delete volunteers api

[BrandonT310442]

No description provided.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
trcc	Ready	Preview	Comment	Nov 21, 2025 2:00am

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds a new API endpoint for deleting volunteers from the database, implementing input validation, existence checking, and comprehensive error handling. The implementation follows a structured response pattern with error and data fields, though with some inconsistencies.

Key changes:

• New deleteVolunteer function with validation and error handling
• Export added to the API module index
• .gitignore updated to exclude development artifacts (.claude, Documentation)

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
src/lib/api/deleteVolunteer.ts	New API function implementing volunteer deletion with validation, existence check, and error handling
src/lib/api/index.ts	Exports the new deleteVolunteer function for use across the application
.gitignore	Adds .claude and Documentation directories to ignored files

---

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

[Copilot]

The validation !id will incorrectly reject id: 0, but id <= 0 already covers this case. While id: 0 is invalid per the business logic, the !id check is redundant because:

• If id is 0, the id <= 0 check will catch it
• The !id check adds unnecessary complexity

Consider simplifying to:

if (typeof id !== "number" || id <= 0 || !Number.isInteger(id)) {

Also consider adding !Number.isInteger(id) to prevent decimal IDs like 1.5 from passing validation.

Suggested change

	if (!id || typeof id !== "number" || id <= 0) {
	return {
	error: {
	message: "Invalid volunteer ID. ID must be a positive number.",
	if (typeof id !== "number" || id <= 0 || !Number.isInteger(id)) {
	return {
	error: {
	message: "Invalid volunteer ID. ID must be a positive integer.",

[notjackl3]

Copilot is right, no need for !id here because we are already checking typeof.

[Copilot]

Inconsistent return structure: The success response has status at the top level, but error responses have status nested inside the error object. This inconsistency makes it harder for API consumers to handle responses uniformly.

Consider either:

1. Moving status inside the data object for success responses, or
2. Always placing status at the top level for both success and error cases

Example of consistent structure (option 2):

return {
  status: 200,
  error: null,
  data: {
    message: "Volunteer deleted successfully.",
    id,
  },
};

[Copilot]

Potential race condition: The check-then-delete pattern (lines 19-39) is vulnerable to race conditions. If another process deletes the volunteer between the existence check and the actual delete operation, the delete will succeed without error, but you've already verified the volunteer exists.

While this may not cause a critical issue in this specific case, it represents a Time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) problem. Consider either:

1. Removing the existence check and relying on the delete operation's return data to determine if a row was affected
2. If you need the existence check for business logic, document this known limitation

For option 1, Supabase delete operations don't return the deleted data by default, but you can check if the operation succeeded without errors as an indicator.

Suggested change

	// Check if volunteer exists before deleting
	const { data: existingVolunteer, error: fetchError } = await client
	.from("Volunteers")
	.select("id")
	.eq("id", id)
	.single();
	if (fetchError || !existingVolunteer) {
	return {
	error: {
	message: "Volunteer not found.",
	status: 404,
	},
	data: null,
	};
	}
	// Delete the volunteer
	const { error: deleteError } = await client
	.from("Volunteers")
	.delete()
	.eq("id", id);
	if (deleteError) {
	return {
	error: {
	message: deleteError.message || "Failed to delete volunteer.",
	status: 500,
	// Attempt to delete the volunteer and return the deleted id
	const { data: deletedVolunteer, error: deleteError } = await client
	.from("Volunteers")
	.delete()
	.eq("id", id)
	.select("id")
	if (deleteError) {
	return {
	error: {
	message: deleteError.message || "Failed to delete volunteer.",
	status: 500,
	},
	data: null,
	};
	}
	// If no volunteer was deleted, it did not exist
	if (!deletedVolunteer || deletedVolunteer.length === 0) {
	return {
	error: {
	message: "Volunteer not found.",
	status: 404,

[LeandroHamaguchi]

I agree with Copilot here. Can we rely on the client's return value to determine whether the volunteer was actually deleted?

One example of how this might be an issue is if the user spams the delete button.

[notjackl3]

You should change the branch name to from remove_volunteer_api to backend/remove-volunteer-api.

[LeandroHamaguchi]

Good work! Just make sure you write a more detailed PR description with screenshots of the before-and-after of deleting the volunteer from the database. This proves that your function works properly and helps devs better understand your PR. You can refer to other PRs. An excellent example of a good PR description is PR #49. Let us know if you have any doubts!

[LeandroHamaguchi]

I agree with Copilot here. Can we rely on the client's return value to determine whether the volunteer was actually deleted?

One example of how this might be an issue is if the user spams the delete button.