style: refine field descriptions in KeyIssuesComponentLink model

[mrT23]

PR Type

Enhancement

---

Description

• Enhanced the field descriptions in the KeyIssuesComponentLink model for better clarity and consistency
• Capitalized the first letter of each field description for uniformity
• Updated the issue_content field description to explicitly state not to include line numbers
• These changes improve the overall documentation and usability of the model

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Documentation	pr_reviewer_prompts.toml Improve KeyIssuesComponentLink model field descriptions    pr_agent/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml Refined field descriptions in the KeyIssuesComponentLink model Capitalized the first letter of each description Clarified the issue_content field description +4/-4

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[mrT23]

Persistent review updated to latest commit 36f71e1

[mrT23]

Persistent review updated to latest commit 36f71e1

[mrT23]

Persistent review updated to latest commit 36f71e1

[codiumai-pr-agent-pro]

CI Failure Feedback 🧐

(Checks updated until commit 4543659)

Action: build-and-test

Failed stage: Test dev docker [❌]

Failed test name: test_simple_dictionary_input

Failure summary: The action failed due to a test failure in the file 'test_convert_to_markdown.py'. Specifically: The test 'test_simple_dictionary_input' in the 'TestConvertToMarkdown' class failed. The failure was due to an AssertionError, indicating a mismatch between the expected and actual output. The difference appears to be in the formatting of the "Possible issues" line in the generated markdown. Expected: "

⚡ Possible issues: No" Actual: "

Possible issues: No" The lightning bolt emoji (⚡) is missing in the actual output.

Relevant error logs: 1: ##[group]Operating System 2: Ubuntu ... 1055: tests/unittest/test_find_line_number_of_relevant_line_in_file.py ...... [ 62%] 1056: tests/unittest/test_fix_output.py .... [ 67%] 1057: tests/unittest/test_github_action_output.py .... [ 72%] 1058: tests/unittest/test_handle_patch_deletions.py .... [ 76%] 1059: tests/unittest/test_language_handler.py ...... [ 83%] 1060: tests/unittest/test_load_yaml.py ... [ 87%] 1061: tests/unittest/test_parse_code_suggestion.py .... [ 91%] 1062: tests/unittest/test_try_fix_yaml.py ....... [100%] 1063: =================================== FAILURES =================================== ... 1067: input_data = {'review': { 1068: 'estimated_effort_to_review_[1-5]': '1, because the changes are minimal and straightforward, focusing on a single functionality addition.\n', 1069: 'relevant_tests': 'No\n', 'possible_issues': 'No\n', 'security_concerns': 'No\n'}, 'code_feedback': [ 1070: {'relevant_file': '``pr_agent/git_providers/git_provider.py\n``', 'language': 'python\n', 1071: 'suggestion': "Consider raising an exception or logging a warning when 'pr_url' attribute is not found. This can help in debugging issues related to the absence of 'pr_url' in instances where it's expected. [important]\n", 1072: 'relevant_line': '[return ""](https://github.com/Codium-ai/pr-agent-pro/pull/102/files#diff-52d45f12b836f77ed1aef86e972e65404634ea4e2a6083fb71a9b0f9bb9e062fR199)'}]} 1073: expected_output = f'{PRReviewHeader.REGULAR.value} 🔍\n\nHere are some key observations to aid the review process:\n\n<table>\n<tr><td>⏱️&nbsp;<strong>Estimated effort to review</strong>: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪</td></tr>\n<tr><td>🧪&nbsp;<strong>No relevant tests</strong></td></tr>\n<tr><td>⚡&nbsp;<strong>Possible issues</strong>: No\n</td></tr>\n<tr><td>🔒&nbsp;<strong>No security concerns identified</strong></td></tr>\n</table>\n\n\n<details><summary> <strong>Code feedback:</strong></summary>\n\n<hr><table><tr><td>relevant file</td><td>pr_agent/git_providers/git_provider.py\n</td></tr><tr><td>suggestion &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td>\n\n<strong>\n\nConsider raising an exception or logging a warning when \'pr_url\' attribute is not found. This can help in debugging issues related to the absence of \'pr_url\' in instances where it\'s expected. [important]\n\n</strong>\n</td></tr><tr><td>relevant line</td><td><a href=\'https://github.com/Codium-ai/pr-agent-pro/pull/102/files#diff-52d45f12b836f77ed1aef86e972e65404634ea4e2a6083fb71a9b0f9bb9e062fR199\'>return ""</a></td></tr></table><hr>\n\n</details>' 1074: > assert convert_to_markdown_v2(input_data).strip() == expected_output.strip() 1075: E AssertionError: assert '## PR Review...n\n</details>' == '## PR Review...n\n</details>' ... 1077: E > 1078: E - <tr><td>⚡&nbsp;<strong>Possible issues</strong>: No 1079: E ? - 1080: E + <tr><td>&nbsp;<strong>Possible issues</strong>: No 1081: E </td></tr> 1082: E <tr><td>🔒&nbsp;<strong>No security concerns identified</strong></td></tr>... 1083: E 1084: E ...Full output truncated (16 lines hidden), use '-vv' to show 1085: tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py:58: AssertionError ... 1109: /usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/azure/devops/__init__.py:6: DeprecationWarning: Deprecated call to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace('azure.devops')`. 1110: Implementing implicit namespace packages (as specified in PEP 420) is preferred to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace`. See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/references/keywords.html#keyword-namespace-packages 1111: pkg_resources.declare_namespace(__name__) 1112: ../usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:2317 1113: /usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:2317: DeprecationWarning: Deprecated call to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace('azure')`. 1114: Implementing implicit namespace packages (as specified in PEP 420) is preferred to `pkg_resources.declare_namespace`. See https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/references/keywords.html#keyword-namespace-packages 1115: declare_namespace(parent) 1116: ../usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydantic/_internal/_config.py:291 1117: /usr/local/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydantic/_internal/_config.py:291: PydanticDeprecatedSince20: Support for class-based `config` is deprecated, use ConfigDict instead. Deprecated in Pydantic V2.0 to be removed in V3.0. See Pydantic V2 Migration Guide at https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.8/migration/ ... 1209: pr_agent/tools/pr_questions.py 82 82 0% 1210: pr_agent/tools/pr_reviewer.py 260 260 0% 1211: pr_agent/tools/pr_similar_issue.py 363 363 0% 1212: pr_agent/tools/pr_update_changelog.py 100 100 0% 1213: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1214: TOTAL 8593 7066 18% 1215: Coverage XML written to file coverage.xml 1216: =========================== short test summary info ============================ 1217: FAILED tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py::TestConvertToMarkdown::test_simple_dictionary_input 1218: ================== 1 failed, 85 passed, 27 warnings in 10.37s ================== 1219: ##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

---

✨ CI feedback usage guide:

---

The CI feedback tool (/checks) automatically triggers when a PR has a failed check.
The tool analyzes the failed checks and provides several feedbacks:

• Failed stage
• Failed test name
• Failure summary
• Relevant error logs

In addition to being automatically triggered, the tool can also be invoked manually by commenting on a PR:

/checks "https://github.com/{repo_name}/actions/runs/{run_number}/job/{job_number}"

where {repo_name} is the name of the repository, {run_number} is the run number of the failed check, and {job_number} is the job number of the failed check.

Configuration options

• enable_auto_checks_feedback - if set to true, the tool will automatically provide feedback when a check is failed. Default is true.
• excluded_checks_list - a list of checks to exclude from the feedback, for example: ["check1", "check2"]. Default is an empty list.
• enable_help_text - if set to true, the tool will provide a help message with the feedback. Default is true.
• persistent_comment - if set to true, the tool will overwrite a previous checks comment with the new feedback. Default is true.
• final_update_message - if persistent_comment is true and updating a previous checks message, the tool will also create a new message: "Persistent checks updated to latest commit". Default is true.

See more information about the checks tool in the docs.

[mrT23]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

(Review updated until commit 4543659)

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Code Clarity The change from "Key issues to review" to "Recommended focus areas for review" should be consistent throughout the file. Some instances of the old phrase still remain. Error Handling The error message in the exception handling has been updated, but it might be beneficial to include more context about the specific issue that failed to process.

[mrT23]

Persistent review updated to latest commit b1fe37a

[mrT23]

Persistent review updated to latest commit 4543659

[mrT23]

/improve

[mrT23]

/help " how do I make the PR agent update the description/suggestions after I commit changes?"

[mrT23]

/help "how do I make the PR agent update the description after each commit ?"

[codiumai-pr-agent-pro]

Question:

how do I make the PR agent update the description after each commit ?

Answer:

The PR-Agent doesn't have a built-in feature to automatically update the description after each commit. However, you can achieve a similar result using the following approaches:

1. Manual Triggering: After making commits, you can manually trigger the describe tool by commenting /describe on the PR. This will generate a new description based on the latest changes.

2. Automation with Markers: You can set up PR-Agent to use description markers. This way, specific parts of the description will be updated automatically when the PR is opened or updated. To enable this:

   • Set the configuration: pr_commands = ["/describe --pr_description.use_description_markers=true", ...]
   • Add markers like pr_agent:summary or pr_agent:walkthrough in your PR description.

3. GitHub App Automation: If you're using the GitHub App, you can configure PR-Agent to run the describe tool automatically when a new PR is opened. This won't update after each commit, but it will provide an initial description.

Remember, these methods will update the description based on the current state of the PR, not specifically after each commit.

Relevant Sources:

• https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/tools/describe#example-usage

[mrT23]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Latest suggestions up to 968fb71

Category	Suggestion	Score
Maintainability	Add a comment to explain the purpose of a condition check Consider adding a comment explaining why the check for 'not isinstance(issue, dict)' is necessary. This will help future developers understand the purpose of this condition and potential edge cases it's handling. pr_agent/algo/utils.py [209-210] +# Skip empty issues or non-dictionary items to ensure valid data structure if not issue or not isinstance(issue, dict): continue Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 Why: Adding a comment to explain the purpose of the condition check is a good practice for code maintainability. It provides context for future developers and improves code understanding.	6
	Use a more descriptive variable name to improve code clarity Consider using a more descriptive variable name instead of 'issues' to improve code readability. For example, 'focus_areas' or 'review_points' would better reflect the content and purpose of the list. pr_agent/algo/utils.py [200] -issues = value +focus_areas = value Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: The suggestion to use a more descriptive variable name is valid and improves code readability. However, the impact is moderate as the current name 'issues' is not entirely unclear.	5
Best practice	Standardize capitalization in field descriptions for consistency Consider using consistent capitalization in the field descriptions. Currently, some descriptions start with a capital letter while others don't. Standardizing this would improve overall consistency. pr_agent/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml [84-87] +issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") +issue_content: str = Field(description="A short and concise summary of what should be further inspected and validated during the PR review process for this issue. Don't state line numbers here") +start_line: int = Field(description="The start line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") +end_line: int = Field(description="The end line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") - Suggestion importance[1-10]: 4 Why: The suggestion to standardize capitalization in field descriptions is valid for maintaining consistency. However, it has a relatively low impact on functionality and is more of a style improvement.	4

---

Previous suggestions

Suggestions up to commit 968fb71

Category	Suggestion	Score
Maintainability	Add a comment to explain the purpose of skipping certain issues Consider adding a comment or log message to explain why the continue statement is used when the issue is not a dictionary or is empty. This will help future maintainers understand the reasoning behind this check. pr_agent/algo/utils.py [209-210] if not issue or not isinstance(issue, dict): + # Skip empty or non-dictionary issues to ensure valid data processing continue Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 Why: Adding a comment to explain the purpose of the continue statement enhances code maintainability and helps future developers understand the logic. This is a good practice for complex conditions.	6
	Use a more descriptive variable name to improve code clarity Consider using a more descriptive variable name instead of 'issues' to improve code readability. For example, 'focus_areas' or 'review_points' would better reflect the content and purpose of the list. pr_agent/algo/utils.py [200] -issues = value +focus_areas = value Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: The suggestion to use a more descriptive variable name is valid and improves code readability. However, the impact is moderate as the current name 'issues' is not entirely unclear.	5
Best practice	Standardize capitalization and punctuation in field descriptions Ensure consistency in capitalization and punctuation across all field descriptions. Some descriptions start with a capital letter and end with a period, while others don't. Standardize this for better readability and consistency. pr_agent/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml [84-87] -issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") -issue_content: str = Field(description="A short and concise summary of what should be further inspected and validated during the PR review process for this issue. Don't state line numbers here") -start_line: int = Field(description="The start line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") -end_line: int = Field(description="The end line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") +issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") +issue_content: str = Field(description="A short and concise summary of what should be further inspected and validated during the PR review process for this issue. Don't state line numbers here.") +start_line: int = Field(description="The start line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file.") +end_line: int = Field(description="The end line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file.") Suggestion importance[1-10]: 4 Why: Standardizing capitalization and punctuation in field descriptions improves consistency and readability. While beneficial, it has a relatively minor impact on the overall code quality.	4

Suggestions up to commit 968fb71

Category	Suggestion	Score
Maintainability	Provide more specific error messages in exception handling The error message in the exception handling could be more specific. Instead of using a generic message, consider including more context about what operation failed. This will make debugging easier in case of an error. pr_agent/algo/utils.py [224] -get_logger().exception(f"Failed to process 'Recommended focus areas for review': {e}") +get_logger().exception(f"Failed to process issue in 'Recommended focus areas for review': {e}") Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: This suggestion offers a moderate improvement in error logging, which can aid in debugging. It's a valid enhancement for maintainability but not critical.	5
Best practice	Use a more descriptive or conventional name for unused loop variables Consider using a more descriptive variable name instead of i in the loop. Since i is not used in the loop body, you can replace it with an underscore (_) to indicate that it's an unused variable. This improves code readability and follows Python conventions for unused loop variables. pr_agent/algo/utils.py [207] -for i, issue in enumerate(issues): +for _, issue in enumerate(issues): Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 3 Why: The suggestion is valid but has a relatively low impact. Using an underscore for unused variables is a Python convention that slightly improves readability.	3

Suggestions up to commit bc7f704

Category	Suggestion	Score
Typo	Fix a typo in the field description by removing a repeated word There's a typo in the issue_header field description. "the the" is repeated. Remove one instance of "the" to correct this. pr_agent/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml [84] -issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") +issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: This suggestion correctly identifies and fixes a typo in the code. While it's a small change, it improves the clarity of the documentation and prevents potential confusion for developers.	7
Consistency	Ensure consistent capitalization and phrasing in field descriptions Consider using consistent capitalization for the field descriptions. Currently, "The" is capitalized in some descriptions but not in others. For consistency, you might want to capitalize "The" in all field descriptions or remove it from all of them. pr_agent/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml [84-87] -issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") -issue_content: str = Field(description="A short and concise summary of the issue for review. Don't state line numbers here") -start_line: int = Field(description="The start line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") -end_line: int = Field(description="The end line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") +issue_header: str = Field(description="One or two word title for the issue. For example: 'Possible Bug', 'Performance Issue', 'Code Smell', etc.") +issue_content: str = Field(description="Short and concise summary of the issue for review. Don't state line numbers here") +start_line: int = Field(description="Start line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") +end_line: int = Field(description="End line that corresponds to this issue in the relevant file") Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: The suggestion improves consistency in the field descriptions, which enhances readability and maintainability. However, it's a relatively minor stylistic change that doesn't affect functionality.	5

[mrT23]

Suggestion: Consider using a more descriptive variable name instead of 'issues' to improve code readability. For example, 'focus_areas' or 'review_points' would better reflect the content and purpose of the list. [maintainability, importance: 5]

Suggested change

	issues = value
	focus_areas = value