bug: fix secret mask calculation

[gkrajniak]

secret value cell crashes the whole table when the configured data key is missing

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved secret-value display handling so missing values no longer cause errors.
  • Empty or unavailable values now consistently render as an 8-character mask.
  • Added coverage to verify the masked text matches the expected fallback output.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The SecretValue component's maskedValue computed property now uses optional chaining (this.value()?.length) to safely handle undefined values. Imports and decorator metadata were reformatted. A test helper was updated to accept optional values, and a new test verifies default masking behavior.

Changes

SecretValue undefined value handling

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Optional chaining fix and formatting projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.ts	maskedValue computed logic changed to use this.value()?.length instead of this.value().length to avoid errors when value is undefined; imports and decorator metadata reformatted to multi-line without changing effective values.
Test coverage for undefined value projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.spec.ts	makeComponent helper updated to accept an optional value parameter, and a new test verifies that an undefined value produces an 8-asterisk mask in both maskedValue() and the rendered text.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Poem

A rabbit hopped through code so neat,
Found a gap where values could delete,
Added a mark, a question small,
So secrets mask when there's nothing at all.
Eight little stars now stand up tall! 🐰✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title is concise and accurately describes the main change: fixing secret mask calculation for missing values.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch bug/fix-null-undefined-values-in-secrets-mask-calulcation

---

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.}

[gkrajniak]

platform-mesh/portal-ui-lib#495

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.ts (1)

17-20: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Relax value to an optional input
value() is only used inside the @if (isVisible()) branch, but resource-field.component.html can still pass undefined here. input<string>() matches the actual data flow better than input.required<string>().

🤖 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
`@projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.ts`
around lines 17 - 20, The SecretValueComponent input contract is too strict:
value is marked required even though callers may pass undefined and it is only
consumed when isVisible() is true. Update the value field in
secret-value.component.ts from input.required<string>() to an optional input
signature using input<string>() so the component matches the actual data flow,
while keeping maskedValue and the existing isVisible logic unchanged.

🤖 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.

Nitpick comments:
In
`@projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.ts`:
- Around line 17-20: The SecretValueComponent input contract is too strict:
value is marked required even though callers may pass undefined and it is only
consumed when isVisible() is true. Update the value field in
secret-value.component.ts from input.required<string>() to an optional input
signature using input<string>() so the component matches the actual data flow,
while keeping maskedValue and the existing isVisible logic unchanged.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 801f140c-c29a-4b88-a8ef-2f7bf54b6587

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3cd4b22 and 59981e0.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.spec.ts
• projects/ngx/declarative-ui/resource-field/secret-value/secret-value.component.ts