Hotfix for using subproviders

[lodewiges]

I accidentally removed the code from the right place, and didn't test afterwards

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Added SubProvider field to new Sofia account creation form

• Bug Fixes

  • Removed SubProvider field from account edit form

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The sub_provider form field is reorganized across Sofia account modals: removed from the edit modal and conditionally added to the new account user modal when the subprovider configuration is present.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Sofia Account Modals app/views/users/_edit_sofia_account_modal.html.erb, app/views/users/_new_sofia_account_user_modal.html.erb	Removed sub_provider input from edit modal; added conditional sub_provider input to new modal with uppercase enforcement and configuration-based rendering

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

• Both changes follow consistent conditional rendering patterns based on Rails.application.config.x.subprovider_label
• Form field modifications are straightforward template edits with no complex logic
• Field configuration (required, uppercase CSS, onkeyup handler) is standard form input handling

Possibly related PRs

• Add the sub provider field to UI #1173 — Modifies both edit and new Sofia account modals with sub_provider field changes and updates controller params to handle the field
• Add subprovider field to users & make seperate ENV variable for user visible IBAN #1160 — Adds the corresponding users.sub_provider database column and index to support this form field

Poem

🐰 A field hops from edit to new,
Uppercase dreams, subprovider's clue,
Config decides if it appears,
Form modals dance through the years! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The description lacks required sections from the template including checklist completion, proper summary with context, and related issue references.	Complete the checklist items, provide a detailed summary of the changes (why the code was moved, what problem it solves), and reference related issues using 'fixes #xyz' format.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'Hotfix for using subproviders' clearly relates to the main change of moving the sub_provider field from one modal to another.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch hotfix/subprovider-wrong-place

---

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.}

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This is a hotfix that corrects the placement of the subprovider input field in user modals. The code was accidentally removed from the edit modal and is now being properly added to the new user modal instead.

Key Changes:

• Adds subprovider input field to the new Sofia account user modal (conditionally shown when subprovider_label is configured)
• Removes subprovider input field from the edit Sofia account modal

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
app/views/users/_new_sofia_account_user_modal.html.erb	Adds conditional subprovider field to new user form
app/views/users/_edit_sofia_account_modal.html.erb	Removes subprovider field from edit user form

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

The label for the sub_provider field uses 'Subprovider', but in the code that was removed from the edit modal, it was 'SubProvider' (with capital P). This inconsistency should be corrected to match the original capitalization for consistency.

Suggested change

	<%= f.input :sub_provider, label: 'Subprovider', placeholder: Rails.application.config.x.subprovider_label, required: true, input_html: { style: 'text-transform: uppercase;', onkeyup: 'this.value = this.value.toUpperCase();' } %>
	<%= f.input :sub_provider, label: 'SubProvider', placeholder: Rails.application.config.x.subprovider_label, required: true, input_html: { style: 'text-transform: uppercase;', onkeyup: 'this.value = this.value.toUpperCase();' } %>

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8cc7816 and 0dabe91.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• app/views/users/_edit_sofia_account_modal.html.erb (0 hunks)
• app/views/users/_new_sofia_account_user_modal.html.erb (1 hunks)

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• app/views/users/_edit_sofia_account_modal.html.erb

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Build

[coderabbitai]

⚠️ Potential issue | 🔴 Critical

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check User model for sub_provider validations
echo "=== Searching for sub_provider validations in User model ==="
rg -n 'validates.*sub_provider|presence.*sub_provider' app/models/ || echo "No validates directive found"

# Check for sub_provider in entire models directory
echo "=== All sub_provider references in models ==="
rg -n -B 2 -A 2 'sub_provider' app/models/ || echo "No sub_provider references found"

# Check for uppercase/upcase handling for sub_provider
echo "=== Checking for uppercase normalization ==="
rg -n -B 2 -A 2 'upcase|uppercase' app/models/ app/controllers/ | grep -A 2 -B 2 'sub_provider\|provider' || echo "No uppercase handling found"

# List the edit modal file to verify it exists
echo "=== Checking edit modal file ==="
fd '_edit_sofia_account_modal' app/views/users/

# Check sub_provider in edit modal
echo "=== Checking if sub_provider exists in edit modal ==="
if [ -f "app/views/users/_edit_sofia_account_modal.html.erb" ]; then
  rg -n 'sub_provider' app/views/users/_edit_sofia_account_modal.html.erb || echo "No sub_provider found in edit modal"
else
  echo "Edit modal file not found"
fi

# Get context of the new modal around the sub_provider field
echo "=== Context of new modal (lines 14-20) ==="
sed -n '14,20p' app/views/users/_new_sofia_account_user_modal.html.erb

Repository: csvalpha/sofia

Length of output: 1048

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check User model file to see full structure
echo "=== User model existence ==="
fd 'user.rb' app/models/ | head -5

# Check if sub_provider is an accessor or attribute
echo "=== Checking User model for sub_provider attribute/accessor ==="
rg -n 'attr_|sub_provider' app/models/user.rb

# Check strong parameters/permit list in controller
echo "=== Checking controller for sub_provider in params permit ==="
rg -n -B 3 -A 3 'permit.*sub_provider|params\[:user\]' app/controllers/ | grep -B 3 -A 3 'sub_provider\|user_params' || echo "Checking for user controller..."

# Find user-related controllers
echo "=== Finding user-related controllers ==="
fd 'users_controller' app/controllers/

Repository: csvalpha/sofia

Length of output: 1300

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Read the entire User model
echo "=== Full User model ==="
head -80 app/models/user.rb

# Check for database schema/migrations
echo "=== Checking schema for sub_provider column ==="
rg -n 'sub_provider' db/schema.rb || echo "Not in schema.rb"

# Check recent migrations for sub_provider
echo "=== Checking migrations for sub_provider ==="
fd 'migrate' db/migrate | xargs rg -l 'sub_provider' | head -5

# If migrations found, show content
echo "=== Migration content ==="
fd 'migrate' db/migrate | xargs rg -B 2 -A 2 'sub_provider' || echo "No sub_provider in migrations"

Repository: csvalpha/sofia

Length of output: 6123

---

Add presence validation and backend normalization for sub_provider field

The sub_provider field is now in the new modal with required: true, but the User model lacks critical backend safeguards:

1. Missing presence validation: No validates :sub_provider, presence: true in the User model, despite the form marking it as required.
2. Missing backend normalization: No backend uppercasing logic exists—only client-side onkeyup handler enforcement, which users can bypass.
3. Data integrity risk: Without backend validation and normalization, submitted data may be lowercase, contradicting the UI intent.

Add to the User model:

validates :sub_provider, presence: true, if: -> { Rails.application.config.x.subprovider_label.present? }
before_save { self.sub_provider = sub_provider.upcase if sub_provider.present? }

Remove the onkeyup handler from the form if backend normalization is added, or keep it for UX consistency but ensure the backend is the source of truth.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In app/views/users/_new_sofia_account_user_modal.html.erb around lines 16-18,
the form marks :sub_provider as required but the User model lacks backend
presence validation and normalization; add a conditional presence validation
(only when Rails.application.config.x.subprovider_label.present?) and a
before_save callback to upcase sub_provider if present so the database always
stores uppercase values; after adding backend normalization you may remove the
client-side onkeyup handler from the form (or keep it for UX) since the backend
will be the source of truth.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 77.62%. Comparing base (8cc7816) to head (0dabe91).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on staging.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           staging    #1182   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    77.62%   77.62%           
========================================
  Files           54       54           
  Lines         1341     1341           
========================================
  Hits          1041     1041           
  Misses         300      300           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 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.