Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

github worflow format fix #2650

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 13, 2024

Conversation

prathmesh703
Copy link

@prathmesh703 prathmesh703 commented Dec 13, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

bug fix

Issue Number:

Fixes #2630

Summary

changed the run command for Run formatting if check fails
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

NO

Have you read the contributing guide?

YES

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Updated GitHub Actions workflow for pull requests to improve formatting command clarity.
    • Introduced a conditional check for target branch to ensure pull requests are directed to develop-postgres.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 13, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the GitHub Actions workflow in the .github/workflows/pull-request.yml file. It changes the formatting command from npm run format to npm run format:fix and introduces a conditional check to ensure that pull requests target the develop-postgres branch. If this condition is not met, an error message will be displayed. The overall structure of the workflow remains unchanged, maintaining jobs for various checks and testing.

Changes

File Change Summary
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml Renamed formatting step to npm run format:fix; added conditional check for target branch develop-postgres.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Restore functionality of formatting command (#2630)
Ensure PR workflow passes formatting checks (#2630)

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

ignore-sensitive-files-pr

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes
  • varshith257
  • AVtheking
  • gautam-divyanshu

Poem

In the land of code where rabbits play,
A workflow change brightens the day.
With format:fix now in sight,
Branch checks ensure we do it right.
Hopping through PRs, we cheer and sing,
For clearer paths that changes bring! 🐇✨


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Experiment)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (2)

Line range hint 13-15: Potential inconsistency in branch targeting configuration

The workflow allows PRs to all branches ('**') but later enforces develop-postgres as the only valid target. Consider updating the on.pull_request.branches configuration to explicitly list only develop-postgres to fail fast and provide clearer feedback.

 on:
   pull_request:
     branches:
-      - '**'
+      - 'develop-postgres'
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)

[error] 49-49: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)


Line range hint 25-27: Consider improving error handling and job organization

The formatting check is split into two steps with a failure condition. Consider combining them into a single step with better error handling:

-      - name: Check formatting
-        if: steps.changed-files.outputs.only_changed != 'true'
-        run: npm run format:check
-        
-      - name: Run formatting if check fails
-        if: failure()
-        run: npm run format:fix
+      - name: Check and fix formatting
+        if: steps.changed-files.outputs.only_changed != 'true'
+        run: |
+          if ! npm run format:check; then
+            echo "::warning::Formatting issues detected, attempting to fix..."
+            npm run format:fix
+            # Check again after fixing to ensure all issues are resolved
+            npm run format:check
+          fi

This approach:

  1. Combines related steps for better readability
  2. Provides clearer feedback via GitHub Actions warning annotations
  3. Ensures formatting is correct after auto-fixing

Also applies to: 51-53

🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)

[error] 49-49: trailing spaces

(trailing-spaces)

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 316c3cb and 8fd4387.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/pull-request.yml (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (1)

52-52: Verify the format:fix script exists in package.json

The change to use npm run format:fix is appropriate for auto-fixing format issues. However, let's ensure this script is properly defined.

✅ Verification successful

The format:fix script is properly defined in package.json

The script exists and is correctly configured to run Prettier in write mode on TypeScript, JSON, SCSS, and CSS files, which is appropriate for auto-fixing formatting issues.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if format:fix script exists in package.json
jq '.scripts["format:fix"]' package.json

Length of output: 93

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 13, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.81%. Comparing base (cb5c255) to head (8fd4387).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2650       +/-   ##
=====================================================
- Coverage             95.19%   83.81%   -11.39%     
=====================================================
  Files                   295      312       +17     
  Lines                  7036     8118     +1082     
  Branches               1516     1773      +257     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   6698     6804      +106     
- Misses                  132     1172     +1040     
+ Partials                206      142       -64     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit a5c9d97 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 13, 2024
11 of 14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants