feat: add mutual exclusivity between ChatInput and Webhook components

[Jkavia]

This PR addresses an issue where the canvas allows both a Chat Input and a Webhook component to coexist within the same flow, even though they are mutually exclusive entry points.

Currently, even when invoking the flow via the /run endpoint, the Webhook component is still initialized and executed if present. This behavior contributes to ambiguity and unintended execution paths. A deeper architectural fix will be addressed in a future release.

As an immediate safeguard, this PR introduces UI-level mutual exclusivity between Chat Input and Webhook components.

Related JIRA: https://datastax.jira.com/jira/software/projects/LE/boards/4573?jql=labels%20%3D%20release-v1.8.0&selectedIssue=LE-455

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 28295aba-421b-402c-abc6-d711af64d8a5

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch feat/chat-webhook-mutual-exclusivity

---

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.}

[github-actions]

Frontend Unit Test Coverage Report

Coverage Summary

Lines	Statements	Branches	Functions
	23.28% (8148/34985)	16% (4390/27436)	16.13% (1188/7363)

Unit Test Results

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
2653	0 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	45.85s ⏱️

[Cristhianzl]

Missing test scenarios:

For disableItem:

Scenario	Expected	Priority
disableItem("ChatInput", { chatInput: false, webhookInput: false })	false	🔴 Must have — verifies item is enabled when neither exists
disableItem("ChatInput", { chatInput: true, webhookInput: false })	true	🔴 Must have — original "already added" behavior still works
disableItem("Webhook", { chatInput: false, webhookInput: true })	true	🔴 Must have — original "already added" behavior still works
disableItem("Webhook", { chatInput: false, webhookInput: false })	false	🔴 Must have — verifies item is enabled when neither exists
disableItem("SomeOtherComponent", { chatInput: true, webhookInput: true })	false	🟡 Should have — verifies non-input components aren't affected
disableItem("ChatInput", { chatInput: true, webhookInput: true })	true	🟡 Should have — both present edge case

For getDisabledTooltip:

Scenario	Expected	Priority
getDisabledTooltip("ChatInput", { chatInput: true, webhookInput: false })	"Chat input already added"	🔴 Must have — original behavior
getDisabledTooltip("Webhook", { chatInput: false, webhookInput: true })	"Webhook already added"	🔴 Must have — original behavior
getDisabledTooltip("ChatInput", { chatInput: false, webhookInput: false })	""	🔴 Must have — no tooltip when enabled
getDisabledTooltip("SomeOther", { chatInput: true, webhookInput: true })	""	🟡 Should have

Should fix:

1. Tests — add regression coverage for the original "already added" behavior. Without these, a future refactor could break the original logic with no test catching it.
2. Tests — add base case where neither component exists. These verify the "enabled" state works correctly.

Nice to have:
3. Consider a data-driven EXCLUSIVITY_RULES constant to reduce structural coupling between the two files
4. Extract "ChatInput" and "Webhook" string literals to shared constants
5. Add test for non-input components to ensure no false positives

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (release-1.8.0@ba7982c). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             release-1.8.0   #12036   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage                 ?   37.17%           
================================================
  Files                    ?     1591           
  Lines                    ?    78071           
  Branches                 ?    11833           
================================================
  Hits                     ?    29026           
  Misses                   ?    47390           
  Partials                 ?     1655           

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	57.31% <ø> (?)
frontend	20.84% <100.00%> (?)
lfx	41.49% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...mponents/flowSidebarComponent/helpers/constants.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...nents/flowSidebarComponent/helpers/disable-item.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...owSidebarComponent/helpers/get-disabled-tooltip.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

🚀 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.

[Cristhianzl]

lgtm