adds image types #2
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds image handling capabilities to the DTO validation library, including a new "image" type validator, comprehensive YAML examples demonstrating image-centric DTO configurations, documentation detailing validation features and usage patterns, and extensive test coverage for image property validation scenarios. Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant User
participant Factory
participant DTO Property
participant IsImage Validator
participant Result
User->>Factory: Create DTO with image property definition
Factory->>DTO Property: Initialize property with type="image"
User->>DTO Property: Set image data (base64/data URI)
DTO Property->>IsImage Validator: Validate image content
alt Valid Image
IsImage Validator->>Result: Return success
Result->>User: Image set successfully
else Invalid Image
IsImage Validator->>Result: Return validation error
Result->>User: Validation exception
end
User->>DTO Property: Call validate()
DTO Property->>DTO Property: Check all image constraints
DTO Property->>User: Return validation status
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
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. Comment |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In @src/Dto/Property.php:
- Line 43: The $typeValidators array in Property (entry 'image' => new
Validation\IsImage(...)) references a non-existent Validation\IsImage class and
will throw ClassNotFoundException; either remove the 'image' entry from the
$typeValidators array in the Property class if you don't need image validation,
or implement and register a custom validator class named Validation\IsImage that
implements the validation interface used by the project and update any
dependency injection/loader to recognize it, or replace the entry with a
validator provided by your installed validation package (referencing its actual
class name) and adjust constructor args accordingly.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
readme.md (1)
786-796: Minor style consideration: redundant phrasing.The phrase "SVG images" is technically redundant since SVG stands for "Scalable Vector Graphics." Consider using just "SVGs" instead. This is a very minor documentation style nit.
📝 Suggested wording changes
-- **SVG Security**: SVG images are disabled by default as they can con... +- **SVG Security**: SVGs are disabled by default as they can con...-SVG images are **disabled by default** because they... +SVGs are **disabled by default** because they...-If you need to accept SVG images, you must: +If you need to accept SVGs, you must:
📜 Review details
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
examples/image-example.yamlreadme.mdsrc/Dto/Property.phptests/Dto/ImagePropertyTest.php
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code graph analysis (2)
src/Dto/Property.php (1)
src/Dto/Validation.php (1)
Validation(11-29)
tests/Dto/ImagePropertyTest.php (3)
src/Dto/Dto.php (1)
Dto(15-267)src/Dto/Validation.php (1)
Validation(11-29)src/Dto/Property.php (2)
validate(235-257)getAsJson(310-323)
🪛 LanguageTool
readme.md
[style] ~786-~786: This phrase is redundant (‘G’ stands for ‘graphic’). Use simply “SVGs”.
Context: ...a custom validator) - SVG Security: SVG images are disabled by default as they can con...
(ACRONYM_TAUTOLOGY)
[style] ~789-~789: This phrase is redundant (‘G’ stands for ‘graphic’). Use simply “SVGs”.
Context: ... #### Security Considerations for SVG SVG images are disabled by default because the...
(ACRONYM_TAUTOLOGY)
[style] ~796-~796: This phrase is redundant (‘G’ stands for ‘graphic’). Use simply “SVGs”.
Context: ...used for attacks If you need to accept SVG images, you must: 1. Explicitly enable SVG sup...
(ACRONYM_TAUTOLOGY)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: Cursor Bugbot
🔇 Additional comments (13)
examples/image-example.yaml (1)
1-261: Well-structured example configuration.This example file comprehensively demonstrates image-type DTO configurations including single images, arrays, nested objects, and validation metadata. The security note about SVG exclusion (line 134) is helpful for users.
readme.md (1)
722-811: Comprehensive documentation for image handling.The documentation thoroughly covers image property configuration, supported formats, validation features, and security considerations. The security warnings for SVG are appropriately prominent.
tests/Dto/ImagePropertyTest.php (11)
12-31: LGTM! Solid test for valid image property.The test correctly validates that a base64-encoded JPEG can be set and retrieved from an image property. Using a real 1x1 pixel JPEG ensures the test reflects actual usage.
36-55: LGTM! Good coverage for required field validation.The test properly verifies that a missing required image property fails validation and produces the expected error message.
60-79: LGTM! Data URI format support is tested.The test validates that data URI format (
data:image/png;base64,...) is properly accepted by the image validator.
84-101: LGTM! Invalid base64 rejection is properly tested.The test confirms that invalid base64 strings are rejected with an appropriate validation exception.
106-123: LGTM! Non-image data validation is tested.The test verifies that valid base64 encoding of non-image content (plain text) is correctly rejected.
128-162: LGTM! Multiple image properties test provides good coverage.The test validates handling of multiple image properties with different formats (JPEG, PNG, GIF) in a single DTO.
167-187: LGTM! JSON output test verifies serialization.The test confirms that image properties are correctly serialized in JSON output.
192-213: LGTM! Critical security test for SVG rejection.This test is essential—it verifies that SVG content is rejected by default, protecting against potential XSS attacks embedded in SVG files.
218-240: LGTM! Empty optional field handling is tested.The test confirms that empty strings for optional image fields pass validation without errors.
245-262: LGTM! Non-string value rejection is tested.The test verifies that non-string values (like integers) are properly rejected for image properties.
1-8: The namespace recommendation is not consistent with this project's conventions. While the suggestion appears well-intentioned, the evidence shows:
- PSR-4 autoloading in
composer.jsoncovers onlysrc/(viaNeuron\\), not test files- Multiple test files in
tests/Dto/lack namespaces, includingParameterTest,PropertyValidationTest, andEnumValidationTest- When namespaces are used, they vary inconsistently (
Dto,Test\Dto,Tests\Dto)The file
ImagePropertyTest.phpfollows the existing project pattern by omitting a namespace, consistent with similar tests in the same directory.Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.
Note
Adds first-class
imageproperty type with built-in validation and documentation.imagevalidator inProperty.phpusingValidation\IsImage(checks base64/data URI; SVG disabled by default)readme.mdto listimageandbase64types, usage examples, supported formats, and security notes for SVGexamples/image-example.yamldemonstrating DTOs with image fields across common scenariostests/Dto/ImagePropertyTest.phpcovering valid base64/data URI images, required/optional behavior, JSON output, non-image/invalid data handling, SVG rejection, and type errorsWritten by Cursor Bugbot for commit eecf661. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Tests
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.