Skip to content

Bumblebee - Gitika K #24

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
KGitika wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Bumblebee - Gitika K #24

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e6d660d
completed ChatEntry component with sender, message, and timestamp di…
KGitika Jun 13, 2025
ef2e81b
add ChatLog component to display full chat using ChatEntry components
KGitika Jun 16, 2025
e073dc3
add like toggle functionality and lift state to App to track total likes
KGitika Jun 16, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
39 changes: 36 additions & 3 deletions src/App.jsx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,14 +1,47 @@
import './App.css';
import DATA from './data/messages.json';
// import ChatEntry from './components/ChatEntry';
import ChatLog from './components/ChatLog';
import { useState } from 'react';
import './App.css';



const App = () => {
const [messagesData, setMessagesData] = useState(DATA);
const toggleLike = (Id) => {
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: stick with lowercase variable names

const updatedMessages = messagesData.map((msg) => {
if (msg.id === Id) {
return { ...msg, liked: !msg.liked };
} else {
return msg;
}
});
setMessagesData(updatedMessages);
Comment on lines +13 to +20
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In this case, calculating the next version of the message data using the current state variable and passing that updated version to the state setter shouldn't cause any problems, but we still generally prefer using the callback style of setters. Using that approach, we pass a function to the setter whose parameter will receive the latest state value, and which returns the new value to use for the state.

    setMessagesData(messagesData => messagesData.map(msg => {
      if (msg.id === id) {
        return {...msg, liked: !msg.liked};
      } else {
        return msg;
      };
    }));

We showed this approach in class, but technically, we're mixing a few responsibilities here. rather than this function needing to know how to change the liked status itself, we could move this update logic to a helper function. This would better mirror how we eventually update records when there's an API call involved.

In this project, our messages are very simple objects, but if we had more involved operations, it could be worthwhile to create an actual class with methods to work with them, or at least have a set of dedicated helper functions to centralize any such mutation logic.

};
const likedMessages = messagesData.filter((message) => {
return message.liked === true;
});
const totalLikes = likedMessages.length;
Comment on lines +22 to +25
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice job determining the total likes based on the like data of each message. We don't need an additional piece of state to track this, since it can be derived from the existing state we are tracking.

Great idea to filter down the data to the liked messages and use the list length as the count. This is a really understandable alternative to the more canonical reduce approach. Compared to reduce, it does make a list potentially as long as the message list, but since we know a similar copying gets done anyway during a render (building the ChatEntry components) on the whole it's not any more costly.

return (
<div id="App">
<header>
<h1>Application title</h1>
<h1>Chat Between Vladimer and Estragon</h1>
<h2 id="heartWidget">{totalLikes} ❤️s</h2>
</header>
<main>
{/* Wave 01: Render one ChatEntry component
Wave 02: Render ChatLog component */}
<div>
{
/* Wave 01: Render one ChatEntry component
<ChatEntry
sender={firstMessagesData.sender}
body={firstMessagesData.body}
timeStamp={firstMessagesData.timeStamp}
></ChatEntry> */}

{/* {Wave 02: Render ChatLog component */}
<ChatLog entries = {messagesData} onLikeToggle={toggleLike}></ChatLog>
</div>
</main>
</div>
);
Expand Down
23 changes: 17 additions & 6 deletions src/components/ChatEntry.jsx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,20 +1,31 @@
import './ChatEntry.css';
import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import TimeStamp from './TimeStamp';

const ChatEntry = () => {
const ChatEntry = ({ id, sender, body, timeStamp, liked, onLikeToggle}) => {
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 I like using destructured props to make it more visibly clear in the function definition itself what props we're expecting to receive. We do need to remember that these are all passed in as a single object (the one we usually call props) and it can cause problems if we forget to include the destructuring syntax (it's easy to forget and list the props as multiple separate params), but I really prefer the glanceability.

return (
<div className="chat-entry local">
<h2 className="entry-name">Replace with name of sender</h2>
<h2 className="entry-name">{sender}</h2>
<section className="entry-bubble">
<p>Replace with body of ChatEntry</p>
<p className="entry-time">Replace with TimeStamp component</p>
<button className="like">🤍</button>
<p>{body}</p>
<p className="entry-time">
<TimeStamp time={timeStamp} />
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jun 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice use of the supplied TimeStamp. We pass in the timeStamp string from the message data and it takes care of the rest. All we had to do was confirm the name and type of the prop it was expecting (which we could do through its PropTypes) and we're all set!

</p>
<button className="like" onClick={() => onLikeToggle(id)}>
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 Passing the id of this message lets the logic defined up in the App find the message to update in its data.

{liked ? '❤️' : '🤍'}
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 Nice use of a ternary to pick the emoji to show for the liked status. Consider moving even something small like this to a helper function external to the component, so that the behavior of the emoji-picking logic can be tested easily outside of React.

</button>
</section>
</div>
);
};

ChatEntry.propTypes = {
// Fill with correct proptypes
id: PropTypes.number.isRequired,
sender: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
body: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
timeStamp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
liked: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
onLikeToggle: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jun 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The id, sender, body, timeStamp, and liked props are always passed (they're defined explicitly in the data and also provided in the test) so we can (and should) mark them isRequired.

The remaining props were up to you, and the tests don't know about them. As a result, using isRequired causes a warning when running any tests that only pass the known props. If you didn't see those warnings when running the tests, be sure to also try running the terminal npm test since the warnings are more visible.

To properly mark any other props isRequired, we would also need to update the tests to include at least dummy values (such as an empty callback () => {} for the like handler) to make the proptype checking happy.

Alternatively, for any props that we leave not required, we should also have logic in our component to not try to use the value if it's undefined.

};

export default ChatEntry;
39 changes: 39 additions & 0 deletions src/components/ChatLog.jsx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
import ChatEntry from './ChatEntry';
import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import './ChatLog.css';

const ChatLog = ({entries, onLikeToggle }) =>{
const ChatEntries = entries.map( (entry) => {
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice use of map to convert from the message data into ChatEntry components. We can perform this mapping storing the result into a variable we use in the JSX result as you did here (components are functions, so we can run JS code as usual before we reach the return, and even sometimes have multiple return statements with different JSX), we could make a helper function that we call as part of the return, or this expression itself could be part of the return JSX, which I often like since it helps me see the overall structure of the component, though it can make debugging a little more tricky. But any of those approaches will work fine.

return(
<ChatEntry
key={entry.id}
id={entry.id}
Comment on lines +9 to +10
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍 The key attribute is important for React to be able to detect certain kinds of data changes in an efficient manner. We're also using the id for our own id prop, so it might feel redundant to pass both, but one is for our logic and one is for React internals (we can't safely access the key value in any meaningful way).

sender={entry.sender}
body={entry.body}
timeStamp={entry.timeStamp}
liked = {entry.liked}
onLikeToggle = {onLikeToggle}
></ChatEntry>
);
});
return (
<div className="chat-log">
{ChatEntries}
</div>
);
};

ChatLog.propTypes = {
entries: PropTypes.arrayOf(
PropTypes.shape({
id: PropTypes.number.isRequired,
sender: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
body: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
timeStamp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
liked: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
})
).isRequired,
onLikeToggle: PropTypes.func.isRequired,
Comment on lines +27 to +36
Copy link

@anselrognlie anselrognlie Jul 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Similar to the props for ChatEntry, here, the entries prop is included in the tests, but the like toggle is not, resulting in prop warnings (unless we update the tests to reflect our custom props).

Again, if we were to leave this as not required so as to avoid the test warnings, we'd want to be sure that all the script logic in our component worked properly even in the absence of this value.

};

export default ChatLog