增加一个函数签名和一个泛型参数

[hzgotb]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Improved type safety and consistency in base class configuration handling for more predictable behavior.
  • Made cleanup/close logic more explicit and reliable to reduce unexpected runtime issues during shutdown.

[coderabbitai]

Note

Other AI code review bot(s) detected

CodeRabbit has detected other AI code review bot(s) in this pull request and will avoid duplicating their findings in the review comments. This may lead to a less comprehensive review.

Walkthrough

Base was generalized to Base<T, O extends BaseOptions = BaseOptions>; the public options property, constructor parameter, and initialization now use O. An optional protected _close?: () => Promise<void> method was declared and the close flow now directly awaits this._close() when present (no Reflect usage).

Changes

Cohort / File(s)

Change Summary

Base class generic and close-flow updates src/index.ts

- Base renamed to Base<T, O extends BaseOptions<T> = BaseOptions<T>>. - options property type changed from BaseOptions<T> to O. - Constructor signature changed to constructor(options?: O) and initialization uses this.options = options ?? ({} as O). - Added protected _close?(): Promise<void> optional method signature (no ts-expect-error). - Replaced Reflect-based _close lookup with direct if (this._close) await this._close(); invocation and preserved existing error handling flow.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
  participant Caller
  participant Base
  note right of Base `#dff0d8`: Base instance holds options: O
  Caller->>Base: call close()
  alt _close defined
    Base->>Base: await this._close()
    Base-->>Caller: resolved / propagated errors
  else _close undefined
    Base-->>Caller: return early (no-op)
  end

Loading

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20–30 minutes

• Check generic default and constraint (O extends BaseOptions<T>) for intended subclass compatibility.
• Review use of ({} as O) to ensure it doesn't hide required option properties for subclasses.
• Verify the optional protected _close?(): Promise<void> signature and its visibility matches intended override patterns.
• Confirm error handling around direct _close invocation remains correct without Reflect-based checks.

Poem

🐰
With extra paws and ears alert, I hop,
Generics stretched, options fit the crop.
A gentle _close now waits in place,
No mirrors sought — it greets its case.
Hooray, the Base prepares the space! 🥕✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title describes only a subset of changes (adding a function signature and generic parameter), but the PR actually includes major refactoring of the close logic using Reflect, type changes, and constructor modifications.	Revise the title to better reflect the full scope of changes, such as 'Refactor Base class with generic options type and direct _close invocation' or clarify if the PR's main focus is specifically the generic parameter addition.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e1477df and 45ac3f9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/index.ts (3 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (4)

src/index.ts (4)

16-17: LGTM! Clean generic parameter addition.

The second generic parameter O extends BaseOptions<T> is well-designed and allows subclasses to provide more specific option types while maintaining backward compatibility through the default type parameter.

Also applies to: 22-22

---

20-21: Good implementation of the previous review suggestion.

The optional method signature protected _close?(): Promise<void> is a clean, type-safe approach that addresses the previous review comment. This is much clearer than using function overloads with @ts-expect-error.

Based on learnings

---

47-47: Type assertion is safe given current BaseOptions structure.

The type assertion as O is necessary and currently safe because all properties in BaseOptions<T> are optional. However, be aware that if subclasses define O with required properties beyond BaseOptions<T>, this fallback could be problematic.

---

103-108: Excellent refactor that addresses previous review feedback.

The direct method invocation pattern (await this._close()) is cleaner, more performant, and more type-safe than the previous Reflect-based approach. The type check correctly handles both defined and undefined cases for the optional method.

Based on learnings

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @hzgotb, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

此拉取请求旨在增强 Base 抽象类的类型灵活性和结构清晰度。通过引入一个新的泛型参数 O，它允许子类在继承时为 options 属性定义更具体的类型，从而提高类型安全性和代码的可维护性。同时，添加 _close 方法签名，为子类提供了一个明确的契约，用于实现异步资源清理逻辑。

Highlights

• 增加泛型参数 O: Base 抽象类现在引入了一个新的泛型参数 O，它继承自 BaseOptions<T>。这允许子类为 options 属性指定更具体的类型，从而提高类型安全性和灵活性。
• 更新 options 属性和构造函数参数类型: Base 类中的 options 属性和构造函数参数的类型已从 BaseOptions<T> 更新为新的泛型参数 O，以支持更灵活的类型定义。
• 增加 _close 方法签名: 在 Base 抽象类中添加了一个 protected _close(): Promise<void>; 的方法签名，并带有 @ts-expect-error 注释，表明它将在子类中实现，用于定义资源清理的契约。
• 构造函数中 options 的初始化: 构造函数中 this.options 的初始化逻辑已更新为 options ?? ({} as O);，以确保在 options 未提供时，默认值能正确地被类型断言为 O 类型。

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

这个 PR 主要是为了增强 Base 类的类型安全，通过增加一个泛型参数 O 来更精确地定义 options 的类型。同时，为 _close 方法增加了一个函数签名，以方便子类实现。

代码的改动是合理的，但 _close 方法的声明方式可以更优雅。我提出了一些具体的建议。

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

src/index.ts (1)

20-21: Consider a more idiomatic approach for optional protected methods.

The @ts-expect-error placeholder pattern provides type hints but is unconventional. While it works and offers IDE support for subclasses, consider documenting this as an optional hook in JSDoc comments instead. The current approach suppresses legitimate TypeScript errors and may confuse maintainers.

Alternative approach using JSDoc:

-  /* @ts-expect-error just a placeholder, will be implemented in subclass */
-  protected _close(): Promise<void>;
+  /**
+   * Optional cleanup hook called by close(). 
+   * Subclasses can implement this method to perform cleanup operations.
+   * @returns Promise that resolves when cleanup is complete
+   */
+  protected _close?(): Promise<void>;

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6f03438 and e1477df.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/index.ts (2 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (4)

src/index.ts (4)

16-16: LGTM! Generic parameter improves type safety.

The addition of the second generic parameter O constrained to BaseOptions<T> is a solid improvement that allows subclasses to define custom, strongly-typed option interfaces while maintaining compatibility with the base options type.

---

17-17: LGTM! Property type correctly uses the generic.

The options property type is correctly updated to use the generic O, enabling proper type inference in subclasses.

---

22-22: LGTM! Constructor signature correctly updated.

The constructor signature correctly accepts the generic O type, maintaining consistency with the class-level generic parameters.

---

47-47: Type assertion allows unsafe option defaults if subclasses extend O with required fields.

The cast as O at line 47 hides type errors when options is undefined. While BaseOptions guarantees all fields are optional, the generic constraint O extends BaseOptions<T> does not prevent subclasses from adding required properties. If a subclass defines required fields in O and Base is instantiated without complete options, the empty object cast violates the type contract.

Current subclasses in the codebase handle this safely by passing complete options objects, but this is a fragile pattern that depends on developer discipline rather than type safety.

Recommend either:

1. Document that O must only have optional fields beyond BaseOptions<T>
2. Make options parameter required in the constructor signature

[fengmk2]

请增加一个单元测试对应此变更

[pkg-pr-new]

Open in StackBlitz

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/node-modules/sdk-base@26

commit: 45ac3f9