Skip to content

Conversation

@lucaseduoli
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request makes a minor fix to the logic for removing API keys from flow templates. The change ensures that the code safely checks for the existence of the "name" key before accessing it, preventing potential errors if the key is missing.

  • Improved robustness in remove_api_keys by adding a check for the "name" key before using it in the API terms check.

@lucaseduoli lucaseduoli requested a review from erichare December 10, 2025 17:41
@lucaseduoli lucaseduoli self-assigned this Dec 10, 2025
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 10, 2025

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix/folders_download

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 10, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 10, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 33.06%. Comparing base (b6ed2bc) to head (f8941ac).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on release-1.7.0.

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (40.02%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           release-1.7.0   #10953      +/-   ##
=================================================
+ Coverage          33.05%   33.06%   +0.01%     
=================================================
  Files               1368     1368              
  Lines              63815    63815              
  Branches            9391     9391              
=================================================
+ Hits               21093    21101       +8     
+ Misses             41679    41671       -8     
  Partials            1043     1043              
Flag Coverage Δ
backend 52.82% <100.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
frontend 14.37% <ø> (ø)
lfx 40.02% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/backend/base/langflow/api/utils/core.py 62.44% <100.00%> (ø)
src/backend/base/langflow/services/deps.py 83.33% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 10, 2025

Frontend Unit Test Coverage Report

Coverage Summary

Lines Statements Branches Functions
Coverage: 15%
15.53% (4261/27421) 8.73% (1834/20999) 9.75% (589/6037)

Unit Test Results

Tests Skipped Failures Errors Time
1675 0 💤 0 ❌ 0 🔥 21.128s ⏱️

@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@lucaseduoli lucaseduoli enabled auto-merge (squash) December 10, 2025 19:04
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@erichare erichare removed their request for review December 10, 2025 19:29


def get_cache_service() -> Union[CacheService, AsyncBaseCacheService]:
def get_cache_service() -> CacheService | AsyncBaseCacheService:
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Cristhianzl I know you made this change to fix fastapi's annotation issues could you take a look at this PR?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes, we need this Union statement.
could you please add it back and add #noqa so the ruff style doesn't change?

@Adam-Aghili
Copy link
Collaborator

other then the 1 uinion vs pipe issue related to fastAPI I think this LGTM. But I would need someone with more expereince to look.

from my understanding | and Union are the same thing

@Cristhianzl
Copy link
Member

yes, but it was failing in python 3.10 build for some reason.

… to use Union for better clarity and compatibility
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@lucaseduoli lucaseduoli requested a review from erichare December 10, 2025 21:36
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 10, 2025
@lucaseduoli lucaseduoli merged commit f184989 into release-1.7.0 Dec 10, 2025
142 of 145 checks passed
@lucaseduoli lucaseduoli deleted the fix/folders_download branch December 10, 2025 22:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants