fix: required template params incorrectly reject falsy values

[sahillllllllll-bit]

Description

• Fixes incorrect validation of required template parameters that treated falsy values (false, 0, '') as missing.
• Replaced truthy/falsy check (!templateParams[key]) with a strict undefined check (templateParams[key] === undefined).
• Ensures that only truly missing parameters (i.e., undefined) are flagged, while valid falsy inputs are accepted.
• Added/updated test cases to cover falsy values and prevent regression.

Related issue(s)

Fixes #2008

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Fixed parameter validation to correctly recognize falsy values (e.g., null, false, 0, '') as valid parameter inputs instead of treating them as missing.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 5b5b878

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[asyncapi-bot]

What reviewer looks at during PR review

The following are ideal points maintainers look for during review. Reviewing these points yourself beforehand can help streamline the review process and reduce time to merge.

1. PR Title: Use a concise title that follows our Conventional Commits guidelines and clearly summarizes the change using imperative mood (it means spoken or written as if giving a command or instruction, like "add new helper for listing operations")

   Note - In Generator, prepend feat: or fix: in PR title only when PATCH/MINOR release must be triggered.

2. PR Description: Clearly explain the issue being solved, summarize the changes made, and mention the related issue.

   Note - In Generator, we use Maintainers Work board to track progress. Ensure the PR Description includes Resolves #<issue-number> or Fixes #<issue-number> this will automatically close the linked issue when the PR is merged and helps automate the maintainers workflow.

3. Documentation: Update the relevant Generator documentation to accurately reflect the changes introduced in the PR, ensuring users and contributors have up-to-date guidance.

4. Comments and JSDoc: Write clear and consistent JSDoc comments for functions, including parameter types, return values, and error conditions, so others can easily understand and use the code.

5. DRY Code: Ensure the code follows the Don't Repeat Yourself principle. Look out for duplicate logic that can be reused.

6. Test Coverage: Ensure the new code is well-tested with meaningful test cases that pass consistently and cover all relevant edge cases.

7. Commit History: Contributors should avoid force-pushing as much as possible. It makes it harder to track incremental changes and review the latest updates.

8. Template Design Principles Alignment: While reviewing template-related changes in the packages/ directory, ensure they align with the Assumptions and Principles. If any principle feels outdated or no longer applicable, start a discussion these principles are meant to evolve with the project.

9. Reduce Scope When Needed: If an issue or PR feels too large or complex, consider splitting it and creating follow-up issues. Smaller, focused PRs are easier to review and merge.

10. Bot Comments: As reviewers, check that contributors have appropriately addressed comments or suggestions made by automated bots. If there are bot comments the reviewer disagrees with, react to them or mark them as resolved, so the review history remains clear and accurate.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 35c0ee97-956c-4046-b9b1-da7453b79efc

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bd121dd and 5b5b878.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• apps/generator/lib/templates/config/validator.js

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Fixed required parameter validation in isRequiredParamProvided to treat parameters as missing only when strictly undefined, rather than using a falsy check. This allows valid falsy values such as false, 0, and '' to be correctly recognized as provided parameters.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Required Parameter Validation apps/generator/lib/templates/config/validator.js	Updated isRequiredParamProvided to check for strict undefined instead of falsy values, allowing false, 0, '', and null to be treated as valid provided inputs rather than missing parameters.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'fix: required template params incorrectly reject falsy values' follows Conventional Commits guidelines with imperative mood and clearly summarizes the bug fix in the changeset.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR fully addresses issue #2008 by replacing the falsy check with strict undefined comparison and ensuring falsy values are accepted as valid required parameters.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are scoped to fixing the required parameter validation logic as specified in issue #2008; no unrelated modifications were introduced.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ 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 and usage tips.}

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[Adi-204]

lgtm