feat: integrated Coderabbit for AI powered PR reviews #3298
Conversation
aakankshabhende
requested review from
derberg,
akshatnema,
magicmatatjahu,
anshgoyalevil,
Mayaleeeee and
asyncapi-bot-eve
as code owners
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new configuration file Changes
Assessment against linked issues
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.
✅ Deploy Preview for asyncapi-website ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3298 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 59.01% 59.01%
=======================================
Files 21 21
Lines 649 649
=======================================
Hits 383 383
Misses 266 266 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
aakankshabhende
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
.coderrabbit.yml (2)
14-20: Tools configuration is good, consider adding language-specific linters if needed.The tools configuration enables important code quality tools:
- Spellcheck and markdownlint for documentation quality
- Biome for JavaScript, TypeScript, and JSON linting and formatting
This is a good start for maintaining code quality. However, depending on your project's tech stack, you might want to consider adding more language-specific linters.
Would you like suggestions for additional linters based on your project's primary programming languages?
21-22: Chat auto-reply is enabled, consider adding more detailed settings.Enabling auto-reply can be useful for providing immediate feedback to contributors. However, the current configuration doesn't specify what kind of auto-replies will be sent.
Consider adding more granular control over auto-replies, such as:
- Specific messages for different types of contributions
- Customized greetings or instructions
- Conditions for when to send auto-replies
Would you like help in expanding the auto-reply configuration with more detailed settings?
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 22-22: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/workflows/ai-pr-review.yml (2)
1-5: LGTM! Minor formatting suggestion.The workflow name and trigger are correctly set up. The workflow will run on pull requests targeting the
masterbranch, which aligns with the PR objectives.Consider removing the trailing space on line 5 to improve code cleanliness:
- branches: [ master ] + branches: [ master ]🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 5-5: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
11-21: LGTM! Suggestions for improvement and minor formatting fixes.The steps are well-structured and cover all necessary actions for the AI PR review process. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Consider upgrading to the latest version of the checkout action:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3 + uses: actions/checkout@v4
- For more reproducible builds, consider using
npm ciinstead ofnpm install:- run: npm install + run: npm ci
- Remove trailing spaces on lines 13, 16, 19, and 21 for better code cleanliness.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 13-13: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 16-16: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 19-19: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 21-21: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .coderrabbit.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/ai-pr-review.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint
.coderrabbit.yml
[error] 22-22: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/workflows/ai-pr-review.yml
[error] 5-5: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 13-13: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 16-16: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 19-19: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 21-21: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.coderrabbit.yml (2)
1-1: LGTM: Language setting is correct.The language setting "en-US" is appropriate for English (United States) localization.
2-13: Reviews configuration looks good, but verify the base branch name.The reviews configuration is well-structured and covers important aspects of the review process. The auto-review settings are particularly useful for automated PR reviews.
However, please verify that "master" is indeed the correct base branch name for your repository. Many repositories now use "main" as the default branch name.
To verify the default branch name, run the following command:
If the output is different from "master", update line 13 accordingly.
✅ Verification successful
Base branch name confirmed as "master".
The
base_branchessetting in your reviews configuration correctly references the repository's default branch.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the default branch name of the repository # Test: Get the default branch name. Expect: The correct default branch name (e.g., "main" or "master") gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq .defaultBranchRef.nameLength of output: 73
.github/workflows/ai-pr-review.yml (2)
7-9: LGTM! Job definition is well-structured.The job name
ai_reviewis clear and descriptive. Usingubuntu-latestas the runner ensures that the workflow will always use the most up-to-date Ubuntu version, which is a good practice for security and feature availability.
1-21: Great implementation! Aligns well with PR objectives.This GitHub Actions workflow successfully integrates Coderabbit for AI-powered PR reviews, addressing the objectives outlined in the PR summary and linked issue #3293. The implementation will help expedite the review process and improve code quality for contributors and maintainers.
A few minor suggestions have been made to improve the workflow further, including updating the checkout action version, using
npm cifor more reproducible builds, and removing trailing spaces. These changes will enhance the overall quality and maintainability of the workflow.Great job on implementing this feature!
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 5-5: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 13-13: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 16-16: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 19-19: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 21-21: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
|
⚡️ Lighthouse report for the changes in this PR:
Lighthouse ran on https://deploy-preview-3298--asyncapi-website.netlify.app/ |
aakankshabhende
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.coderrabbit.yml (2)
2-13: Consider adding comments for clarity.The reviews section is well-configured and aligns with the PR objectives. To enhance readability and maintainability, consider adding comments to explain the purpose of each setting. For example:
reviews: # Disable the ability to request changes request_changes_workflow: false # Enable generation of a high-level summary for each review high_level_summary: true # Disable generation of review comments in poem format poem: false # Enable tracking of review status review_status: true auto_review: enabled: true # Ignore PRs with these keywords in the title ignore_title_keywords: - "WIP" - "Do Not Merge" # Don't auto-review draft PRs drafts: false # Only auto-review PRs targeting the master branch base_branches: ["master"]These comments will help future maintainers understand the purpose of each configuration option.
14-20: LGTM: Tools configuration looks good.The tools section is well-configured, enabling spellcheck, markdownlint, and biome. This aligns with the PR objectives of improving code quality.
Consider adding a comment to explain what "biome" is, as it might not be familiar to all developers:
tools: spellcheck: enabled: true markdownlint: enabled: true # Biome is a fast formatter, linter, and more for JavaScript, TypeScript, JSON, etc. biome: enabled: true
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- .coderrabbit.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint
.coderrabbit.yml
[error] 23-23: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
[error] 23-23: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.coderrabbit.yml (3)
1-1: LGTM: Language setting is appropriate.The language setting "en-US" is correctly specified for the CodeRabbit configuration.
21-22: LGTM: Chat configuration is appropriate.The chat section correctly enables the auto_reply feature, which aligns with the PR objectives of facilitating AI-powered reviews.
1-23: Overall, the CodeRabbit configuration looks good and aligns with the PR objectives.The
.coderrabbit.ymlfile is well-structured and includes appropriate settings for language, reviews, tools, and chat. It successfully addresses the goal of integrating CodeRabbit for AI-powered PR reviews as outlined in the PR objectives and linked issue #3293.A few minor suggestions have been made to improve clarity and formatting:
- Adding comments to explain the purpose of various configuration options.
- Fixing the formatting issues at the end of the file.
These changes will enhance the maintainability and compatibility of the configuration file.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 23-23: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
[error] 23-23: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aakankshabhende please apply the minor suggestion made(which is valid and makes a difference).
Post which, LGTM @akshatnema @derberg
But quick question, I thought we already had a AI PR Reviewer in use?
asyncapi-bot
requested review from
BhaswatiRoy,
J0SAL,
TRohit20 and
VaishnaviNandakumar
Yeah, but this gives us a way more flexibility to configure the settings of AI code reviewer via a file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Kindly add following tools in the configuration as well:
shellcheck:
enabled: true
ruff:
enabled: true
markdownlint:
enabled: true
github-checks:
enabled: true
timeout_ms: 90000
languagetool:
enabled: true
enabled_only: false
level: default
biome:
enabled: true
hadolint:
enabled: true
yamllint:
enabled: true
gitleaks:
enabled: true
eslint:
enabled: true
actionlint:
enabled: true
semgrep:
enabled: trueAdd knowledge_base configuration as well,
like scope should be local for learnings, pull_requests and issues.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.coderrabbit.yml (2)
20-21: Consider increasing GitHub checks timeout.The current timeout of 90 seconds might be insufficient for larger repositories or complex checks.
Consider increasing
timeout_msto at least 180000 (3 minutes) to prevent checks from timing out prematurely.
40-47: Consider global scope for knowledge base.Setting all knowledge base scopes to "local" limits the AI's ability to learn from and apply insights across different repositories in your organization.
Consider using "global" scope for some features to improve learning:
knowledge_base: opt_out: false learnings: - scope: "local" + scope: "global" issues: scope: "local" pull_requests: - scope: "local" + scope: "global"This allows:
- Sharing learnings across repositories
- Learning from PR patterns organization-wide
- Maintaining local scope for sensitive data like issues
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- .coderrabbit.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
.coderrabbit.yml (1)
Learnt from: akshatnema PR: asyncapi/website#3298 File: .coderrabbit.yml:2-2 Timestamp: 2024-10-23T09:13:57.844Z Learning: When a user prefers detailed reviews including nitpicks, set `reviews.profile` to `"assertive"` in the `.coderrabbit.yml` configuration file.
🪛 yamllint
.coderrabbit.yml
[error] 16-16: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.coderrabbit.yml (1)
4-4: Verify the impact of disabled request changes workflow.Setting
request_changes_workflow: falsemeans Coderabbit won't be able to request changes on PRs. This might limit the effectiveness of the review process, especially for critical issues.Consider enabling this feature to maintain a robust review process where critical issues can block PR merges.
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.coderrabbit.yml (1)
43-50: Consider broader knowledge base scope.Setting all knowledge base scopes to "local" might limit the sharing of valuable insights across related repositories. Consider using "organization" scope if you want to share learnings across related repositories within the organization.
knowledge_base: opt_out: false learnings: - scope: "local" + scope: "organization" issues: - scope: "local" + scope: "organization" pull_requests: - scope: "local" + scope: "organization"
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- .coderrabbit.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
.coderrabbit.yml (1)
Learnt from: akshatnema PR: asyncapi/website#3298 File: .coderrabbit.yml:2-2 Timestamp: 2024-10-23T09:13:57.844Z Learning: When a user prefers detailed reviews including nitpicks, set `reviews.profile` to `"assertive"` in the `.coderrabbit.yml` configuration file.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.coderrabbit.yml (1)
19-21: Consider increasing the GitHub checks timeout.The current timeout of 180 seconds (3 minutes) might be insufficient for larger PRs or when multiple checks are running. Consider increasing this to at least 300 seconds (5 minutes) to prevent timeouts on complex reviews.
.coderrabbit.yml
Outdated
| custom_messages: | ||
| greeting: "Thanks for the mention! I'll review your code shortly." | ||
| farewell: "I've completed the review. Let me know if you need any clarification!" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aakankshabhende I don't find these fields under coderabbit ai yaml configuration. Can you please confirm how it will help and work in the PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@akshatnema the coderrabbit bot requested these changes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@aakankshabhende Can you please point that review message?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@akshatnema please check coderabbit bot's above comment
|
@aakankshabhende any updates on this? |
|
@coderabbitai resolve |
✅ Actions performedComments resolved. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
|
/rtm |
|
Good work @aakankshabhende |
Description
Integrated coderabbit for AI powered PR reviews
Related issue(s)
Fixes #3293
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes