feat: Enable parsing of rich (smart) tags in google docs #215
feat: Enable parsing of rich (smart) tags in google docs #215MrwanBaghdad wants to merge 3 commits intogemini-cli-extensions:mainfrom
Conversation
Currently docs.getText skip over smart chip elements within Google docs. Leaving out information. This commit adds support to render smart chip elements in google docs to simple text
Summary of ChangesHello @MrwanBaghdad, 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! This pull request significantly enhances the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Changelog
Using Gemini Code AssistThe 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
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 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
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request successfully adds support for parsing rich 'smart tags' (like person, date, and rich link elements) from Google Docs, which was previously a missing feature. The implementation correctly extracts text from these elements and includes fallback logic. The accompanying tests are thorough and cover the new functionality and its edge cases.
I've provided a couple of suggestions to improve code consistency and reduce duplication in tests, which should enhance long-term maintainability.
| if (pElement.textRun && pElement.textRun.content) { | ||
| text += pElement.textRun.content; | ||
| } else if (pElement.person?.personProperties) { | ||
| const { name, email } = pElement.person.personProperties; | ||
| text += name || email || ''; | ||
| } else if (pElement.richLink?.richLinkProperties) { | ||
| const { title, uri } = pElement.richLink.richLinkProperties; | ||
| text += title || uri || ''; | ||
| } else if (pElement.dateElement?.dateElementProperties) { | ||
| const { displayText, timestamp } = | ||
| pElement.dateElement.dateElementProperties; | ||
| text += displayText || timestamp || ''; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For improved consistency and robustness, consider using optional chaining (?.) for pElement.textRun and the nullish coalescing operator (??) for fallbacks.
Using pElement.textRun?.content aligns with how other optional properties are checked in this block.
Using ?? instead of || is generally safer as it only falls back for null or undefined, not for other falsy values like an empty string (''). While || works in this specific case, ?? is more explicit about the intended behavior and prevents potential bugs if an empty string becomes a valid, distinct value in the future.
| if (pElement.textRun && pElement.textRun.content) { | |
| text += pElement.textRun.content; | |
| } else if (pElement.person?.personProperties) { | |
| const { name, email } = pElement.person.personProperties; | |
| text += name || email || ''; | |
| } else if (pElement.richLink?.richLinkProperties) { | |
| const { title, uri } = pElement.richLink.richLinkProperties; | |
| text += title || uri || ''; | |
| } else if (pElement.dateElement?.dateElementProperties) { | |
| const { displayText, timestamp } = | |
| pElement.dateElement.dateElementProperties; | |
| text += displayText || timestamp || ''; | |
| } | |
| if (pElement.textRun?.content) { | |
| text += pElement.textRun.content; | |
| } else if (pElement.person?.personProperties) { | |
| const { name, email } = pElement.person.personProperties; | |
| text += name ?? email ?? ''; | |
| } else if (pElement.richLink?.richLinkProperties) { | |
| const { title, uri } = pElement.richLink.richLinkProperties; | |
| text += title ?? uri ?? ''; | |
| } else if (pElement.dateElement?.dateElementProperties) { | |
| const { displayText, timestamp } = | |
| pElement.dateElement.dateElementProperties; | |
| text += displayText ?? timestamp ?? ''; | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Double check your understanding from here, most of these fields "always exist" according to the client library
https://github.com/googleapis/google-api-nodejs-client/blob/main/src/apis/docs/v1.ts#L2204
| it('should fall back to email when person name is not available', async () => { | ||
| const mockDoc = { | ||
| data: { | ||
| tabs: [ | ||
| { | ||
| documentTab: { | ||
| body: { | ||
| content: [ | ||
| { | ||
| paragraph: { | ||
| elements: [ | ||
| { | ||
| person: { | ||
| personProperties: { | ||
| email: 'jane@example.com', | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| mockDocsAPI.documents.get.mockResolvedValue(mockDoc); | ||
|
|
||
| const result = await docsService.getText({ documentId: 'test-doc-id' }); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result.content[0].text).toBe('jane@example.com'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should fall back to uri when rich link title is not available', async () => { | ||
| const mockDoc = { | ||
| data: { | ||
| tabs: [ | ||
| { | ||
| documentTab: { | ||
| body: { | ||
| content: [ | ||
| { | ||
| paragraph: { | ||
| elements: [ | ||
| { | ||
| richLink: { | ||
| richLinkProperties: { | ||
| uri: 'https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/xyz', | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| mockDocsAPI.documents.get.mockResolvedValue(mockDoc); | ||
|
|
||
| const result = await docsService.getText({ documentId: 'test-doc-id' }); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result.content[0].text).toBe( | ||
| 'https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/xyz', | ||
| ); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should fall back to timestamp when date displayText is not available', async () => { | ||
| const mockDoc = { | ||
| data: { | ||
| tabs: [ | ||
| { | ||
| documentTab: { | ||
| body: { | ||
| content: [ | ||
| { | ||
| paragraph: { | ||
| elements: [ | ||
| { | ||
| dateElement: { | ||
| dateElementProperties: { | ||
| timestamp: '1736899200', | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| mockDocsAPI.documents.get.mockResolvedValue(mockDoc); | ||
|
|
||
| const result = await docsService.getText({ documentId: 'test-doc-id' }); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result.content[0].text).toBe('1736899200'); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The tests for fallback scenarios are quite similar and contain a lot of boilerplate code. To improve maintainability and reduce duplication, you could use Jest's it.each to parameterize these tests. This would make the test suite more concise and easier to extend with new fallback cases in the future.
it.each([
{
description: 'should fall back to email when person name is not available',
elements: [
{
person: {
personProperties: {
email: 'jane@example.com',
},
},
},
],
expectedText: 'jane@example.com',
},
{
description: 'should fall back to uri when rich link title is not available',
elements: [
{
richLink: {
richLinkProperties: {
uri: 'https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/xyz',
},
},
},
],
expectedText: 'https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/xyz',
},
{
description: 'should fall back to timestamp when date displayText is not available',
elements: [
{
dateElement: {
dateElementProperties: {
timestamp: '1736899200',
},
},
},
],
expectedText: '1736899200',
},
])('$description', async ({ elements, expectedText }) => {
const mockDoc = {
data: {
tabs: [
{
documentTab: {
body: {
content: [
{
paragraph: {
elements,
},
},
],
},
},
},
],
},
};
mockDocsAPI.documents.get.mockResolvedValue(mockDoc);
const result = await docsService.getText({ documentId: 'test-doc-id' });
expect(result.content[0].text).toBe(expectedText);
});
MrwanBaghdad
changed the title
|
Hey @allenhutchison I am submitting this change as it's a required feature by my organisation. Please let me know if you have any comments or feedbacks. I'm happy to incorporate them in the PR |
1 participant
Currently docs.getText skip over smart chip elements within Google docs.
Leaving out information.
This commit adds support to render smart chip elements in google docs to
simple text