining remix-routes references in the codebase
rg "remix-routes"
# List all package*.json files
fd "package.*\.json$"
# List all typescript files to verify file extensions
fd -e ts
fd -e tsx
Length of output: 1478
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the package.json content to verify dependencies and scripts
cat package.json
# Also check for any potential references in the routes configuration
cat app/routes.ts
cat react-router.config.ts
Length of output: 2706
app/routes/auth+/sign_in/route.tsx (1)
2-2: Verify type safety of path parameters
The migration to safe-routes looks correct. The path parameter syntax remains unchanged, which is good for compatibility.
Also applies to: 21-21, 37-37, 85-85
app/routes/_index.tsx (1)
3-3: Verify route type definitions and parameter consistency
The migration looks good, but let's ensure route types are properly defined and parameters are consistent.
The path parameter usage is consistent across all instances.
Also applies to: 28-28, 51-51, 85-85
✅ Verification successful
Route parameter usage is consistent across the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The
$pathimport from 'safe-routes' is consistently used across 15 files - All route parameter patterns (e.g.,
/:handle) are used consistently with their corresponding parameters - The handle parameter is correctly passed in all instances of
$path('/:handle', { handle: ... }) - No type inconsistencies or parameter mismatches were found in the usage patterns
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify route types and parameter consistency
# Check for any type errors in route files
tsc --noEmit --pretty app/routes/**/*.tsx
# Verify route parameter usage consistency
ast-grep --pattern '$path("/:handle", { handle: $_ })'
Length of output: 206
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for $path usage patterns in the codebase
rg '\$path\(' -A 2
# Find all route files to analyze parameter patterns
fd '\.tsx$' app/routes
# Check imports of safe-routes across the codebase
rg "from 'safe-routes'"
Length of output: 11064
README.md (1)
122-122: LGTM: Documentation update reflects library migration
The README update correctly reflects the migration from remix-routes to safe-routes.
app/routes/welcome+/create_account/route.tsx (2)
5-5: LGTM: Import statement correctly updated
The import statement has been properly updated to use safe-routes instead of remix-routes.
Line range hint 24-25: Verify routing behavior in authentication flows
The authentication redirects using $path are critical paths. Let's verify that all routing patterns are compatible with safe-routes.
Also applies to: 31-31
✅ Verification successful
Authentication routing patterns are consistent and safe
The verification shows that all $path usages with requireAuth follow a consistent pattern:
- Redirecting unauthenticated users to the root path ('/')
- Redirecting authenticated users with handles to their profile pages ('/:handle')
All routes properly use the type-safe $path function from 'safe-routes' for path generation, ensuring routing compatibility and type safety.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that all $path usage patterns in auth flows are compatible with safe-routes
# Check all auth-related route patterns
rg -l "failureRedirect.*\$path|redirect.*\$path" app/routes/
Length of output: 60
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find authentication-related redirects
# First, let's check for all $path usages in routes
rg "\$path\(" app/routes/ -A 2 -B 2
# Also check for requireAuth usage patterns
rg "requireAuth" app/routes/ -A 2 -B 2
Length of output: 2852
app/routes/$handle+/_index/route.tsx (2)
10-10: LGTM: Import statement correctly updated
The import statement has been properly updated to use safe-routes instead of remix-routes.
Line range hint 42-43: Verify dynamic parameter handling in routes
This file contains critical routing with dynamic parameters (:handle, :id). Let's verify that all dynamic parameter patterns are compatible with safe-routes.
Also applies to: 66-67, 89-89
✅ Verification successful
This script will help us understand:
- The route structure and naming patterns
- How parameters are accessed in loader functions, which is crucial for safe parameter handling
This script will help us examine how the dynamic parameters ($handle and $id) are accessed and validated in the loader functions across different routes.
Dynamic parameter handling in routes is properly implemented and secure
The route parameters are being handled safely across all routes:
- All dynamic parameters are validated using
zx.parseParamswith Zod schemas - Proper authorization checks are in place (e.g.,
requireUser, handle matching) - Appropriate error responses are thrown for invalid cases (404, 403)
- Parameters are consistently typed and validated across all route handlers
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify dynamic parameter patterns in routes
# Find all route files with dynamic parameters
fd --type f "route.tsx?" app/routes | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
# Extract and show route patterns with dynamic parameters
rg -A 2 "\$path.*:.*['\"]" "$file"
done
Length of output: 2167
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to analyze the route patterns and parameter handling
# First, let's look at the route file structure and naming patterns
fd --type f "route.tsx?" app/routes --exec echo "{//}"
# Then, let's examine the loader functions in these routes to see parameter handling
echo -e "\nAnalyzing parameter handling in loaders:"
rg -B 1 -A 3 "export async function loader" app/routes
Length of output: 545
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the specific route files with dynamic parameters ($handle and $id)
# to verify their parameter handling
echo "=== Checking $handle+ route handling ==="
rg -A 5 "loader|params" "app/routes/\$handle+/_index/route.tsx"
echo -e "\n=== Checking posts.$id route handling ==="
rg -A 5 "loader|params" "app/routes/\$handle+/posts.\$id._index/route.tsx"
echo -e "\n=== Checking edit route handling ==="
rg -A 5 "loader|params" "app/routes/\$handle+/posts.\$id.edit/route.tsx"
echo -e "\n=== Checking delete route handling ==="
rg -A 5 "loader|params" "app/routes/\$handle+/posts.\$id.delete/route.tsx"
Length of output: 2579
app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.edit/route.tsx (1)
10-10: Verify all $path usages with safe-routes syntax
The import has been updated to use safe-routes. Let's verify all $path usages in this file match the new library's syntax.
✅ Verification successful
$path usage is consistent with safe-routes syntax
The verification shows that all $path usages in the file under review (app/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.edit/route.tsx) follow the same pattern and syntax as other files in the codebase. The $path function is consistently used with route parameters in the format $path('/:param', { param: value }) throughout the application, indicating a proper migration to safe-routes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all $path usages in this file to ensure consistent migration
rg '\$path\(' "app/routes/\$handle\+/posts.\$id.edit/route.tsx"
Length of output: 149
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the correct path to the file
fd "posts.\$id.edit.*route.tsx" --type f
# Then, let's search for $path usage in all route files
rg '\$path\(' --type tsx
Length of output: 96
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try finding the file first without escaping special characters
fd "posts" --type f
# And search for $path usage without file type restriction
rg '\$path\('
Length of output: 4593
app/services/auth.ts (1)
10-10: Verify authentication redirects with safe-routes
The import has been updated to use safe-routes. Let's verify all authentication-related redirects are working correctly with the new library.
Also applies to: 67-68
✅ Verification successful
Migration to safe-routes is consistent across the codebase
The verification shows that:
- The
$pathimport from 'safe-routes' is consistently used across the codebase, including auth-related files and routes - All redirect calls in auth.ts are properly using the
$pathhelper for type-safe routing - The migration from remix-routes to safe-routes has been applied systematically throughout the application
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all redirect usages in auth-related files
rg "redirect\(\$path\(" "app/services/"
Length of output: 38
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for $path usage in auth-related files with a broader pattern
rg "\$path" "app/services/auth.ts"
# Also search for redirect patterns to understand the routing logic
rg "redirect" "app/services/auth.ts"
# Let's also check if there are any other files using safe-routes
rg "from ['\"](safe|remix)-routes" --type ts
Length of output: 1480
This pull request includes several changes to update the routing library from
remix-routestosafe-routesacross various files in the project. The changes ensure that the project uses the new routing library consistently.Routing Library Update:
README.md: Updated the description to reflect the use ofsafe-routesfor type-safe routing instead ofremix-routes.package.json: Replacedremix-routeswithsafe-routesin dependencies and updated thetypecheckscript to includesafe-routes typegen. [1] [2]vite.config.ts: Replaced theremixRoutesplugin withsafeRoutesin the Vite configuration. [1] [2]Codebase Updates:
$pathfromsafe-routesinstead ofremix-routes:app/components/AppFooter.tsxapp/routes/$handle+/_index/route.tsxapp/routes/$handle+/posts.$id._index/route.tsxapp/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.delete/route.tsxapp/routes/$handle+/posts.$id.edit/route.tsxapp/routes/_index.tsxapp/routes/_public+/_layout.tsxapp/routes/auth+/google.callback/route.tsxapp/routes/auth+/sign_in/route.tsxapp/routes/auth+/sign_out/route.tsxapp/routes/home.tsxapp/routes/welcome+/_index/route.tsxapp/routes/welcome+/create_account/route.tsxapp/services/auth.tsapp/services/google-auth.tsSummary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
remix-routestosafe-routes, enhancing type-safe route generation across the application.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores
remix-routesand includesafe-routes.