templates/ama/handlers/index.ts (1)

5-9: LGTM: Well-structured default export

The default export using object shorthand notation is clean and follows modern JavaScript practices. It provides a centralized access point for the imported modules, which enhances maintainability.

For future scalability, consider using named exports instead of a default export. This would allow for more flexible importing of specific handlers:

export { initial, cover, question };

This change would enable consumers to import only the handlers they need, potentially improving performance through tree-shaking in larger applications.

templates/ama/handlers/answer.ts (2)

7-19: Function signature looks good, but consider typing 'params'.

The function signature is well-structured and appropriately typed for most parameters. However, the 'params' parameter is typed as 'any', which may lead to type safety issues.

Consider defining a more specific type for 'params' based on its expected content. This will improve type safety and make the function's requirements more explicit. For example:

params: {
  // Add expected properties here
  someProperty?: string;
  // ...
}

---

20-21: Elaborate on the "paywithglide" comment and plan implementation.

The comment "this will be used to paywithglide" suggests a future payment feature, but it lacks context and implementation details.

To improve this:

1. Expand the comment to provide more context about the "paywithglide" feature and how it relates to the answer function.
2. Consider adding a TODO comment with specific tasks or requirements for implementing this feature.
3. If possible, outline the expected flow of how the payment will be integrated into the answer process.

Example:

// TODO: Implement paywithglide integration
// - Add Glide API client setup
// - Implement payment processing logic
// - Handle successful/failed payment scenarios
// - Update BuildFrameData to include payment status

templates/ama/views/Payment.tsx (1)

3-3: LGTM: Component definition is correct. Consider destructuring the prop.

The component definition follows React best practices and uses TypeScript correctly for prop typing. To improve readability, consider destructuring the config prop:

export default function PaymentView({ config }: { config: Config }) {

This change would make it clearer what properties are expected from the config object within the component.

templates/ama/handlers/initial.ts (1)

21-27: Clarify 'handler' property and consider improving button labels.

The return object structure looks good, but there are a couple of points to consider:

1. The 'handler' property is set to 'cover'. It would be helpful to add a comment explaining the significance of this value.

2. The button labels could be more descriptive to improve user understanding.

Consider updating the button labels for clarity:

buttons: [
  { label: 'View All Questions' },
  { label: 'Ask a New Question' }
],

Also, please add a comment explaining the 'handler' property:

handler: 'cover', // Indicates that the 'cover' handler should be used for the next interaction

templates/ama/Inspector.tsx (3)

7-9: LGTM: Component declaration and hook usage are well-implemented.

The Inspector component is correctly declared as a default export, and the useFrameConfig hook is properly utilized with type safety.

Consider adding a type annotation to the component for improved readability:

export default function Inspector(): JSX.Element {
  // ...
}

---

10-14: LGTM: Component structure is well-organized.

The use of Configuration.Root and Configuration.Section components provides a clear structure for the configuration interface.

The JSON.stringify line (13) appears to be for debugging purposes. Consider removing or commenting it out if it's not needed in production:

<Configuration.Section title="Cover">
  {/* <p>{JSON.stringify(config)}</p> */}
  // ... rest of the code

---

15-26: LGTM: BasicViewInspector implementation is correct and follows best practices.

The BasicViewInspector is well-implemented with proper prop passing and state management through the onUpdate callback.

For improved type safety, consider using a typed parameter in the onUpdate callback:

onUpdate={(cover: Config['cover']) => {
  updateConfig({ cover: cover })
}}

This ensures that the cover object in the callback matches the expected shape in the Config type.

templates/index.ts (2)

47-48: LGTM: ama module correctly added to exports. Consider consistent ordering.

The ama module is properly added to the default export object. However, there's no clear ordering (alphabetical or otherwise) of the modules in the export object. Consider implementing a consistent ordering scheme (e.g., alphabetical) for better maintainability and easier module location in the future.

---

Line range hint 1-48: Consider improvements for maintainability and type safety.

While the changes look good, here are some suggestions for future improvements:

1. Implement a consistent ordering scheme (e.g., alphabetical) for the exported modules to improve maintainability.
2. Consider adding type information for the exported modules. This could be done by creating an interface that describes the shape of each module and using it in the export statement.

Example:

interface Template {
  // Add common properties or methods here
}

interface Templates {
  [key: string]: Template;
}

const templates: Templates = {
  ama,
  beehiiv,
  // ... other modules in alphabetical order
};

export default templates;

This would provide better type safety and autocompletion for users of this module.

templates/ama/index.ts (3)

14-14: Simplify the type declaration for userIcon.

Since userIcon can be undefined, you can make it optional by using the ? syntax. Change userIcon: string | undefined to userIcon?: string for clarity and consistency with TypeScript optional properties.

Apply this diff to simplify the type:

-    userIcon: string | undefined
+    userIcon?: string

---

16-16: Simplify the type declaration for answer.

The answer property is already marked as optional using ?. Including | undefined is redundant. Remove | undefined to clean up the type declaration.

Apply this diff to simplify the type:

-    answer?: string | undefined
+    answer?: string

---

18-18: Simplify the type declaration for answeredAt.

Similarly, answeredAt is optional, so | undefined can be removed. Update the declaration to improve clarity.

Apply this diff to simplify the type:

-    answeredAt?: Date | undefined
+    answeredAt?: Date

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL