fix: Only log manifest read/parse errors after 3 consecutive failures #1583
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThe changes include updates to the project's ignore rules and modifications to the manifest parsing logic. The Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant Parser as ManifestParser
participant Logger
Client->>Parser: readAndParseManifest()
alt Successful read & parse
Parser-->>Client: Return manifest data
Note right of Parser: Reset consecutiveReadFailures to 0
else Failure during read/parse
Parser->>Parser: Increment consecutiveReadFailures
alt consecutiveReadFailures > 3
Parser->>Logger: Log error with failure count
end
Parser-->>Client: Return error
end
Suggested Reviewers
Warning Review ran into problems🔥 ProblemsErrors were encountered while retrieving linked issues. Errors (1)
✨ Finishing Touches
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 (
|
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 881bc18 in 1 minute and 33 seconds
More details
- Looked at
37lines of code in1files - Skipped
1files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
6drafted comments based on config settings.
1. src/manifest/parsers/index.ts:21
- Draft comment:
Good use of a counter for consecutive failures. Consider explicitly typing it as 'number' for clarity in the class property declaration. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
2. src/manifest/parsers/index.ts:209
- Draft comment:
Check if 'this.consecutiveReadFailures > 3' meets the intended behavior. If logging should occur at exactly 3 failures, consider using '>=' instead. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
The difference between '> 3' and '>= 3' is when exactly the error gets logged. This seems like a minor implementation detail that the author has specifically chosen. There's no clear technical reason why logging at 3 vs 4 failures would be better. This feels like personal preference rather than a real issue.
The comment could be right that the author intended to log at exactly 3 failures. The current code might be a bug if the requirements specifically stated to log at 3 failures.
Without access to requirements or the author's intention, this is purely speculative. The code as written is not wrong - it's just a different threshold choice.
This comment should be deleted as it's speculative and asks the author to verify their intention, which violates our review rules. The exact threshold is an implementation detail.
3. src/manifest/parsers/index.ts:191
- Draft comment:
Consider specifying an explicit return type for 'readAndParseManifest' to improve readability and facilitate future refactoring. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
4. src/manifest/parsers/index.ts:21
- Draft comment:
Consider explicitly annotating the type of 'consecutiveReadFailures' (e.g. number) for clarity. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
5. src/manifest/parsers/index.ts:191
- Draft comment:
Add an explicit return type for the 'readAndParseManifest' utility function to ease future refactoring. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
6. src/manifest/parsers/index.ts:208
- Draft comment:
The condition 'if (this.consecutiveReadFailures > 3)' logs only on the fourth failure. If the intent is to log on the third failure, consider using '>=' instead. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
The difference between > 3 and >= 3 is whether we log on the 3rd or 4th failure. This seems like a minor implementation detail that doesn't significantly impact functionality. The current code's behavior of logging after 3 failed attempts (on the 4th try) is a reasonable approach. The suggestion feels more like a matter of preference than a clear improvement.
The comment is technically correct about the behavior, but am I being too dismissive of the value in making the code more intuitive? Some might find >= 3 more naturally maps to "3 or more failures".
While >= 3 might be marginally more intuitive, the current implementation is clear enough and works correctly. This kind of minor stylistic change doesn't meet the threshold for a necessary code change.
The comment should be removed as it suggests a change that is more about personal preference than a clear improvement in code quality or functionality.
Workflow ID: wflow_JZYqS2zrcrdg2xVR
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/manifest/parsers/index.ts (1)
208-215: Consider making the failure threshold configurable.While the implementation correctly addresses the PR objective, consider these improvements for better maintainability:
- Extract the threshold "3" into a configurable constant
- Differentiate between read and parse errors in the error message
+ private static readonly MAX_CONSECUTIVE_FAILURES = 3; private consecutiveReadFailures = 0; private readAndParseManifest(projectRoot: Uri, targetPath: string) { // ... try { const manifestFile = readFileSync(manifestLocation, "utf8"); const parsedManifest = JSON.parse(manifestFile); this.consecutiveReadFailures = 0; // Reset counter on success return parsedManifest; } catch (error) { this.consecutiveReadFailures++; - if (this.consecutiveReadFailures > 3) { + if (this.consecutiveReadFailures > ManifestParser.MAX_CONSECUTIVE_FAILURES) { + const errorType = error instanceof SyntaxError ? "parse" : "read"; this.terminal.error( "ManifestParser", - `Could not read/parse manifest file at ${manifestLocation} after ${this.consecutiveReadFailures} attempts`, + `Could not ${errorType} manifest file at ${manifestLocation} after ${this.consecutiveReadFailures} attempts`, error, ); } } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.gitignore(1 hunks)src/manifest/parsers/index.ts(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .gitignore
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: build (windows-latest)
- GitHub Check: test (windows-latest)
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/manifest/parsers/index.ts (2)
21-21: LGTM!The private property is well-named and appropriately initialized.
204-206: LGTM!The counter reset logic is correctly placed after successful manifest parsing, ensuring accurate tracking of consecutive failures.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Overview
Problem
Describe the problem you are solving. Mention the ticket/issue if applicable.
Solution
Describe the implemented solution. Add external references if needed.
Screenshot/Demo
A picture is worth a thousand words. Please highlight the changes if applicable.
How to test
Checklist
README.mdupdated and added information about my changeImportant
Log manifest read/parse errors in
ManifestParseronly after 3 consecutive failures.ManifestParser, log manifest read/parse errors only after 3 consecutive failures inreadAndParseManifest().consecutiveReadFailurescounter on successful manifest parse.consecutiveReadFailurescounter toManifestParserclass.readAndParseManifest()to checkconsecutiveReadFailuresbefore logging errors.This description was created by
for 881bc18. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Chores
New Features