Remove unnecessary dependencies and upgrade some low-risk ones

[openint-bot]

Important

Remove unused dependencies and clean up code in app-config, web, connectors, and util packages.

• Dependency Removal:
  • Removed cross-fetch from app-config/package.json and related polyfill code from register.node.ts.
  • Removed @stoplight/elements, graphql, graphql-ws, http-proxy, node-http-proxy-json, swagger2openapi from web/package.json.
  • Removed @blossomfinance/iso-4217-currencies, chrono-node, and related code from util/package.json and util directory.
• Code Cleanup:
  • Deleted node-http-proxy-json.d.ts and blossomfinance__iso-4217-currencies.d.ts type definitions.
  • Removed formatting-amount.ts, MPDate.ts, MPInterval.ts, and related tests from util.
  • Updated formatAmount usage in connector-splitwise/def.ts.
• Version Updates:
  • Updated prettier to ^3.5.3 in multiple package.json files.
  • Updated lucide-react to ^0.479.0 in file-picker/package.json and ui/package.json.

^{This description was created by for 61c3691. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
openint	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Mar 8, 2025 8:44pm

[recurseml]

✨ No issues found! Your code is sparkling clean! ✨

🗒️ View all ignored comments in this repo

• This export statement is redundant as it appears both in the diff and original source code. Adding it again will cause a duplicate export error. The line should be removed since it already exists in the source code.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 79ee06a in 1 minute and 32 seconds

More details

• Looked at 2878 lines of code in 63 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 17 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/app-config/constants.ts:5

• Draft comment:
  getServerUrl: Consider adding inline comments explaining the fallback order for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/app-config/package.json:77

• Draft comment:
  Dependencies: Confirm that removal of cross-fetch and other extra deps doesn't affect runtime on Node environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/app-config/register.node.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Deprecated file: If no longer used, consider fully removing this file to clean up unused code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. connectors/connector-venmo/VenmoClient.ts:162

• Draft comment:
  Error handling: The adjustment for earliestDate uses a fallback with ?? null. Consider logging or more detailed error when earliestDate is null.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. packages/util/date-utils.ts:92

• Draft comment:
  Date parsing: Ensure all date formats are covered. Consider validating ISO strings before parsing with DateTime.fromISO.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. packages/util/url-utils.spec.ts:10

• Draft comment:
  Test cases: Consider adding test cases for edge cases like empty strings and malformed URLs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. connectors/connector-splitwise/def.ts:71

• Draft comment:
  Instead of directly using cost.quantity and cost.unit, consider using a dedicated formatting function (like the previous formatAmount) to ensure consistent currency formatting and proper rounding.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While using a dedicated formatting function could be nice for consistency, there's no evidence this is causing any issues. The code is already using parseMoney to handle the input. The change from formatAmount to direct property access was likely intentional. Without seeing formatAmount's implementation or evidence of formatting issues, this feels like speculation.
  I might be undervaluing the importance of consistent currency formatting across the codebase. There could be locale-specific formatting requirements I'm not aware of.
  While consistency is valuable, without clear evidence of a problem or seeing how formatAmount was used elsewhere, this comment is too speculative. The current implementation is clear and uses validated data.
  Delete the comment as it's speculative and suggests a change without clear evidence that it would improve anything.

8. connectors/connector-venmo/VenmoClient.ts:168

• Draft comment:
  Replacing a forced type cast with a nullish coalescing check improves safety. Verify that the new check aligns with the expected DateTime type.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify their intention, which violates the rules. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue with the code. Therefore, it should be removed.

9. apps/app-config/package.json:25

• Draft comment:
  The dependency '@openint/connector-foreceipt' appears to have a potential typographical error. Please verify that 'foreceipt' is the intended package name and not a typo (e.g., for 'for-receipt' or another intended name).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

10. apps/app-config/register.node.ts:38

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The comment on line 39 uses 'get overwritten' but it should be 'gets overwritten'. This is a trivial issue, but worth fixing for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

11. apps/web/package.json:74

• Draft comment:
  The comment on line 74 contains the phrase 'v10 try to import stuff from v11', which is a bit awkward. Consider rephrasing it (for example, 'v10 might attempt to import stuff from v11') for improved clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

12. connectors/all-connectors/package.json:20

• Draft comment:
  The dependency '@openint/connector-foreceipt' on line 20 appears unusual and might be a typographical error. Could you please verify whether this is the intended package name or if it should be corrected?
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

13. connectors/connector-splitwise/def.ts:134

• Draft comment:
  Minor typographical issue: In the comment on line 134, there's a double space in 'This is for' and the word 'Omit' should be 'omit' to maintain consistent style. Although this doesn't affect the code functionality, it's good to fix for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

14. connectors/connector-venmo/VenmoClient.ts:129

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'Positve' should be corrected to 'Positive' in the comment describing the amount parameter.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

15. connectors/connector-venmo/VenmoClient.ts:131

• Draft comment:
  The TODO comment 'Empirically I only saw 'friends' and guessed the other to' appears incomplete. Consider revising it for clarity (e.g., '...guessed the other two values').
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

16. connectors/connector-venmo/VenmoClient.ts:196

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'beginnning' should be corrected to 'beginning' in the comment describing the transactions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

17. kits/file-picker/package.json:4

• Draft comment:
  In the description field (line 4), consider correcting the spelling of 'Sharepoint' to 'SharePoint' and 'One Drive' to 'OneDrive' for accuracy and consistency with standard branding.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_5KcuK5AP3NSPN12a

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on ffca750 in 2 minutes and 13 seconds

More details

• Looked at 349 lines of code in 26 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 10 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/cli/package.json:41

• Draft comment:
  Downgrading @opensdks/runtime from ^0.0.22 to ^0.0.19 is inconsistent with some package locks. Ensure all packages use a consistent version if intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  According to the rules, we should NOT comment on dependency changes or library versions. The rules explicitly state to ignore anything related to dependencies. Even if there might be an inconsistency, this is not something we should comment on in the PR review.
  The version inconsistency could potentially cause build or runtime issues if not addressed. Maybe this is a critical enough issue to warrant breaking the rules?
  No - the rules are very clear about not commenting on dependencies. If there are version conflicts, they will be caught by the build system or package manager.
  Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not commenting on dependency changes or library versions.

2. packages/meta-service-postgres/package.json:16

• Draft comment:
  Inconsistent runtime version: using 0.0.20 here, while most others use 0.0.19. Consider aligning the version.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a dependency version change comment. One of our explicit rules is "Do NOT comment on dependency changes, library versions that you don't recognize, or anything else related to dependencies." Additionally, the comment makes claims about other files ("most others use 0.0.19") which violates the rule about cross-file issues.
  The version alignment could be important for compatibility reasons. Maybe there's a critical reason why 0.0.19 is needed.
  Even if version alignment is important, we explicitly exclude dependency-related comments from our review scope. The PR author likely has a specific reason for choosing this version.
  Delete this comment as it violates our rules about commenting on dependency changes and cross-file issues.

3. kits/connect/package.json:18

• Draft comment:
  Using "typescript": "*" is too permissive. Pin a specific version or use a semver range to ensure consistent builds.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment makes a valid point about version pinning, one of our key rules is to NOT comment on dependency changes or library versions. This falls squarely into that category. Even if the suggestion is technically correct, we should trust the author's judgment on dependency management.
  The comment does highlight a potential build consistency issue which could cause real problems. Maybe dependency management is important enough to override the general rule?
  No - the rules explicitly state not to comment on dependency changes or library versions. This is to avoid noise and trust the author's expertise in managing their dependencies.
  Delete the comment as it violates our rule about not commenting on dependency changes and library versions.

4. kits/file-picker/package.json:80

• Draft comment:
  Downgrading TypeScript from ^5.8.2 to ^5.0.0 might remove recent language features. Confirm if this downgrade is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The rules explicitly state "Do NOT comment on dependency changes" and "Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention." This comment does both - it's about a dependency version change and asks for confirmation of intent. Additionally, TypeScript 5.0.0 to 5.8.2 are both major version 5, so the change is relatively minor.
  Maybe the TypeScript version is critical for the project's functionality and breaking changes between minor versions could cause issues?
  The rules are very clear about not commenting on dependency changes, regardless of their potential impact. If there are compatibility issues, they would be caught during building and testing.
  This comment should be removed as it violates multiple review rules - it's about dependency changes and asks for confirmation of intent.

5. apps/cli/package.json:41

• Draft comment:
  Downgraded @opensdks/runtime from ^0.0.22 to ^0.0.19. Ensure this version is compatible with all dependent modules.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is about a dependency change, specifically a downgrade. It asks the author to ensure compatibility, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of intentions. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

6. kits/connect/package.json:18

• Draft comment:
  Using '*' for the TypeScript dependency is overly permissive. Consider pinning a specific range to avoid unexpected breakages.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  According to the rules, we should NOT comment on dependency changes or library versions. The rules explicitly state to ignore anything related to dependencies. Even though the comment might be technically correct about version pinning being safer, it violates this rule.
  The comment does raise a valid software engineering concern about version pinning. Could ignoring this lead to potential build issues?
  The rules are very clear about not commenting on dependency changes, regardless of the technical merit. We must trust that the team has their own dependency management strategy.
  Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not commenting on dependency changes or library versions.

7. kits/file-picker/package.json:77

• Draft comment:
  Typescript and @types/node versions were downgraded (@types/node from ^22.13.10 to ^20.0.0 and typescript from ^5.8.2 to ^5.0.0). Confirm that these versions meet project requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the downgraded versions of @types/node and typescript meet project requirements. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm their intention or to ensure compatibility. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

8. packages/meta-service-postgres/package.json:15

• Draft comment:
  Inconsistent @opensdks/runtime version: meta-service-postgres now uses 0.0.20 while most other packages use ^0.0.19. Standardize the version across the monorepo.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  According to the rules, we should NOT comment on dependency changes or library versions. The rules explicitly state "Do NOT comment on dependency changes, library versions that you don't recognize, or anything else related to dependencies." Additionally, understanding if this is truly an issue would require checking other files in the monorepo.
  The comment could be pointing out a legitimate consistency issue that might cause problems in the monorepo. Version mismatches can lead to real bugs.
  While dependency consistency is important, the rules are very clear about not commenting on dependency changes. This is likely something that should be handled by the project's dependency management tools or processes.
  Delete this comment as it violates the explicit rule about not commenting on dependency changes or library versions.

9. packages/util/url-utils.spec.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  The import order has been rearranged in this spec file. If this is intentional for style consistency, it's fine; otherwise, consider reverting to the original order.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

10. kits/file-picker/package.json:4

• Draft comment:
  Consider updating the description in line 4: change 'Sharepoint' to 'SharePoint' and 'One Drive' to 'OneDrive' to match the correct casing and branding.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_Z1WrJf90rei5rAfY

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 61c3691 in 36 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages/ui/components/Icon.tsx:13

• Draft comment:
  Explicit exclusion of 'icons' added. Please add a comment explaining why this value is excluded to help future maintainers.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking for an explanation to be added to the code, which is not allowed as it falls under asking the author to explain their intention. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or point out a potential issue with the code itself.

2. packages/ui/components/Icon.tsx:13

• Draft comment:
  Add a comment explaining why 'icons' is excluded from IconName. This improves clarity for future maintainers.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking for an explanation to be added to the code, which is not allowed as it falls under asking the author to explain their intention. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or point out a potential issue with the code itself.

Workflow ID: wflow_ABKZBaI1KhXu7ocw

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.