[FEATURE] 약관 종류 변경#49
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
More reviews will be available in 53 minutes and 12 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work. Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file). ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan refill rate. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, the refill rate gradually slows as usage increases. The highest same-day bursts are limited more strictly. Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough
Changes약관 타입 역할별 분리 및 TermService 분기
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (2)
src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/DesignerSignupRequest.java (1)
87-87:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win중첩된 TermRequest의 Swagger 예시를 업데이트하세요.
Line 87의
type필드 예시가 여전히"SERVICE"로 되어 있어, 상위 레벨 예시(Line 26:"DESIGNER_SERVICE")와 불일치합니다. API 문서의 일관성을 위해"DESIGNER_SERVICE"로 수정하거나 예시를 제거하는 것이 좋습니다.📝 수정 제안
- `@Schema`(description = "약관 종류", example = "SERVICE") + `@Schema`(description = "약관 종류", example = "DESIGNER_SERVICE")🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/DesignerSignupRequest.java` at line 87, The `@Schema` annotation for the type field in the nested TermRequest class has an example value of "SERVICE" which is inconsistent with the parent level example at line 26 that uses "DESIGNER_SERVICE". Update the example value in the `@Schema` annotation for the type field from "SERVICE" to "DESIGNER_SERVICE" to ensure consistency across the Swagger API documentation and maintain alignment with the DesignerSignupRequest schema.src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/InstructorSignupRequest.java (1)
77-77:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win중첩된 TermRequest의 Swagger 예시를 업데이트하세요.
Line 77의
type필드 예시가 여전히"SERVICE"로 되어 있어, 상위 레벨 예시(Line 25:"INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE")와 불일치합니다. API 문서의 일관성을 위해"INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE"로 수정하거나 예시를 제거하는 것이 좋습니다.📝 수정 제안
- `@Schema`(description = "약관 종류", example = "SERVICE") + `@Schema`(description = "약관 종류", example = "INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE")🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/InstructorSignupRequest.java` at line 77, The `@Schema` annotation for the type field in the nested TermRequest class has an example value of "SERVICE" which is inconsistent with the top-level example value "INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE" shown at line 25. Update the example attribute in the `@Schema` annotation for the type field in TermRequest to use "INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE" instead of "SERVICE" to maintain consistency across the API documentation.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Outside diff comments:
In
`@src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/DesignerSignupRequest.java`:
- Line 87: The `@Schema` annotation for the type field in the nested TermRequest
class has an example value of "SERVICE" which is inconsistent with the parent
level example at line 26 that uses "DESIGNER_SERVICE". Update the example value
in the `@Schema` annotation for the type field from "SERVICE" to
"DESIGNER_SERVICE" to ensure consistency across the Swagger API documentation
and maintain alignment with the DesignerSignupRequest schema.
In
`@src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/InstructorSignupRequest.java`:
- Line 77: The `@Schema` annotation for the type field in the nested TermRequest
class has an example value of "SERVICE" which is inconsistent with the top-level
example value "INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE" shown at line 25. Update the example
attribute in the `@Schema` annotation for the type field in TermRequest to use
"INSTRUCTOR_SERVICE" instead of "SERVICE" to maintain consistency across the API
documentation.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 1e2b3edc-d932-42b2-86c1-bdae9d3f35da
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
src/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/DesignerSignupRequest.javasrc/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/dto/request/InstructorSignupRequest.javasrc/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/service/DesignerAuthService.javasrc/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/auth/service/InstructorAuthService.javasrc/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/term/entity/enums/TermType.javasrc/main/java/ditda/backend/domain/term/service/TermService.java
Jong0128
left a comment
Jong0128
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
수고하셨습니다!
바로 merge 하셔도 좋을꺼같아요!
2 participants
🚀 Related issue
Closes #48
#️⃣ Summary
INSTURCTOR_SERVICE,DESIGNER_SERVICE,USERINFO,SETTLEMENT로 변경했습니다.🔧 Changes
INSTURCTOR_SERVICE,DESIGNER_SERVICE,USERINFO,SETTLEMENT)📸 Test Evidence
💬 Reviewer Notes
Summary by CodeRabbit
릴리스 노트
Documentation
Refactor