fix: improve booking page detection and satisfy explicit type lint

[Gunwant35]

What does this PR do?

• fix useIsBookingPage to detect dynamic public booking pages like /rick and /john+jane
• preserve known booking prefixes and exclude reserved root paths
• add explicit Set<string> type annotation for reservedRootPaths
• add regression coverage for booking route detection

Note: Cal.diy is a community-maintained open-source project. Contributions here do NOT flow to Cal.com's production service. -->

• Fixes [Bug]: Improve booking page detection and satisfy explicit type lint #29798

Mandatory Tasks (DO NOT REMOVE)

• I have self-reviewed the code (A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected).
• I have updated the developer docs if this PR makes changes that would require a documentation change. If N/A, write N/A here and check the checkbox.
• I confirm automated tests are in place that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.

[github-actions]

Welcome to Cal.diy, @Gunwant35! Thanks for opening this pull request.

A few things to keep in mind:

• This is Cal.diy, not Cal.com. Cal.diy is a community-driven, fully open-source fork of Cal.com licensed under MIT. Your changes here will be part of Cal.diy — they will not be deployed to the Cal.com production app.
• Please review our Contributing Guidelines if you haven't already.
• Make sure your PR title follows the Conventional Commits format.

A maintainer will review your PR soon. Thanks for contributing!

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Refactors useIsBookingPage to delegate route classification to the exported isBookingPagePath helper. The helper normalizes paths, checks query parameters, matches booking prefixes and list suffixes, and rejects reserved root paths. A Vitest suite covers dynamic booking paths, reserved routes, known prefixes, booking-list exclusions, and query-parameter cases.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly matches the main change: improved booking page detection and the explicit type lint fix.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the code changes and mentions the booking detection fix, lint annotation, and tests.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR addresses #29798 by detecting dynamic root booking routes, honoring reserved roots, and fixing the explicit type lint issue.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes stay focused on booking page detection and regression tests, with no clear unrelated additions.
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

---

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.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

apps/web/lib/hooks/useIsBookingPage.ts (1)

51-55: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low value

Simplify redundant boolean logic.

Because isUserBookingTypePage requires isUserBookingPage to be true, the condition isUserBookingPage || isUserBookingTypePage is logically equivalent to just isUserBookingPage. You can safely simplify this block.

♻️ Proposed refactor

-  const isUserBookingPage = Boolean(searchParams?.get("user"));
-  const isUserBookingTypePage = isUserBookingPage && Boolean(searchParams?.get("type"));
-  if (isUserBookingPage || isUserBookingTypePage) {
+  if (searchParams?.get("user")) {
     return true;
   }

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@apps/web/lib/hooks/useIsBookingPage.ts` around lines 51 - 55, In the
booking-page detection logic, simplify the condition using isUserBookingPage
because isUserBookingTypePage already depends on it; remove the redundant OR
branch while preserving the existing true return behavior.

apps/web/lib/__tests__/useIsBookingPage.test.ts (1)

46-48: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low value

Remove duplicate test assertion.

These two assertions are completely identical. You can remove the duplicate line.

♻️ Proposed refactor

     expect(isBookingPagePath("/some/page", searchParams)).toBe(true);
-    expect(isBookingPagePath("/some/page", searchParams)).toBe(true);
   });

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@apps/web/lib/__tests__/useIsBookingPage.test.ts` around lines 46 - 48, Remove
the duplicate identical isBookingPagePath assertion in the affected test case,
keeping one assertion for the expected true result.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Nitpick comments:
In `@apps/web/lib/__tests__/useIsBookingPage.test.ts`:
- Around line 46-48: Remove the duplicate identical isBookingPagePath assertion
in the affected test case, keeping one assertion for the expected true result.

In `@apps/web/lib/hooks/useIsBookingPage.ts`:
- Around line 51-55: In the booking-page detection logic, simplify the condition
using isUserBookingPage because isUserBookingTypePage already depends on it;
remove the redundant OR branch while preserving the existing true return
behavior.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f1573a72-dfc5-4c69-9c1e-33990e3e9bfb

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f004349 and a846ecd.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• apps/web/lib/__tests__/useIsBookingPage.test.ts
• apps/web/lib/hooks/useIsBookingPage.ts