-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 300
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: 3rd party payment dispute reason added #8464
feat: 3rd party payment dispute reason added #8464
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
A production App ID was automatically generated for this PR. (log)
Click here to copy & paste above information.
|
🚨 Lighthouse report for the changes in this PR:
Lighthouse ran with https://deriv-app-git-fork-nada-deriv-nada-p2ps-216dispute-reason.binary.sx/ |
</label> | ||
</ItemWrapper> | ||
))} | ||
children.map( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what about using a filter children instead of adding this condition here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
updated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
.filter(item => !item.props.is_hidden) | ||
.map( | ||
item => | ||
!item.props.is_hidden && ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We dont need this condition here anymore right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
updated
15c265e
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8464 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 0.05% 20.81% +20.75%
===========================================
Files 117 1561 +1444
Lines 3425 36119 +32694
Branches 893 7091 +6198
===========================================
+ Hits 2 7518 +7516
- Misses 3423 27859 +24436
- Partials 0 742 +742
|
This PR is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days. |
|
GitGuardian id | Secret | Commit | Filename | |
---|---|---|---|---|
- | Generic High Entropy Secret | faa2883 | packages/account/src/Components/currency-selector/tests/currency-selector.spec.tsx | View secret |
- | Generic High Entropy Secret | faa2883 | packages/account/src/Components/currency-selector/tests/currency-selector.spec.tsx | View secret |
🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets
- Understand the implications of revoking this secret by investigating where it is used in your code.
- Replace and store your secrets safely. Learn here the best practices.
- Revoke and rotate these secrets.
- If possible, rewrite git history. Rewriting git history is not a trivial act. You might completely break other contributing developers' workflow and you risk accidentally deleting legitimate data.
To avoid such incidents in the future consider
- following these best practices for managing and storing secrets including API keys and other credentials
- install secret detection on pre-commit to catch secret before it leaves your machine and ease remediation.
🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.
Our GitHub checks need improvements? Share your feedbacks!
9703c77
to
9865503
Compare
value: string; | ||
label: string; | ||
disabled: boolean; | ||
is_hidden?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't you need to give this a falsy default value so that the rest of the usage won't fail? (better to false than undefined in line no.55)
As you work on updating the shared component, please remember to incorporate the QA checklist for all the areas where this component has been utilised.
.../p2p/src/components/order-details/__tests__/order-details-complain-modal-radio-group.spec.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../p2p/src/components/order-details/__tests__/order-details-complain-modal-radio-group.spec.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../p2p/src/components/order-details/__tests__/order-details-complain-modal-radio-group.spec.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM 👍
Changes:
Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed below:
When you need to add unit test
When you need to add integration test
Test coverage checklist (for reviewer)
Type of change