feat: rating distribution #2687
Conversation
Guilera
requested review from
renatamottam and
lucasfp13
and removed request for
a team
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. |
Guilera
requested review from
eduardoformiga,
lariciamota and
pedromtec
and removed request for
renatamottam
Guilera
force-pushed
the
feat/rating-distribution
branch
from
e938e1e to
877747a
Compare
![semgrep-code-vtex-org[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1288938?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
packages/core/src/pages/[slug]/p.tsx
Outdated
| @@ -68,15 +77,31 @@ type Props = PDPContentType & { | |||
| // https://www.npmjs.com/package/deepmerge | |||
| const overwriteMerge = (_: any[], sourceArray: any[]) => sourceArray | |||
|
|
|||
| const isClientOfferEnabled = (storeConfig as StoreConfig).experimental | |||
| .enableClientOffer | |||
|
|
|||
| function Page({ data: server, sections, globalSections, offers, meta }: Props) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Risk: Affected versions of next are vulnerable to Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data / Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key.
Fix: Upgrade this library to at least version 13.5.7 at faststore/pnpm-lock.yaml:12940.
Reference(s): GHSA-gp8f-8m3g-qvj9, CVE-2024-46982
💬 To ignore this, reply with:
• /fp <comment> for false positive
• /ar <comment> for acceptable risk
• /other <comment> for all other reasons
Alternatively, triage in Semgrep AppSec Platform to ignore the finding created by ssc-adb055b9-fed0-4d70-a57d-eb9825b09449.
|
Semgrep found 3
Risk: Affected versions of next are vulnerable to Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data / Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key. Fix: Upgrade this library to at least version 13.5.7 at faststore/pnpm-lock.yaml:12940. Reference(s): GHSA-gp8f-8m3g-qvj9, CVE-2024-46982 |
Guilera
force-pushed
the
feat/reviews-and-ratings
branch
from
d57303d to
2203c7f
Compare
| (percentage, index) => (rating.distribution[index + 1] = percentage) | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| console.log('distribution', rating.distribution) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
todo: remember to delete the console log
| console.log('distribution', rating.distribution) |
| console.log('search', { | ||
| first, | ||
| after: maybeAfter, | ||
| sort, | ||
| term, | ||
| selectedFacets, | ||
| sponsoredCount, | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
todo: remember to delete the console log
| console.log('search', { | |
| first, | |
| after: maybeAfter, | |
| sort, | |
| term, | |
| selectedFacets, | |
| sponsoredCount, | |
| }) |
| @@ -1008,6 +1023,13 @@ export type StoreProductGroup = { | |||
| skuVariants: Maybe<SkuVariants> | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| export type StoreProductRating = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chore: This file is outdated, could you run the generate command again to update it pls?
| rating: (item) => ({ | ||
| average: item.rating.average, | ||
| totalCount: item.rating.totalCount, | ||
| distribution: { | ||
| starsOne: item.rating.distribution?.[1] ?? 0, | ||
| starsTwo: item.rating.distribution?.[2] ?? 0, | ||
| starsThree: item.rating.distribution?.[3] ?? 0, | ||
| starsFour: item.rating.distribution?.[4] ?? 0, | ||
| starsFive: item.rating.distribution?.[5] ?? 0, | ||
| }, | ||
| }), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: use destructuring to make it more direct, what do you think?
| rating: (item) => ({ | |
| average: item.rating.average, | |
| totalCount: item.rating.totalCount, | |
| distribution: { | |
| starsOne: item.rating.distribution?.[1] ?? 0, | |
| starsTwo: item.rating.distribution?.[2] ?? 0, | |
| starsThree: item.rating.distribution?.[3] ?? 0, | |
| starsFour: item.rating.distribution?.[4] ?? 0, | |
| starsFive: item.rating.distribution?.[5] ?? 0, | |
| }, | |
| }), | |
| rating: ({ rating: { average, totalCount, distribution } }) => ({ | |
| average, | |
| totalCount, | |
| distribution: { | |
| starsOne: distribution?.[1] ?? 0, | |
| starsTwo: distribution?.[2] ?? 0, | |
| starsThree: distribution?.[3] ?? 0, | |
| starsFour: distribution?.[4] ?? 0, | |
| starsFive: distribution?.[5] ?? 0, | |
| }, | |
| }), |
What's the purpose of this pull request?
To retrieves the rating distribution
How it works?
Important
The percentage distribution must be in integers.
Here’s the issue: The original percentages might not add up exactly to 100% because, when rounding, small errors can accumulate.
For example, if you have 27.5% and round it to 28%, you’ve added 0.5% more than the actual value. If you repeat this rounding with multiple percentages, you may end up with a total that’s slightly over or under 100%.
If the sum of the percentages is not exactly 100%, the best approach is to adjust the value of the largest percentage
If the sum is 99%: Distribute the remaining 1% to the most frequent score or to the higher scores
If the sum is 101%: Reduce the largest percentage by 1%
This process ensures that the sum of the percentages is always 100%, keeping the distribution as realistic as possible."
References
FEATURE BRANCH
JIRA SFS-2148