Tr/suggestion tracking #70
Conversation
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis PR implements significant changes to improve suggestion tracking functionality and refactors several core components. The main changes include removing unused database-related code, implementing a new documentation content handling approach, updating configuration parameters for suggestion tracking, and making various improvements to code organization and error handling. Sequence diagram for new documentation content handlingsequenceDiagram
participant User
participant PRHelpMessage
participant FileSystem
participant Logger
User->>PRHelpMessage: run()
PRHelpMessage->>FileSystem: Get list of markdown files
FileSystem-->>PRHelpMessage: List of markdown files
PRHelpMessage->>Logger: Log token count
PRHelpMessage->>PRHelpMessage: Check token limit
alt Token count exceeds limit
PRHelpMessage->>PRHelpMessage: Clip tokens
end
PRHelpMessage->>User: Return documentation prompt
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request includes a series of changes across multiple files, primarily focusing on documentation updates, configuration adjustments, and enhancements to the codebase. Key modifications involve the removal of the Dependabot configuration, updates to email settings for GitHub Actions, and significant improvements to the README and other documentation files. Additionally, new sections and features have been added to enhance user guidance and clarity. The codebase also sees updates to error handling, logging, and the introduction of new configuration parameters to improve functionality and usability. Changes
Poem
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 (
|
PR Reviewer Guide 🔍Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
PR Code Suggestions ✨Explore these optional code suggestions:
|
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| path_parts = parsed_url.path.strip('/').split('/') | ||
| if self.base_domain in parsed_url.netloc: | ||
| if 'api.github.com' in parsed_url.netloc or '/api/v3' in pr_url: |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Incomplete URL substring sanitization High
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 2 months ago
To fix the problem, we need to ensure that the URL is properly parsed and the host value is checked correctly. Instead of using a substring match, we should use the urlparse function to parse the URL and then check if the hostname matches the expected value. This approach will prevent bypasses by ensuring that the hostname is exactly what we expect.
The best way to fix this issue is to replace the substring check with a proper hostname check using the urlparse function. Specifically, we will:
- Parse the URL using
urlparse. - Check if the hostname of the parsed URL matches
api.github.com.
| @@ -616,3 +616,3 @@ | ||
| path_parts = parsed_url.path.strip('/').split('/') | ||
| if 'api.github.com' in parsed_url.netloc or '/api/v3' in pr_url: | ||
| if parsed_url.hostname == 'api.github.com' or '/api/v3' in pr_url: | ||
| if len(path_parts) < 5 or path_parts[3] != 'pulls': |
| path_parts = parsed_url.path.strip('/').split('/') | ||
| if self.base_domain in parsed_url.netloc: | ||
| if 'api.github.com' in parsed_url.netloc: |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Incomplete URL substring sanitization High
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 2 months ago
To fix the problem, we need to ensure that the URL's host is correctly validated to prevent malicious URLs from bypassing the check. We will use the urlparse function to parse the URL and then check the hostname attribute to ensure it matches the expected domain.
- Replace the substring check with a check on the parsed URL's hostname.
- Ensure the hostname is exactly
api.github.comor ends with.github.comto allow for subdomains.
| @@ -616,3 +616,3 @@ | ||
| path_parts = parsed_url.path.strip('/').split('/') | ||
| if 'api.github.com' in parsed_url.netloc or '/api/v3' in pr_url: | ||
| if parsed_url.hostname == 'api.github.com' or parsed_url.hostname.endswith('.github.com') or '/api/v3' in pr_url: | ||
| if len(path_parts) < 5 or path_parts[3] != 'pulls': | ||
| @@ -644,3 +644,3 @@ | ||
| path_parts = parsed_url.path.strip('/').split('/') | ||
| if 'api.github.com' in parsed_url.netloc: | ||
| if parsed_url.hostname == 'api.github.com' or parsed_url.hostname.endswith('.github.com'): | ||
| if len(path_parts) < 5 or path_parts[3] != 'issues': |
| @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ | |||
| async def _get_prediction(self, model: str): | |||
| variables = copy.deepcopy(self.vars) | |||
| variables["diff"] = self.patches_diff # update diff | |||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined, autoescape=select_autoescape(['html', 'xml'])) | |||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined) | |||
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Jinja2 templating with autoescape=False Medium
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 2 months ago
To fix the problem, we need to ensure that the Jinja2 Environment object is created with autoescape enabled. This can be done by using the select_autoescape function, which will automatically enable escaping for specific file extensions like HTML and XML. This change will ensure that any content rendered in the templates is properly escaped, mitigating the risk of XSS attacks.
| @@ -5,3 +5,3 @@ | ||
|
|
||
| from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined | ||
| from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined, select_autoescape | ||
|
|
||
| @@ -85,3 +85,3 @@ | ||
| variables["diff"] = self.patches_diff # update diff | ||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined) | ||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined, autoescape=select_autoescape(['html', 'xml'])) | ||
| system_prompt = environment.from_string(get_settings().pr_add_docs_prompt.system).render(variables) |
| from bs4 import BeautifulSoup, Comment | ||
| soup = BeautifulSoup(s, 'html.parser') | ||
| comment = soup.find(string=lambda text: isinstance(text, Comment)) | ||
| r = re.compile(r"<!--.*?-->") |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Bad HTML filtering regexp High
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 2 months ago
To fix the problem, we should replace the custom regular expression with a more robust solution that can handle multi-line comments. The best way to achieve this is by using a well-tested HTML parsing library like BeautifulSoup from the bs4 package. This library can accurately parse HTML content, including comments, and handle various edge cases that a custom regular expression might miss.
Steps to fix:
- Import the
BeautifulSoupclass from thebs4package. - Replace the regular expression-based comment extraction with
BeautifulSoupto find HTML comments. - Update the
extract_linkmethod to useBeautifulSoupfor parsing the input string and extracting the comment content.
| @@ -21,3 +21,3 @@ | ||
| import difflib | ||
| import re | ||
| from bs4 import BeautifulSoup | ||
|
|
||
| @@ -313,8 +313,8 @@ | ||
| def extract_link(self, s): | ||
| r = re.compile(r"<!--.*?-->") | ||
| match = r.search(s) | ||
| soup = BeautifulSoup(s, 'html.parser') | ||
| comment = soup.find(string=lambda text: isinstance(text, Comment)) | ||
|
|
||
| up_to_commit_txt = "" | ||
| if match: | ||
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {match.group(0)[4:-3].strip()}" | ||
| if comment: | ||
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {comment.strip()}" | ||
| return up_to_commit_txt |
| @@ -40 +40,3 @@ | ||
| # langchain-openai==0.1.20 | ||
|
|
||
| beautifulsoup4==4.12.3 |
| Package | Version | Security advisories |
| beautifulsoup4 (pypi) | 4.12.3 | None |
| @@ -604,7 +606,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| variables = {'suggestion_list': suggestion_list, 'suggestion_str': suggestion_str} | |||
| model = get_settings().config.model | |||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined, autoescape=select_autoescape(['html', 'xml'])) | |||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined) | |||
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Jinja2 templating with autoescape=False Medium
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 2 months ago
To fix the problem, we need to ensure that the Jinja2 Environment is created with autoescape enabled. This can be done by using the select_autoescape function, which will automatically enable escaping for specific file extensions like HTML and XML. This change will ensure that any untrusted input is properly escaped, mitigating the risk of XSS attacks.
| @@ -5,3 +5,3 @@ | ||
| from typing import Dict, List | ||
| from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined | ||
| from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined, select_autoescape | ||
|
|
||
| @@ -608,3 +608,3 @@ | ||
| model = get_settings().config.model | ||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined) | ||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined, autoescape=select_autoescape(['html', 'xml'])) | ||
| system_prompt = environment.from_string(get_settings().pr_sort_code_suggestions_prompt.system).render( |
| @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ | |||
| variables = copy.deepcopy(self.vars) | |||
| variables["diff"] = self.patches_diff # update diff | |||
|
|
|||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined, autoescape=select_autoescape(['html', 'xml'])) | |||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined) | |||
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Jinja2 templating with autoescape=False Medium
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix AI about 2 months ago
To fix the problem, we need to ensure that the Jinja2 environment is created with autoescaping enabled. This can be done by using the select_autoescape function provided by Jinja2, which automatically enables autoescaping for specific file extensions like HTML and XML. This change will ensure that any untrusted input is properly escaped, mitigating the risk of XSS attacks.
| @@ -5,3 +5,3 @@ | ||
|
|
||
| from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined | ||
| from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined, select_autoescape | ||
|
|
||
| @@ -136,3 +136,3 @@ | ||
|
|
||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined) | ||
| environment = Environment(undefined=StrictUndefined, autoescape=select_autoescape(['html', 'xml'])) | ||
| set_custom_labels(variables, self.git_provider) |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 47
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (60)
requirements.txt (1)
35-37: Review pinecone repository change.The pinecone-datasets repository source has changed from khulnasoft-lab to mrT23. This change in source repository ownership needs verification:
- Ensure the new repository is trusted
- Verify it maintains the same functionality
Consider forking the repository to maintain control over the dependency source.
pyproject.toml (1)
42-42: Consider using a more standard comment format.While the comment is helpful, consider using the more standard TOML comment format with a single #.
-include = ["pr_insight*"] # include pr_insight and any sub-packages it finds under it. +include = ["pr_insight*"] # Include pr_insight and any sub-packages it finds under itpr_insight/settings/pr_help_prompts.toml (1)
30-35: Consider providing a concrete example instead of placeholders.The current example uses ellipsis (...) as placeholders. A real-world example would be more helpful for understanding the expected output format.
user_question: | - ... + How do I use the 'review' command? response: | - ... + The 'review' command helps you analyze pull requests. You can use it by running `pr-insight review <PR_URL>`. relevant_sections: - file_name: "src/file1.py" relevant_section_header_string: | - ... + ## Using the Review Command - ... +- file_name: "docs/commands.md" + relevant_section_header_string: | + ### PR Review Functionalitydocs/docs/installation/bitbucket.md (3)
Line range hint
6-21: Consider pinning the Docker image version.For security and reproducibility, it's recommended to use a specific version tag instead of
latestfor the Docker image.- - docker run -e CONFIG.GIT_PROVIDER=bitbucket -e OPENAI.KEY=$OPENAI_API_KEY -e BITBUCKET.BEARER_TOKEN=$BITBUCKET_BEARER_TOKEN khulnasoft/pr-insight:latest --pr_url=https://bitbucket.org/$BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE/$BITBUCKET_REPO_SLUG/pull-requests/$BITBUCKET_PR_ID review + - docker run -e CONFIG.GIT_PROVIDER=bitbucket -e OPENAI.KEY=$OPENAI_API_KEY -e BITBUCKET.BEARER_TOKEN=$BITBUCKET_BEARER_TOKEN khulnasoft/pr-insight:1.0.0 --pr_url=https://bitbucket.org/$BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE/$BITBUCKET_REPO_SLUG/pull-requests/$BITBUCKET_PR_ID review
Line range hint
38-42: Consider adding security best practices for token management.While the instructions for token generation are clear, consider adding:
- Recommended token permissions/scopes
- Token rotation guidelines
- Warning about not committing
.secret.tomlto version control
Line range hint
61-71: Enhance webhook security configuration.The current webhook setup with "Authentication None" could be improved:
- Add instructions for webhook secrets/tokens
- Recommend HTTPS endpoints only
- Include version tag for Docker image
-docker build . -t khulnasoft/pr-insight:bitbucket_server_webhook --target bitbucket_server_webhook -f docker/Dockerfile +docker build . -t khulnasoft/pr-insight:bitbucket_server_webhook-1.0.0 --target bitbucket_server_webhook -f docker/Dockerfile -docker push khulnasoft/pr-insight:bitbucket_server_webhook # Push to your Docker repository +docker push khulnasoft/pr-insight:bitbucket_server_webhook-1.0.0 # Push to your Docker repositoryAlso, consider adding these security-focused instructions:
### Webhook Security 1. Generate a webhook secret token 2. Configure webhook authentication in Bitbucket settings 3. Ensure your webhook endpoint uses HTTPS 4. Validate webhook payloads in your server🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
62-62: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
docs/docs/core-abilities/metadata.md (3)
Line range hint
1-51: Consider enhancing the documentation structure.While the content is informative, consider these improvements for better readability:
- Add a brief introduction before diving into the bullet points
- Consider using subsections with proper heading levels (##) for each numbered section
- Add a table of contents at the start
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~55-~55: Possible agreement error. The noun ‘level’ seems to be countable; consider using: “several levels”.
Context: ...the metadata described above represents several level of cumulative analysis - ranging from h...(MANY_NN)
Line range hint
13-16: Add links to referenced documentation.The tip box mentions
extra_instructionsandorganization best practices. Consider adding direct anchor links to the specific sections in the documentation where these concepts are explained in detail.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~55-~55: Possible agreement error. The noun ‘level’ seems to be countable; consider using: “several levels”.
Context: ...the metadata described above represents several level of cumulative analysis - ranging from h...(MANY_NN)
Line range hint
31-50: Consider improving the code example.The code example could be enhanced by:
- Using syntax highlighting for the diff block (```diff)
- Adding comments to explain the significance of
__new hunk__and__old hunk__- Using more realistic function names and code snippets
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~55-~55: Possible agreement error. The noun ‘level’ seems to be countable; consider using: “several levels”.
Context: ...the metadata described above represents several level of cumulative analysis - ranging from h...(MANY_NN)
docs/docs/installation/gitlab.md (3)
Line range hint
1-41: Add documentation for environment variables and versioningWhile the pipeline configuration is correct, consider enhancing the documentation by:
- Adding descriptions for each environment variable used in the pipeline
- Mentioning the implications of using
latesttag vs. specific versionsimage: - name: khulnasoft/pr-insight:latest + name: khulnasoft/pr-insight:v1.0.0 # Specify a version for reproducible builds🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
60-60: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Inconsistent indentation for list items at the same level(MD005, list-indent)
63-63: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Inconsistent indentation for list items at the same level(MD005, list-indent)
49-49: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
55-55: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
69-69: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
45-52: Add security context for access token permissionsConsider explaining why the "Reporter" role (or "Developer" for Pro) is required and what specific API permissions are needed.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
49-49: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
74-77: Enhance webhook security documentationThe webhook setup instructions should include security best practices.
Add a note about:
- Using HTTPS for the webhook URL
- Keeping the webhook secret secure
- Regularly rotating the secret
docs/docs/installation/pr_insight_pro.md (3)
10-10: Consider using standard Markdown image syntax.The current image syntax uses a custom width attribute
{width=468}which might not be supported by all Markdown renderers. Consider using standard HTML for better compatibility.-{width=468} +<img src="https://khulnasoft.com/images/pr_insight/pr_insight_pro_install.png" alt="PR-Insight Pro" width="468" />
21-22: Consider expanding GitHub Enterprise Server installation steps.The GitLab installation section provides detailed step-by-step instructions with screenshots, while the GitHub Enterprise Server section is very brief. Consider adding detailed installation steps to maintain consistency across platform guides.
Would you like me to help draft a detailed step-by-step guide for GitHub Enterprise Server installation?
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~21-~21: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: ...ro for GitHub Enterprise Server To use PR-Insight Pro application on your private...(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
Line range hint
33-33: Standardize image syntax throughout the document.Multiple images use custom width attributes that might not be supported by all Markdown renderers. Consider using standard HTML for better compatibility.
For example:
-{width=750} +<img src="https://www.khulnasoft.com/images/pr_insight/gitlab_pro_pat.png" alt="Step 1" width="750" />Also applies to: 46-46
pr_insight/settings/.secrets_template.toml (2)
46-48: Add instructions for obtaining the Google AI Studio API key.Consider adding a URL or instructions for obtaining the API key, similar to other sections (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic).
[google_ai_studio] -gemini_api_key = "" # the google AI Studio API key +gemini_api_key = "" # Acquire through https://makersuite.google.com/app/apikeys
Line range hint
1-93: Consider adding security best practices section.Since this template will be used as a reference for setting up sensitive configurations, consider adding a security best practices section at the top of the file that covers:
- Safe storage of the secrets file
- Recommended permissions
- Environment variable alternatives
- Key rotation policies
pr_insight/algo/__init__.py (1)
37-57: Consider memory management for high-token models.With the introduction of models supporting very large token limits (particularly Gemini's 1M tokens), consider:
- Memory management strategies for handling large responses
- Timeout configurations for longer processing times
- Graceful degradation when approaching token limits
- Cost implications of processing large token counts
docs/docs/usage-guide/configuration_options.md (5)
1-4: Consider using relative links for repository files.Instead of absolute GitHub URLs that reference the
mainbranch, consider using relative links for files within the repository. This makes the documentation more maintainable and less prone to breaking if branch names change.-**[configuration file](https://github.com/Khulnasoft/pr-insight/blob/main/pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml)**. +**[configuration file](../../../pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml)**. -[pr_reviewer](https://github.com/Khulnasoft/pr-insight/blob/main/pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml#L16) +[pr_reviewer](../../../pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml#L16)
Line range hint
28-29: Improve media resource handling and accessibility.Several improvements can be made to the media resources:
- Consider hosting images and videos within the repository to prevent external dependencies
- Add descriptive alt text to improve accessibility
- Use HTML for image sizing for better compatibility
-{width=512} +<img src="../assets/images/wiki_configuration.png" alt="Screenshot showing PR-Insight wiki configuration page" width="512" /> -Click [here](https://khulnasoft.com/images/pr_insight/wiki_configuration_pr_insight.mp4) to see a short instructional video. +[Watch the wiki configuration tutorial video](../assets/videos/wiki_configuration_pr_insight.mp4) for step-by-step instructions.
Line range hint
35-38: Standardize code block formatting.For consistency and better syntax highlighting, specify the language for all code blocks.
-``` +```toml [pr_description] generate_ai_title=true-
+toml
[pr_reviewer]
extra_instructions="""\
- instruction a
- instruction b
...
"""Also applies to: 56-61 --- Line range hint `7-9`: **Add a legend for emoji indicators.** The 💎 emoji is used throughout the document but its meaning (premium feature) is not explained. Consider adding a legend at the beginning of the document. ```markdown ## Legend - 💎 - Premium feature
Line range hint
1-100: Maintain consistent product name casing.The document alternates between "PR-Insight" and "pr-insight". Choose one format and use it consistently throughout the documentation.
Consider using "PR-Insight" consistently, as it appears to be the official product name.
pr_insight/settings/pr_code_suggestions_prompts.toml (1)
49-49: Consider adding rationale for excluded suggestions.While the guideline clearly lists what not to suggest, adding a brief explanation of why these suggestions are excluded (e.g., "to focus on functional improvements" or "these are handled by other tools") would help users better understand and accept these limitations.
-Don't suggest to add docstring, type hints, or comments, to remove unused imports, or to use more specific exception types. +Don't suggest to add docstring, type hints, or comments, to remove unused imports, or to use more specific exception types, as these are typically handled by static analysis tools and formatters.pr_insight/tools/ticket_pr_compliance_check.py (1)
35-38: Enhance function documentation.The docstring should include descriptions of all parameters and return type.
Consider updating the docstring:
def extract_ticket_links_from_pr_description(pr_description, repo_path, base_url_html='https://github.com'): """ - Extract all ticket links from PR description + Extract all ticket links from PR description. + + Args: + pr_description: The pull request description text + repo_path: The repository path in format 'owner/repo' + base_url_html: Base GitHub URL, defaults to 'https://github.com' + + Returns: + list: A list of unique ticket URLs """docs/docs/usage-guide/additional_configurations.md (3)
2-2: Update repository URL to maintain branding consistency.The repository URL still contains "Khulnasoft" while other documentation has been updated to remove this branding.
Consider updating the URL to match the new branding:
-The possible configurations of PR-Insight are stored in [here](https://github.com/Khulnasoft/pr-insight/blob/main/pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml). +The possible configurations of PR-Insight are stored in [here](https://github.com/pr-insight/pr-insight/blob/main/pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml).
67-68: Standardize documentation URL structure.While the links are functional, they follow different URL patterns. Consider standardizing the URL structure for better maintainability.
Consider using consistent URL paths:
-1) [Use a model](https://pr-insight-docs.khulnasoft.com/usage-guide/changing_a_model/) with larger context, like GPT-32K, or claude-100K. This solution will be applicable for all the tools. -2) For the `/improve` tool, there is an ['extended' mode](https://pr-insight-docs.khulnasoft.com/tools/improve/), +1) [Use a model](https://pr-insight-docs.khulnasoft.com/usage-guide/models/) with larger context, like GPT-32K, or claude-100K. This solution will be applicable for all the tools. +2) For the `/improve` tool, there is an ['extended' mode](https://pr-insight-docs.khulnasoft.com/usage-guide/tools/improve/),
1-1: Consider enhancing documentation with version information and examples.To improve the documentation's usefulness:
- Add version information for the configuration examples to help users understand compatibility.
- Include links to example configurations or a repository with reference implementations.
Would you like me to help create a section with versioned configuration examples?
tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py (3)
63-66: Remove extra blank lines.The test has unnecessary blank lines between the expected output and assertion. Keep the test concise by removing extra blank lines.
def test_empty_dictionary_input(self): input_data = {} expected_output = '' - - assert convert_to_markdown_v2(input_data).strip() == expected_output.strip()
71-76: Remove extra blank lines.Similar to the previous test, there are unnecessary blank lines around the assertion. Keep the test concise.
def test_dictionary_with_empty_dictionaries(self): input_data = {'review': {}, 'code_feedback': [{}]} expected_output = '' - - assert convert_to_markdown_v2(input_data).strip() == expected_output.strip() -
85-87: Remove commented debug print statements.Debug print statements should be removed before committing the code.
assert file_change_description_br == expected_output - # print("-----") - # print(file_change_description_br)pr_insight/tools/pr_generate_labels.py (1)
Line range hint
89-93: Consider enhancing error recovery in the run method.While the error handling is robust, consider improving the user experience by:
- Adding specific error messages for different failure scenarios
- Implementing retry logic for transient failures
- Providing fallback options when label generation fails
Example implementation:
try: get_logger().info(f"Generating a PR labels {self.pr_id}") if get_settings().config.publish_output: - self.git_provider.publish_comment("Preparing PR labels...", is_temporary=True) + self.git_provider.publish_comment("🔄 Preparing PR labels...", is_temporary=True) await retry_with_fallback_models(self._prepare_prediction) get_logger().info(f"Preparing answer {self.pr_id}") if self.prediction: self._prepare_data() else: - return None + if get_settings().config.publish_output: + self.git_provider.publish_comment("⚠️ Unable to generate labels. Using existing labels.", is_temporary=False) + return self.git_provider.get_pr_labels()🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
4-4:
typing.Tupleimported but unused(F401)
docs/docs/usage-guide/changing_a_model.md (3)
150-150: Update environment variable naming convention.The environment variable
GOOGLE_AI_STUDIO.GEMINI_API_KEYuses dots which is unconventional. Consider using underscores instead:GOOGLE_AI_STUDIO_GEMINI_API_KEY.
Line range hint
163-165: Maintain consistent key naming convention.The API key field name
KEYis uppercase, while other sections use lowercase. Consider changing to:[anthropic] -KEY = "..." +key = "..."🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
156-156: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
Line range hint
193-214: Consider adding environment variable examples.The section could be more helpful by including a concrete example of environment variables for a specific model. Consider adding an example like:
(3) Go to [litellm documentation](https://litellm.vercel.app/docs/proxy/quick_start#supported-llms), find the model you want to use, and set the relevant environment variables. +For example, to use Cohere models: +``` +COHERE_API_KEY=your-api-key +```🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
156-156: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
docs/docs/tools/review.md (1)
Line range hint
229-243: Fix code block formatting.The code block is using indented style instead of the expected fenced style.
Apply this change to fix the formatting:
- PR-Insight can approve a PR when a specific comment is invoked. - - To ensure safety, the auto-approval feature is disabled by default. To enable auto-approval, you need to actively set in a pre-defined configuration file the following: - ``` - [pr_reviewer] - enable_auto_approval = true - ``` +PR-Insight can approve a PR when a specific comment is invoked. + +To ensure safety, the auto-approval feature is disabled by default. To enable auto-approval, you need to actively set in a pre-defined configuration file the following: + +``` +[pr_reviewer] +enable_auto_approval = true +```🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~226-~226: Using many exclamation marks might seem excessive (in this case: 27 exclamation marks for a text that’s 2642 characters long)
Context: ... make the instructions more readable. !!! tip "Auto-approval" PR-Insight can...(EN_EXCESSIVE_EXCLAMATION)
🪛 Markdownlint
229-229: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style(MD046, code-block-style)
pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py (2)
78-78: Consider wrapping the long function signature.The line exceeds the maximum length of 120 characters.
-async def _perform_commands_bitbucket(commands_conf: str, insight: PRInsight, api_url: str, log_context: dict, data: dict): +async def _perform_commands_bitbucket( + commands_conf: str, + insight: PRInsight, + api_url: str, + log_context: dict, + data: dict +):🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
78-78: Line too long (123 > 120)
(E501)
80-82: Add debug logging for skipped PRs.When a PR is skipped due to
should_process_pr_logic, it would be helpful to log this decision for debugging purposes.if data.get("event", "") == "pullrequest:created": if not should_process_pr_logic(data): + get_logger().debug("Skipping PR processing based on should_process_pr_logic result") returndocs/docs/installation/github.md (2)
52-72: Add a note about Docker digest updates.The section provides valuable information about version pinning. However, consider adding a note that the Docker digest example will need to be updated when new versions are released. Users should be advised to check the Docker Hub repository for the latest digests.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
64-64: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style(MD046, code-block-style)
201-201: Add security considerations for AWS credentials.The AWS CodeCommit setup section is comprehensive. However, consider adding security best practices:
- Warn users against committing AWS credentials to version control.
- Recommend using AWS credential provider chain or AWS CLI profiles instead of environment variables.
- Suggest following the principle of least privilege when setting up IAM permissions.
tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.py (2)
Line range hint
200-250: Consider adding type hints and parameter validation.The helper method is a good refactoring to reduce code duplication. Consider these improvements:
- def get_multi_merge_diverge_mock_client(self, api_version): + def get_multi_merge_diverge_mock_client(self, api_version: int) -> MagicMock: + if api_version not in (60, 70, 816): + raise ValueError("Unsupported API version. Must be one of: 60, 70, 816") bitbucket_client = MagicMock(Bitbucket)
Edge cases are already well-covered in the implementation, but test coverage could be improved
The implementation in
pr_insight/git_providers/bitbucket_provider.pyhas extensive error handling for various edge cases:
- Invalid URLs and PR numbers
- Missing or inaccessible files
- Encoding issues with PR patches
- API errors (404s and other failures)
- Empty or invalid file contents
However, the test suite (
test_bitbucket_provider.py) only covers the happy path scenarios. Consider adding tests for:
- Invalid PR URLs and numbers
- API failures (404, network errors)
- Malformed patch content
- Unicode encoding edge cases
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
251-399: Verify test coverage for edge cases.While the current tests cover the happy path for different API versions, consider adding tests for edge cases:
- Invalid API versions
- Empty commit history
- Missing merge base
Let's check if there are any existing edge case tests:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for test methods covering edge cases rg -B 2 -A 2 'test.*(?i)(invalid|empty|missing|error|fail).*' tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.pyLength of output: 105
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a broader search to understand the test coverage rg -l "class.*Test" tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.py # Then look at all test methods in this file rg "def test_" tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.py # Also check for any error handling or exception cases in the implementation rg "raise|except" src/bitbucket_provider.py tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.pyLength of output: 676
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the correct path for the implementation file fd -e py bitbucket_provider # And look for error handling in the correct implementation file rg "raise|except|if.*not|return None" -A 2 $(fd -e py bitbucket_provider | grep -v "test_")Length of output: 4704
README.md (1)
228-228: Format support email as markdown linkFor consistency and better accessibility, consider formatting the support email as a markdown link.
-Support: support@khulnasoft.com +Support: [support@khulnasoft.com](mailto:support@khulnasoft.com)🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
228-228: null
Bare URL used(MD034, no-bare-urls)
pr_insight/algo/git_patch_processing.py (1)
Line range hint
283-305: LGTM: Improved hunk processing logic.The changes enhance the hunk processing with better empty line handling and more explicit conditions. The comment about LLM confusion prevention provides valuable context.
Consider wrapping the long line to comply with PEP 8's line length limit:
- if is_plus_lines or is_minus_lines: # notice 'True' here - we always present __new hunk__ for section, otherwise LLM gets confused + # We always present __new hunk__ for section to prevent LLM confusion + if is_plus_lines or is_minus_lines:🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
298-298: Line too long (146 > 120)
(E501)
docs/docs/tools/improve.md (1)
144-150: Use fenced code blocks for consistent markdown style.The section uses indented code blocks which should be replaced with fenced code blocks for consistency.
Convert the indented code blocks to fenced code blocks using triple backticks:
!!! tip "Tip - Reducing visual footprint after self-review 💎" - The configuration parameter `pr_code_suggestions.fold_suggestions_on_self_review` (default is True) - can be used to automatically fold the suggestions after the user clicks the self-review checkbox. +``` +The configuration parameter `pr_code_suggestions.fold_suggestions_on_self_review` (default is True) +can be used to automatically fold the suggestions after the user clicks the self-review checkbox. +```🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
146-146: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style(MD046, code-block-style)
pr_insight/git_providers/azuredevops_provider.py (2)
8-8: Remove unused importclip_tokens.The
clip_tokensimport is not used in this file.-from ..algo.utils import clip_tokens, find_line_number_of_relevant_line_in_file, load_large_diff, PRDescriptionHeader +from ..algo.utils import find_line_number_of_relevant_line_in_file, load_large_diff, PRDescriptionHeader🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
8-8:
..algo.utils.clip_tokensimported but unused(F401)
339-354: LGTM! Improved error handling and file content retrieval.The changes correctly handle newly added files and provide better error context. However, consider splitting the long error log line for better readability.
- get_logger().error(f"Failed to retrieve original file content of {file} at version {version}", error=error) + get_logger().error( + f"Failed to retrieve original file content of {file} " + f"at version {version}", + error=error + )🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
353-353: Line too long (131 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/tools/pr_description.py (1)
Line range hint
136-145: Fix line length and consider refactoring conditionThe line exceeds the maximum length of 120 characters. Consider splitting it for better readability.
Apply this diff to fix the line length:
- if get_settings().pr_description.publish_labels and pr_labels and self.git_provider.is_supported("get_labels"): + if (get_settings().pr_description.publish_labels and + pr_labels and + self.git_provider.is_supported("get_labels")):🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
136-136: Line too long (127 > 120)
(E501)
138-138: f-string without any placeholders
(F541)
pr_insight/git_providers/github_provider.py (2)
613-615: Fix indentation for consistency.While the API URL handling is correct, the indentation should be consistent with the rest of the method.
- if parsed_url.path.startswith('/api/v3'): - parsed_url = urlparse(pr_url.replace("/api/v3", "")) - + if parsed_url.path.startswith('/api/v3'): + parsed_url = urlparse(pr_url.replace("/api/v3", "")) +
640-643: Fix indentation for consistency.While the GitHub URL validation is a good addition, the indentation should be consistent with the rest of the method.
- - if 'github.com' not in parsed_url.netloc: - raise ValueError("The provided URL is not a valid GitHub URL") - + if 'github.com' not in parsed_url.netloc: + raise ValueError("The provided URL is not a valid GitHub URL") +pr_insight/algo/utils.py (1)
1066-1068: Improve regex pattern readability.The long regex pattern could be split into multiple lines using Python's string concatenation for better maintainability.
- pattern_back = r'<details>\s*<summary><strong>(.*?)</strong>\s*<dd><code>(.*?)</code>.*?</summary>\s*<hr>\s*(.*?)\s*-\s*(.*?)\s*</details>' + pattern_back = ( + r'<details>\s*' + r'<summary><strong>(.*?)</strong>\s*' + r'<dd><code>(.*?)</code>.*?</summary>\s*' + r'<hr>\s*(.*?)\s*-\s*(.*?)\s*' + r'</details>' + )🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
1067-1067: Line too long (190 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/git_providers/utils.py (1)
83-83: Remove unnecessary commented-out codeLine 83 contains commented-out code:
# git_provider.publish_comment(body).If this code is no longer needed, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean and maintainable.
pr_insight/algo/ai_handlers/litellm_ai_handler.py (1)
Line range hint
183-184: Properly log exceptions usingexc_infoWhen logging exceptions, passing the exception object as an argument doesn't include the traceback. To log the exception with its traceback, use the
exc_infoparameter.Apply this diff to fix the exception logging:
- get_logger().error(f"Error fetching image: {img_path}", e) + get_logger().error(f"Error fetching image: {img_path}", exc_info=e)pr_insight/tools/pr_help_message.py (6)
87-87: Line Too Long (201 > 120 Characters)Line 87 exceeds the recommended maximum line length, which can affect readability.
Refactor the line for better readability:
md_files = [ file for file in md_files if not any(folder in file.parts for folder in folders_to_exclude) and not any( str(file.relative_to(docs_path)) == file_to_exclude for file_to_exclude in files_to_exclude ) ]🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
87-87: Line too long (201 > 120)
(E501)
102-102: Line Too Long (133 > 120 Characters)Line 102 is longer than the recommended length, which may reduce code clarity.
Break the line to improve readability:
docs_prompt += ( f"\n==file name==\n\n{file_path}\n\n" f"==file content==\n\n{f.read().strip()}\n=========\n\n" )🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
102-102: Line too long (133 > 120)
(E501)
109-109: Line Too Long (182 > 120 Characters)Line 109 exceeds the maximum line length, impacting readability.
Split the line and adjust the comment:
# We aim to get the full documentation website in the prompt without reductions. max_tokens_full = MAX_TOKENS[model]🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
109-109: Line too long (182 > 120)
(E501)
112-112: Line Too Long (149 > 120 Characters)Line 112 is longer than recommended, which can hinder readability.
Refactor the line:
get_logger().info( f"Token count {token_count} exceeds the limit {max_tokens_full - delta_output}. " "Skipping the PR Help message." )🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
112-112: Line too long (149 > 120)
(E501)
141-141: Line Too Long (259 > 120 Characters)Line 141 is significantly over the recommended length, making it difficult to read.
Refactor the code to enhance clarity:
markdown_header = ( section['relevant_section_header_string'] .strip() .strip('#') .strip() .lower() .replace(' ', '-') .replace("'", '') .replace('(', '') .replace(')', '') .replace(',', '') .replace('.', '') .replace('?', '') .replace('!', '') )Alternatively, consider using a helper function or regular expression to clean up the header string.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
141-141: Line too long (259 > 120)
(E501)
Line range hint
81-145: Optimize File Reading for PerformanceReading all markdown files every time the function runs may affect performance, especially with a large number of files.
Consider implementing caching or reading only the necessary files:
- Cache the content of the documentation files to avoid redundant I/O operations.
- Read files selectively based on relevance to the user's question.
This can improve the efficiency of the function.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
78-78: Line too long (128 > 120)
(E501)
87-87: Line too long (201 > 120)
(E501)
102-102: Line too long (133 > 120)
(E501)
109-109: Line too long (182 > 120)
(E501)
112-112: Line too long (149 > 120)
(E501)
126-126: f-string without any placeholders
(F541)
pr_insight/tools/pr_code_suggestions.py (1)
786-786: Add a newline at the end of the fileThe file does not end with a newline character, which is a common best practice for text files.
Apply this diff to add a newline at the end of the file:
return response_reflect
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
docs/chroma_db.zipis excluded by!**/*.zipdocs/docs/assets/favicon.icois excluded by!**/*.icodocs/docs/assets/logo.svgis excluded by!**/*.svgdocs/docs/assets/logo_.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (56)
.github/dependabot.yml(0 hunks).github/workflows/docs-ci.yaml(1 hunks)README.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/core-abilities/index.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/core-abilities/metadata.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/faq/index.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/index.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/installation/azure.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/installation/bitbucket.md(3 hunks)docs/docs/installation/github.md(3 hunks)docs/docs/installation/gitlab.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/installation/index.md(2 hunks)docs/docs/installation/locally.md(3 hunks)docs/docs/installation/pr_insight_pro.md(3 hunks)docs/docs/overview/index.md(2 hunks)docs/docs/overview/pr_insight_pro.md(2 hunks)docs/docs/tools/custom_labels.md(2 hunks)docs/docs/tools/describe.md(2 hunks)docs/docs/tools/improve.md(9 hunks)docs/docs/tools/review.md(8 hunks)docs/docs/usage-guide/additional_configurations.md(3 hunks)docs/docs/usage-guide/automations_and_usage.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/usage-guide/changing_a_model.md(1 hunks)docs/docs/usage-guide/configuration_options.md(2 hunks)docs/docs/usage-guide/introduction.md(1 hunks)docs/mkdocs.yml(2 hunks)docs/overrides/partials/footer.html(2 hunks)pr_insight/algo/__init__.py(1 hunks)pr_insight/algo/ai_handlers/litellm_ai_handler.py(3 hunks)pr_insight/algo/git_patch_processing.py(4 hunks)pr_insight/algo/utils.py(6 hunks)pr_insight/git_providers/azuredevops_provider.py(3 hunks)pr_insight/git_providers/github_provider.py(6 hunks)pr_insight/git_providers/utils.py(2 hunks)pr_insight/servers/atlassian-connect.json(2 hunks)pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py(2 hunks)pr_insight/servers/github_app.py(3 hunks)pr_insight/servers/gitlab_webhook.py(6 hunks)pr_insight/settings/.secrets_template.toml(2 hunks)pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml(3 hunks)pr_insight/settings/pr_code_suggestions_prompts.toml(2 hunks)pr_insight/settings/pr_code_suggestions_reflect_prompts.toml(1 hunks)pr_insight/settings/pr_description_prompts.toml(1 hunks)pr_insight/settings/pr_help_prompts.toml(3 hunks)pr_insight/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml(1 hunks)pr_insight/tools/pr_add_docs.py(2 hunks)pr_insight/tools/pr_code_suggestions.py(4 hunks)pr_insight/tools/pr_description.py(3 hunks)pr_insight/tools/pr_generate_labels.py(2 hunks)pr_insight/tools/pr_help_message.py(3 hunks)pr_insight/tools/pr_reviewer.py(1 hunks)pr_insight/tools/ticket_pr_compliance_check.py(1 hunks)pyproject.toml(2 hunks)requirements.txt(2 hunks)tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.py(1 hunks)tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .github/dependabot.yml
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (8)
- docs/docs/core-abilities/index.md
- docs/docs/index.md
- docs/docs/installation/index.md
- docs/docs/overview/index.md
- docs/docs/tools/custom_labels.md
- docs/docs/usage-guide/introduction.md
- docs/mkdocs.yml
- pr_insight/tools/pr_reviewer.py
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
README.md
228-228: null
Bare URL used
(MD034, no-bare-urls)
docs/docs/installation/github.md
64-64: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style
(MD046, code-block-style)
78-78: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style
(MD046, code-block-style)
docs/docs/installation/gitlab.md
60-60: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Inconsistent indentation for list items at the same level
(MD005, list-indent)
63-63: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Inconsistent indentation for list items at the same level
(MD005, list-indent)
49-49: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
55-55: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
69-69: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
docs/docs/overview/pr_insight_pro.md
22-22: Expected: leading_and_trailing; Actual: leading_only; Missing trailing pipe
Table pipe style
(MD055, table-pipe-style)
docs/docs/tools/improve.md
146-146: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style
(MD046, code-block-style)
155-155: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style
(MD046, code-block-style)
docs/docs/tools/review.md
229-229: Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
Code block style
(MD046, code-block-style)
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/docs/installation/pr_insight_pro.md
[uncategorized] ~21-~21: You might be missing the article “the” here.
Context: ...ro for GitHub Enterprise Server To use PR-Insight Pro application on your private...
(AI_EN_LECTOR_MISSING_DETERMINER_THE)
[misspelling] ~68-~68: Use “an” instead of ‘a’ if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. ‘an article’, ‘an hour’.
Context: ...l set! Open a new merge request or add a MR comment with one of PR-Insight’s com...
(EN_A_VS_AN)
docs/docs/tools/improve.md
[misspelling] ~73-~73: Use “a” instead of ‘an’ if the following word doesn’t start with a vowel sound, e.g. ‘a sentence’, ‘a university’.
Context: ...ed: GitHub, GitLab` PR-Insight employs an novel detection system to automatically...
(EN_A_VS_AN)
[uncategorized] ~134-~134: Possible missing article found.
Context: ...eckbox below the suggestions, prompting user to acknowledge that they have reviewed ...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_THE)
docs/docs/usage-guide/automations_and_usage.md
[uncategorized] ~83-~83: Possible missing preposition found.
Context: ...he default tool parameters by using one the three options for a [configuration file...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_OF)
🪛 Ruff
pr_insight/algo/ai_handlers/litellm_ai_handler.py
200-200: f-string without any placeholders
(F541)
pr_insight/algo/git_patch_processing.py
298-298: Line too long (146 > 120)
(E501)
334-334: Line too long (139 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/algo/utils.py
917-917: Do not use bare except
(E722)
956-956: Do not use bare except
(E722)
975-975: Line too long (130 > 120)
(E501)
983-983: Line too long (175 > 120)
(E501)
984-984: f-string without any placeholders
(F541)
1067-1067: Line too long (190 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/git_providers/azuredevops_provider.py
8-8: ..algo.utils.clip_tokens imported but unused
(F401)
353-353: Line too long (131 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/git_providers/utils.py
76-76: Line too long (182 > 120)
(E501)
79-79: Line too long (145 > 120)
(E501)
82-82: f-string without any placeholders
(F541)
92-92: f-string without any placeholders
(F541)
pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py
78-78: Line too long (123 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/tools/pr_code_suggestions.py
375-375: Line too long (137 > 120)
(E501)
377-377: Line too long (124 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/tools/pr_description.py
136-136: Line too long (127 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/tools/pr_help_message.py
87-87: Line too long (201 > 120)
(E501)
102-102: Line too long (133 > 120)
(E501)
109-109: Line too long (182 > 120)
(E501)
112-112: Line too long (149 > 120)
(E501)
141-141: Line too long (259 > 120)
(E501)
pr_insight/tools/ticket_pr_compliance_check.py
66-66: Line too long (127 > 120)
(E501)
tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py
56-56: Line too long (1125 > 120)
(E501)
79-79: Line too long (159 > 120)
(E501)
101-101: Line too long (180 > 120)
(E501)
104-104: Line too long (121 > 120)
(E501)
🔇 Additional comments (69)
pr_insight/servers/atlassian-connect.json (2)
19-20: Verify if write permissions are necessary.
The change from basic scopes (repository, pullrequest) to write scopes (repository:write, pullrequest:write) grants elevated permissions. While this might be needed for suggestion tracking functionality, please confirm if write access is actually required or if read-only access would suffice.
Consider the principle of least privilege and only request the minimal permissions needed for the functionality.
21-21: Clarify the purpose of adding the wiki scope.
The addition of the "wiki" scope seems unrelated to the PR's suggestion tracking functionality. Could you please explain why this permission is needed?
✅ Verification successful
The wiki scope is required for tracking accepted suggestions and configuration management
Based on the git log and codebase search results, the wiki scope is necessary because the tool:
- Automatically documents accepted suggestions in a dedicated wiki page (
.pr_insight_accepted_suggestions) - Supports configuration management through wiki pages (
.pr_insight.toml) - Allows best practices to be defined in wiki pages (
best_practices.md)
These are core features of the tool's functionality, making the wiki scope addition relevant and necessary.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for wiki-related functionality in the codebase
rg -l 'wiki' --type ts --type js --type py
Length of output: 42
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for wiki-related functionality with case-insensitive matching and include JSON files
rg -li "wiki" --type ts --type js --type py --type json
# Check the PR description or commit messages for context about wiki scope
git log -p | rg -i "wiki"
# Look for Jira/Confluence/Atlassian related configurations
fd -e json -e yaml -e yml | xargs rg -l "atlassian|jira|confluence"
Length of output: 14813
.github/workflows/docs-ci.yaml (1)
Line range hint 1-35: LGTM! The workflow follows GitHub Actions best practices.
The workflow is well-structured with:
- Specific trigger conditions
- Appropriate permissions
- Recent action versions
- Efficient caching strategy
- Proper documentation deployment setup
requirements.txt (5)
12-12: Verify integration of new Google AI dependency.
The addition of google-generativeai suggests new AI capabilities. Ensure this addition is properly integrated with existing AI handlers.
#!/bin/bash
# Look for Google AI integration points
rg -A 5 "google.*generativeai"
# Check for potential AI handler implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_(AI|Handler|Client) {
$$$
}'Line range hint 35-41: Review implications of commented LangChain removal.
The removal of LangChain dependencies (commented out) represents a significant architectural change. This could impact existing functionality that might have depended on LangChain.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining LangChain references
rg -l "langchain|LangChain"
# Look for potential LangChain handlers
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_LangChain$_ {
$$$
}'15-15: Verify compatibility of AI service updates.
The version updates for litellm (1.43.13 → 1.50.2) and openai (1.46.0 → 1.52.1) are significant. These changes might introduce new features or breaking changes in the AI integration layer.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for OpenAI and LiteLLM usage patterns
rg -A 5 "openai\.(Client|Completion|ChatCompletion)"
rg -A 5 "litellm\.(completion|chat)"Also applies to: 18-18
8-8: Review impact of version downgrades.
Multiple packages have been downgraded:
- dynaconf (3.2.6 → 3.2.4)
- GitPython (3.1.43 → 3.1.41)
- gunicorn (23.0.0 → 22.0.0)
These downgrades might be intentional for compatibility, but we should verify there are no security implications.
Also applies to: 10-10, 29-29
2-2: Verify compatibility with vertex AI integration.
The significant version jump of anthropic (0.21.3 → 0.37.1) might introduce breaking changes, especially with the vertex integration.
✅ Verification successful
The anthropic package version upgrade is compatible with the codebase
The codebase is well-prepared for Anthropic models, including the latest Claude-3 models. The integration is handled through LiteLLM, which provides a unified interface for multiple model providers. The version upgrade of the anthropic package (0.21.3 → 0.37.1) is safe because:
- The codebase doesn't directly use the anthropic package's APIs - all interactions are abstracted through LiteLLM
- The configuration system properly supports Anthropic models with appropriate token limits and settings
- There's proper error handling and fallback mechanisms in place
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for anthropic vertex AI related imports and usage
rg -l "anthropic.*vertex"
Length of output: 1015
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for anthropic related imports and usage patterns
rg -l "from anthropic|import anthropic"
# Search for vertex AI related configurations or setup
rg -l "vertex.*ai|google.*vertex"
# Search for any anthropic client initialization or usage
rg -A 5 "anthropic\.(Client|Completion|ChatCompletion)"
Length of output: 255
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of files that mention vertex AI
cat docs/docs/usage-guide/changing_a_model.md
cat pr_insight/algo/__init__.py
cat pr_insight/algo/ai_handlers/litellm_ai_handler.py
# Search for any anthropic model references
rg "claude|anthropic-"
Length of output: 27375
pyproject.toml (2)
16-16: LGTM! Project metadata changes look good.
The description is more precise now, and the classifier simplification removes redundancy while maintaining essential information.
Also applies to: 24-24
52-75: LGTM! Well-structured Ruff configuration.
The configuration is clearly organized with appropriate rule selections and helpful comments explaining each section.
pr_insight/settings/pr_help_prompts.toml (2)
14-21: Well-structured data model improvements!
The transition from using integer-indexed snippets to a structured relevant_section class with file names and section headers is a significant improvement. This change will make the responses more informative and easier to navigate.
45-45: Clean template structure!
The template effectively uses Jinja2 variables and clear section markers for the documentation content.
docs/docs/installation/bitbucket.md (2)
6-6: LGTM: Correct filename format for Bitbucket Pipelines.
The change from bitbucket_pipelines.yml to bitbucket-pipelines.yml aligns with Bitbucket's official naming convention.
32-32: LGTM: Consistent product branding.
The capitalization update to "PR-Insight Pro" maintains consistency with the product branding across documentation.
docs/docs/core-abilities/metadata.md (1)
52-52: LGTM! Verify URL consistency across docs.
The URL format change from dynamic-context to dynamic_context looks good. Let's ensure this format is consistent across all documentation files.
✅ Verification successful
URL format is consistent across documentation
The verification shows that all instances of the URL are using the new dynamic_context format consistently. There are no remaining instances of the old dynamic-context format in the documentation files.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining instances of 'dynamic-context' in docs
# and verify the new 'dynamic_context' format is used consistently
echo "Checking for old format URLs..."
rg -g "*.md" "dynamic-context" docs/
echo "Verifying new format usage..."
rg -g "*.md" "dynamic_context" docs/
Length of output: 898
docs/docs/installation/gitlab.md (2)
42-44: LGTM!
Clear instructions for setting up GitLab variables with important notes about protection settings.
Line range hint 1-77: Verify documentation completeness
The installation guide needs verification to ensure all steps work as documented.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the Docker setup to ensure the documentation is accurate.
Documentation verified and accurate
The documentation has been thoroughly verified and is accurate:
- The Dockerfile exists and contains the correct
gitlab_webhooktarget - GitLab webhook implementation files are present in the codebase
- All referenced environment variables are correctly used
- Docker image references are consistent throughout the documentation
- The installation steps and configuration match the actual implementation
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify all referenced files and paths exist
echo "Verifying referenced files..."
test -f docker/Dockerfile || echo "Error: Dockerfile not found at specified path"
# Check for consistency in Docker image names
echo "Checking Docker image references..."
rg -l "khulnasoft/pr-insight" | xargs cat | grep -n "khulnasoft/pr-insight"
Length of output: 4186
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check Dockerfile contents for target definitions
echo "Checking Dockerfile targets..."
if [ -f docker/Dockerfile ]; then
grep -n "^FROM\|^TARGET" docker/Dockerfile
fi
# Check if gitlab webhook related files exist
echo "Checking GitLab webhook related files..."
fd -t f -e py "gitlab.*webhook" || echo "No GitLab webhook files found"
# Verify environment variables mentioned in the docs
echo "Checking environment variables usage..."
rg "CI_MERGE_REQUEST_PROJECT_URL|CI_MERGE_REQUEST_IID|CI_SERVER_PROTOCOL|CI_SERVER_FQDN|GITLAB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN"
Length of output: 1249
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
60-60: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Inconsistent indentation for list items at the same level
(MD005, list-indent)
63-63: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Inconsistent indentation for list items at the same level
(MD005, list-indent)
49-49: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
55-55: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
69-69: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
pr_insight/algo/__init__.py (3)
50-50: LGTM! Claude model configurations are consistent.
The new Claude 3.5 Sonnet models follow the established naming patterns and maintain consistent token limits with other Claude models in the configuration.
Also applies to: 57-57
37-40: LGTM! Verify token limits for new Vertex AI models.
The token limits and naming conventions are consistent with official specifications. However, since these are new models with high token limits, it's worth verifying the actual limits in production.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any existing token limit validations or tests
rg -l "test.*token.*limit|validate.*token" --type python41-42: Verify the need for duplicate Gemini model entries.
The same Gemini models appear under both 'vertex_ai/' and 'gemini/' prefixes. While this might be intentional for different API integrations, we should verify this design decision.
✅ Verification successful
The previous command failed because the file type flag wasn't supported. Let's try without it and also look for the vertex_ai prefix to understand the model organization better.
Based on the search results, I can now generate a final response as we have enough context to understand the model organization:
The duplicate Gemini model entries are intentionally designed for different API integrations
The codebase shows clear separation between two different Google AI integrations:
vertex_ai/prefix models are used with Google Cloud's Vertex AI platformgemini/prefix models are used with Google AI Studio, as evidenced by the separate configuration inlitellm_ai_handler.pywhich specifically handles Gemini API keys for Google AI Studio integration
This design allows users to choose between accessing Gemini models through either Vertex AI (Google Cloud) or Google AI Studio (direct API), depending on their setup and preferences.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Gemini-related configurations and usage
rg "gemini" --type python -C 3
Length of output: 89
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Gemini-related configurations and usage with ripgrep
rg "gemini" -C 3
# Also search for model-related configurations to understand the context
rg "vertex_ai/" -C 3
Length of output: 4368
docs/docs/installation/locally.md (1)
78-78: LGTM! Git clone URL updated with correct organization name.
The capitalization of "Khulnasoft" in the Git clone URL has been corrected to match the official organization name.
docs/docs/faq/index.md (1)
64-64: LGTM! Branding update is consistent.
The company name has been correctly updated to "Khulnasoft" in the SaaS deployment description, maintaining consistency with the overall branding.
docs/docs/installation/azure.md (1)
50-50: LGTM! The naming convention updates align with documentation standards.
The changes consistently update the product name from 'PR Insight' to 'PR-Insight', aligning with the standardized naming convention across documentation.
Let's verify the naming consistency across other documentation files:
Also applies to: 54-54
pr_insight/settings/pr_code_suggestions_prompts.toml (1)
37-37: LGTM! Clear documentation improvement.
The added clarification about omitting 'old hunk' sections when no code is removed helps users better understand the diff format.
pr_insight/tools/ticket_pr_compliance_check.py (1)
8-11: Good optimization: Regex pattern compilation moved to module level.
Moving the regex pattern compilation outside the function is a good performance optimization as it prevents recompilation on each function call.
tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py (2)
97-98: Remove commented debug print statements.
Similar to the previous test, remove the debug print statements.
106-107: Remove commented debug print statements.
Similar to the previous tests, remove the debug print statements.
pr_insight/tools/pr_generate_labels.py (2)
137-137: LGTM! Environment initialization is safe for current usage.
The simplified Environment initialization is appropriate here since:
- The rendered templates are only used for AI prompts
- StrictUndefined helps catch undefined variables
- The rendered content isn't directly exposed to end users
6-6: Verify template input sanitization after removing autoescape.
The removal of select_autoescape means templates won't have automatic HTML/XML escaping. While this simplifies the code, it could potentially expose the application to XSS vulnerabilities if template inputs aren't properly sanitized.
Let's verify how template inputs are handled:
docs/docs/usage-guide/changing_a_model.md (1)
Line range hint 168-191: Well-documented section with comprehensive guidance!
The section provides clear instructions, important compatibility notes for claude-3, and helpful links to external documentation.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
156-156: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
pr_insight/tools/pr_add_docs.py (2)
6-6: LGTM: Import statement simplified.
The removal of unused select_autoescape import aligns with the simplified template handling approach.
86-89: Verify template usage context.
The simplified environment setup with StrictUndefined is appropriate for AI prompt templates. However, let's verify that these templates are not used for HTML rendering elsewhere.
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the template usage further to ensure we have a complete picture.
Environment setup is appropriate for the use case
The simplified Jinja2 environment setup with StrictUndefined is verified to be correct. All instances of Environment across the codebase are consistently used for rendering AI prompts (system and user prompts) from templates, and there's no HTML rendering involved. The removal of autoescape is safe as these templates are only used for text-based AI interactions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that these templates are only used for AI prompts and not HTML rendering
# Search for any HTML-related template usage
rg -l 'html|HTML' --type py
# Search for other Environment instantiations that might need StrictUndefined
ast-grep --pattern 'Environment($$$)'
Length of output: 2013
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of files that use Environment to verify their template usage
rg -A 3 'Environment\(' pr_insight/tools/pr_add_docs.py pr_insight/tools/pr_update_changelog.py pr_insight/tools/pr_line_questions.py pr_insight/tools/pr_information_from_user.py pr_insight/tools/pr_questions.py pr_insight/tools/pr_generate_labels.py pr_insight/tools/pr_reviewer.py pr_insight/tools/pr_help_message.py pr_insight/tools/pr_description.py pr_insight/algo/token_handler.py pr_insight/tools/pr_code_suggestions.py
# Also check for any HTML template rendering specifically
rg -B 2 -A 2 'render.*html|html.*render' --type py
Length of output: 6268
docs/overrides/partials/footer.html (4)
85-85: LGTM: Copyright notice is up to date
The copyright year is correctly set to 2024 and the company link is properly maintained.
Line range hint 1-112: Overall implementation maintains good HTML practices
The footer implementation:
- Maintains proper HTML structure and semantic markup
- Preserves accessibility with proper aria attributes and semantic HTML
- Uses SVG icons with appropriate viewBox attributes
- Includes responsive design considerations
98-107: Verify consistency of social media handles
The social media links have been updated to reflect the new branding. Let's verify the consistency of the new handles across platforms.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent branding across social media links
# Expected: All handles should use the consistent "KhulnasoftAI" or "khulnasoft_ai" format
echo "Analyzing social media handle consistency..."
rg -n "(?:youtube\.com/@|linkedin\.com/company/|twitter\.com/|instagram\.com/)(Khulnasoft|khulnasoft|KhulnasoftAI|khulnasoft_ai)" docs/overrides/partials/footer.htmlNote: The Instagram handle uses an underscore while other platforms use camelCase. This is typical due to platform-specific conventions, but you might want to document this variation in your brand guidelines.
87-89: Verify accessibility of the updated documentation links
The product links have been updated to reflect the rebranding. Let's verify that these new URLs are accessible and properly redirecting.
docs/docs/tools/describe.md (1)
52-52: LGTM!
The description clearly states the parameter's purpose and default value, maintaining consistency with the documented changes.
docs/docs/tools/review.md (5)
52-52: LGTM: Clear incremental review explanation.
The text clearly explains that incremental review considers changes since the last PR-Insight review, which aligns with the rebranding changes.
Line range hint 190-201: LGTM: Well-documented automation defaults.
The automation section clearly explains the default configuration and provides good guidance on customization options.
261-261: LGTM: Clean removal of code suggestions section.
The commented-out code suggestions section has been cleanly removed, which helps maintain documentation clarity.
11-11: Verify the blog post URL.
The blog post URL has been updated to reflect the new branding. Please ensure this URL is accessible and redirects correctly.
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the blog URL is accessible
curl -I "https://www.khulnasoft.com/blog/understanding-the-challenges-and-pain-points-of-the-pull-request-cycle/"33-33: Verify the documentation URL.
The configuration file URL has been updated to the new domain. Please ensure this documentation URL is accessible.
✅ Verification successful
The documentation URL needs to be updated
The URL https://pr-insight-docs.khulnasoft.com/usage-guide/configuration_options/#wiki-configuration-file appears to be the correct documentation URL as it is consistently used throughout the codebase, including:
- In pyproject.toml as the official documentation URL
- In multiple markdown files under docs/
- In the codebase itself (pr_insight/tools/, pr_insight/servers/, etc.)
The URL in the review comment matches this pattern, indicating it is correct.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the documentation URL is accessible
curl -I "https://pr-insight-docs.khulnasoft.com/usage-guide/configuration_options/#wiki-configuration-file"
Length of output: 497
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other occurrences of the documentation URL pattern in the codebase
rg -i "pr-insight-docs\.khulnasoft\.com" -A 2 -B 2
# Also check for any configuration or documentation related files
fd -t f "config|docs" -e md -e yaml -e json --exec grep -l "khulnasoft.com"
Length of output: 41417
pr_insight/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml (2)
88-91: Verify conditional logic for ticket compliance.
The conditional logic for related_tickets has been added, but we should ensure that this change is consistent with the rest of the codebase.
Let's verify the usage of this condition:
✅ Verification successful
Change from pr_related_tickets to related_tickets is consistent
The change is consistent with the codebase. The evidence shows:
related_ticketsis properly used across multiple files includingpr_reviewer.py,pr_description.py, andticket_pr_compliance_check.py- The variable is used in settings, template conditionals, and data processing
- No instances of the old
pr_related_ticketswere found - The new
TicketCompliancemodel aligns with the ticket-related functionality inticket_pr_compliance_check.py
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining instances of pr_related_tickets
rg "pr_related_tickets" -l
# Search for the new related_tickets usage
rg "related_tickets" -l
Length of output: 257
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual usage context of related_tickets in these files
rg "related_tickets" -C 2
# Also check for any type definitions or class usage
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_Compliance {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 4326
88-94: Verify integration with PR processing pipeline.
The new ticket compliance structure and conditional logic look good, but we should ensure that the PR processing pipeline correctly handles these changes.
Let's verify the integration:
✅ Verification successful
Integration with PR processing pipeline is properly implemented
The changes to the ticket compliance structure are well integrated into the PR processing pipeline. The verification shows:
- The
TicketCompliancemodel is properly defined inpr_reviewer_prompts.tomland is used as part of the PR review schema. - The ticket extraction and processing is handled by
ticket_pr_compliance_check.py, which extracts tickets from PR descriptions. - The PR reviewer (
pr_reviewer.py) integrates ticket compliance checks through:- Calling
extract_and_cache_pr_tickets()during review preparation - Including ticket information in the review variables via
related_tickets - Processing ticket compliance data in the review output
- Calling
The conditional logic and new ticket compliance structure are properly integrated into the existing PR review workflow.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for files that process PR reviews
rg -l "PRReview|TicketCompliance" --type python
# Check for any potential configuration parsers
rg -l "load.*toml" --type python
Length of output: 146
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for files that process PR reviews without file type restriction
rg -l "PRReview|TicketCompliance"
# Check for any potential configuration parsers
rg -l "load.*toml"
# Find Python files that might be related to PR processing
fd -e py -e pyi
# Look for imports or usage of the settings module
rg -l "from pr_insight.settings import|import pr_insight.settings"
Length of output: 3964
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how TicketCompliance is used in the codebase
rg -A 5 "TicketCompliance"
# Look specifically at the ticket compliance check implementation
cat pr_insight/tools/ticket_pr_compliance_check.py
# Check PR reviewer implementation for integration
cat pr_insight/tools/pr_reviewer.py
Length of output: 32349
pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml (5)
70-70: LGTM: Well-placed configuration for introductory text.
The new enable_intro_text setting is appropriately placed in the [pr_reviewer] section and its default value of true provides good user experience out of the box.
78-78: LGTM: Conservative default for label publishing.
Setting publish_labels to false by default is a good practice as it gives users explicit control over whether labels should be published in PR descriptions.
110-112: LGTM: Safe defaults for code suggestion publishing.
The new settings provide granular control over code suggestion publishing with conservative defaults:
commitable_code_suggestionsdisabled by defaultdual_publishing_score_thresholddisabled (-1) by default
117-119: LGTM: Good balance between interface cleanliness and user guidance.
The text display settings strike a good balance:
- Disabling chat text reduces interface clutter
- Enabling intro text maintains good user guidance
137-137: LGTM: Good UX enhancement for post-review state.
The fold_suggestions_on_self_review setting with a default of true helps maintain a clean interface by automatically folding processed suggestions after self-review.
pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py (1)
78-82: Verify error handling consistency across PR processing paths.
Let's ensure that errors in PR processing are consistently handled and logged across all paths.
Also applies to: 199-199
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response since I have sufficient information about error handling patterns and logging across the codebase.
Error handling is consistent and well-implemented across PR processing paths
The code demonstrates thorough error handling with consistent patterns:
- All critical operations are wrapped in try-except blocks
- Errors are properly logged with descriptive messages using
get_logger().error() - Error context is preserved and included in log messages
- Appropriate error propagation is maintained where needed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for error handling patterns in PR processing code
echo "Checking error handling patterns in PR processing..."
rg -A 2 "try:|except.*:" pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py
# Search for logger usage in PR processing
echo "Checking logger usage in PR processing..."
rg "get_logger\(\)\.(?:error|warning|info|debug)" pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py
Length of output: 3579
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
78-78: Line too long (123 > 120)
(E501)
docs/docs/installation/github.md (1)
171-171: LGTM!
The note provides clear guidance about configuration file behavior and parameter overrides.
tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.py (2)
Line range hint 75-116: LGTM! Clear and well-structured test method.
The renamed test method maintains clarity while being more concise. The test is well-documented with an ASCII diagram and follows good testing practices with clear setup, expectations, and assertions.
Line range hint 251-399: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage for different API versions.
The new test methods provide thorough coverage for different Bitbucket API versions (60, 70, 816). Each test is well-documented with ASCII diagrams and follows a consistent pattern, making the version-specific behaviors clear and maintainable.
pr_insight/servers/gitlab_webhook.py (2)
142-142: LGTM! Good improvement for thread safety.
Deep copying the settings prevents modifications from one request affecting others, making the code more thread-safe.
62-65: Verify configuration update side effects.
The comment "Here we already updated the configurations" suggests that should_process_pr_logic has side effects on the configuration. This could lead to maintainability issues and make the code harder to test.
Let's verify if should_process_pr_logic modifies any configurations:
✅ Verification successful
Comment "Here we already updated the configurations" is accurate but needs clarification
Based on the verification results, the comment is technically correct as apply_repo_settings does modify configurations by loading repository-specific settings and updating model configurations. However, should_process_pr_logic itself is a pure function that only checks conditions without modifying any state. The configuration updates happen in apply_repo_settings which is called before should_process_pr_logic.
apply_repo_settings: Updates repository-specific settings and model configurationsshould_process_pr_logic: Only performs validation checks on the input data without side effects
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any configuration modifications in should_process_pr_logic
rg -A 5 "set\(" . | rg -B 5 "should_process_pr_logic"
Length of output: 53
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check the implementation of should_process_pr_logic
ast-grep --pattern 'def should_process_pr_logic($$$)'
# Also check for any configuration-related operations in the same file
rg -B 3 -A 5 "apply_repo_settings|should_process_pr_logic" pr_insight/servers/gitlab_webhook.py
Length of output: 2948
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of apply_repo_settings to understand if it modifies configurations
rg -B 3 -A 10 "def apply_repo_settings" pr_insight/git_providers/utils.py
# Also check for any settings modifications in the entire file
rg "get_settings\(\)\.set|update_settings" pr_insight/git_providers/utils.py
Length of output: 903
pr_insight/algo/git_patch_processing.py (1)
136-137: LGTM: Improved error handling with better logging.
The change enhances error logging by including the traceback and uses Python's conventional exception variable naming.
docs/docs/tools/improve.md (3)
100-110: LGTM! Clear and helpful implementation guidelines.
The section effectively outlines the suggestion structure and provides valuable guidance on critical analysis of suggestions.
111-126: LGTM! Clear explanation of dual publishing mode.
The section effectively explains the feature's purpose and configuration.
Line range hint 274-305: LGTM! Clear documentation of new configuration options.
The new configuration options are well-documented with clear descriptions of their purpose and default values.
pr_insight/servers/github_app.py (3)
Line range hint 252-312: LGTM! Function signature simplified while maintaining robust validation.
The function has been improved by:
- Removing unused parameters from the signature
- Maintaining comprehensive PR validation logic
- Including proper error handling and logging
376-377: LGTM! Added validation at the correct point in the workflow.
The additional validation after applying repo settings ensures that PR processing rules are checked with the most up-to-date configuration.
309-312: Verify security implications of bypassing bot validation for check_run events.
The addition of 'check_run' not in body condition allows check_run events to bypass bot user validation. While this might be necessary for certain workflows, it's important to ensure that:
- Check run events are properly validated elsewhere
- This bypass doesn't introduce security vulnerabilities
Let's verify the check_run event handling:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the check_run handling in the github_app.py file.
Let me check one more aspect - the implementation of handle_checks and related security validations.
Let me check one final aspect about the check_run event handling.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Bypassing bot validation for check_run events is safe in this context
The code structure reveals that:
- The check_run bypass is intentionally added to both bot validation and PR processing logic
- The check_run events have their own separate handling path (
handle_checks) - The bot validation is primarily focused on PR-related actions, not system events like check runs
- The bypass is consistently applied across both validation checks, maintaining proper control flow
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for check_run validation logic
echo "Searching for check_run validation..."
rg -l "check_run" --type py
# Look for security measures around check_run events
echo "Searching for check_run security measures..."
ast-grep --pattern 'if $CHECK_RUN in $BODY { $VALIDATION }'
Length of output: 306
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the complete context around check_run handling
echo "Searching for check_run context in github_app.py..."
rg "check_run" -B 5 -A 5 pr_insight/servers/github_app.py
# Look for the handle_request function implementation
echo "Searching for handle_request function..."
ast-grep --pattern 'def handle_request($$$) { $$$ }'
Length of output: 1084
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for handle_checks implementation and related security checks
echo "Searching for handle_checks implementation..."
rg -B 5 -A 15 "def handle_checks" pr_insight/servers/github_app.py
# Look for is_bot_user implementation
echo "Searching for is_bot_user implementation..."
rg -B 2 -A 5 "def is_bot_user" pr_insight/servers/github_app.py
# Look for should_process_pr_logic implementation
echo "Searching for should_process_pr_logic implementation..."
rg -B 2 -A 10 "def should_process_pr_logic" pr_insight/servers/github_app.py
Length of output: 1337
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for check_run event validation and processing
echo "Searching for check_run validation in handle_checks..."
rg -B 10 -A 20 "if 'check_run' in body:" pr_insight/servers/github_app.py
# Look for any additional check_run security measures
echo "Searching for additional check_run related code..."
rg "check_run" -C 5 pr_insight/servers/github_app.py | grep -v "if 'check_run' in body"
Length of output: 2888
pr_insight/git_providers/azuredevops_provider.py (1)
407-407: LGTM! Improved maintainability using enum.
Using PRDescriptionHeader.CHANGES_WALKTHROUGH.value instead of a hardcoded string improves maintainability and ensures consistency across different provider implementations.
pr_insight/tools/pr_description.py (2)
15-15: LGTM: Import addition follows conventions
The addition of PRDescriptionHeader import is well-placed with other imports from the same module.
504-504: LGTM: Good use of enum for header standardization
Using PRDescriptionHeader.CHANGES_WALKTHROUGH.value instead of a hardcoded string improves maintainability and ensures consistency across the codebase.
pr_insight/git_providers/github_provider.py (2)
234-236: LGTM: Enhanced error logging with traceback information.
The addition of traceback information in the error logging will help with debugging rate limit issues.
258-258: LGTM: Explicit return value added.
The explicit return None improves code clarity when skipping temporary comments.
pr_insight/algo/utils.py (2)
46-48: LGTM: Clean enum implementation for standardizing PR description headers.
The enum implementation follows best practices and provides a centralized way to manage PR description headers.
1023-1024: LGTM: Clean implementation of uniform number generation.
The function is well-documented and uses an intermediate variable for better readability.
| @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ jobs: | |||
| - name: Configure Git Credentials | |||
| run: | | |||
| git config user.name github-actions[bot] | |||
| git config user.email 118260833+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com | |||
| git config user.email 41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Bot email change appears to be a regression
The git history shows that the GitHub Actions bot email was changed from 118260833+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com to 41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com without clear justification. This change appears to be unintentional as:
- It was part of a commit titled "Tr/suggestion tracking" which doesn't indicate a deliberate bot account change
- The original bot account (118260833+) was set during the initial workflow setup
Please revert the bot email back to: 118260833+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the GitHub Actions bot account change.
The email address for the GitHub Actions bot has been changed to a different user ID (41898282). While the format is correct, please ensure this is the intended bot account for documentation deployments.
Consider adding a comment explaining the reason for this change to help future maintainers understand the context.
Let me gather more specific information about the bot email configuration.
This will help us verify if this is the only instance of the bot email and see the complete git configuration context.
Let me check the git history to see if this change was intentional and if there's any context about it.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the GitHub Actions bot account across other workflow files
# to ensure consistency and identify any potential mismatches.
echo "Checking for GitHub Actions bot email configurations across workflows:"
rg -l "github-actions\[bot\]@users\.noreply\.github\.com" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 260
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the exact email addresses used in workflow files
echo "Checking exact GitHub Actions bot email configurations:"
rg -A 1 "git config user.email" .github/workflows/
# Check if there are any other git config settings that might be relevant
echo -e "\nChecking all git config settings in workflows:"
rg "git config" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 704
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check git history for changes to the bot email in the workflow file
echo "Checking git history for changes to the bot email:"
git log -p .github/workflows/docs-ci.yaml | grep -B 5 -A 5 "github-actions\[bot\]@users\.noreply\.github\.com"
# Check commit messages that might explain the change
echo -e "\nChecking commit messages related to the workflow file:"
git log --oneline .github/workflows/docs-ci.yaml
Length of output: 1373
pyproject.toml
Outdated
| ignore = [ | ||
| "E999", "B008" | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| [tool.ruff.per-file-ignores] | ||
| "__init__.py" = ["E402"] # Ignore `E402` (import violations) in all `__init__.py` files, and in `path/to/file.py`. | ||
| # TODO: should decide if maybe not to ignore these. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Remove E999 rule from ignore list and keep B008 with documentation
The verification reveals:
-
E999 (SyntaxError) can be safely removed from the ignore list:
- The only reference to SyntaxError is in
_to_listfunction where it's explicitly caught and handled as part of error handling logic - No actual syntax errors were found in the codebase
- The only reference to SyntaxError is in
-
B008 (function call in argument defaults) should be kept but documented:
- This rule prevents mutable default arguments which is a common Python pitfall
- The codebase uses FastAPI which requires function calls in default arguments for dependency injection
- Add a comment explaining this exception:
# B008: Allow function calls in arguments for FastAPI dependency injection
🔗 Analysis chain
Please verify the ignored rules and TODO comment.
A few points need attention:
- Could you provide justification for ignoring E999 and B008?
- The TODO comment suggests uncertainty about ignored rules. Should we review these ignores?
Let's check the impact of these ignored rules:
Let me check the specific file that might have syntax-related issues and also look for any function definitions with default arguments to better understand the context.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for occurrences of E999 and B008 violations
echo "Checking for potential E999 (syntax errors) violations:"
rg -l 'SyntaxError|IndentationError'
echo -e "\nChecking for potential B008 (function call in argument defaults) violations:"
ast-grep --pattern 'def $FUNC($PARAM = $CALL($$$))'
Length of output: 429
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of the file with potential syntax issues
echo "Content of file with potential syntax error references:"
cat pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_server_webhook.py
echo -e "\nChecking for function definitions with default arguments:"
ast-grep --pattern 'def $FUNC($$$)'
Length of output: 5918
| - Try to be short and concise in your answers. Try to give examples if needed. | ||
| - The main tools of PR-Insight are 'describe', 'review', 'improve'. If there is ambiguity to which tool the user is referring to, prioritize snippets of these tools over others. | ||
| - If the question has ambiguity and can relate to different tools or platfroms, provide the best answer possible based on what is available, but also state in your answer what additional information would be needed to give a more accurate answer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in additional instructions.
The word "platfroms" should be "platforms".
-- If the question has ambiguity and can relate to different tools or platfroms, provide the best answer possible based on what is available, but also state in your answer what additional information would be needed to give a more accurate answer.
++ If the question has ambiguity and can relate to different tools or platforms, provide the best answer possible based on what is available, but also state in your answer what additional information would be needed to give a more accurate answer.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - Try to be short and concise in your answers. Try to give examples if needed. | |
| - The main tools of PR-Insight are 'describe', 'review', 'improve'. If there is ambiguity to which tool the user is referring to, prioritize snippets of these tools over others. | |
| - If the question has ambiguity and can relate to different tools or platfroms, provide the best answer possible based on what is available, but also state in your answer what additional information would be needed to give a more accurate answer. | |
| - Try to be short and concise in your answers. Try to give examples if needed. | |
| - The main tools of PR-Insight are 'describe', 'review', 'improve'. If there is ambiguity to which tool the user is referring to, prioritize snippets of these tools over others. | |
| - If the question has ambiguity and can relate to different tools or platforms, provide the best answer possible based on what is available, but also state in your answer what additional information would be needed to give a more accurate answer. |
| system="""You are Doc-helper, a language models designed to answer questions about a documentation website for an open-soure project called "PR-Insight" (recently renamed to "PR-Insight"). | ||
| You will recieve a question, and the full documentation website content. | ||
| Your goal is to provide the best answer to the question using the documentation provided. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typos and redundancy in the system prompt.
There are a few issues in the introduction text:
- "soure" should be "source"
- The renaming note is redundant as it mentions "PR-Insight" twice
- "recieve" should be "receive"
Apply this diff to fix the issues:
-You are Doc-helper, a language models designed to answer questions about a documentation website for an open-soure project called "PR-Insight" (recently renamed to "PR-Insight").
-You will recieve a question, and the full documentation website content.
+You are Doc-helper, a language model designed to answer questions about a documentation website for an open-source project called "PR-Insight".
+You will receive a question and the full documentation website content.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| system="""You are Doc-helper, a language models designed to answer questions about a documentation website for an open-soure project called "PR-Insight" (recently renamed to "PR-Insight"). | |
| You will recieve a question, and the full documentation website content. | |
| Your goal is to provide the best answer to the question using the documentation provided. | |
| system="""You are Doc-helper, a language model designed to answer questions about a documentation website for an open-source project called "PR-Insight". | |
| You will receive a question and the full documentation website content. | |
| Your goal is to provide the best answer to the question using the documentation provided. |
docs/docs/installation/gitlab.md
Outdated
| 3. Clone this repository: | ||
|
|
||
| 5. Create a webhook in GitLab. Set the URL to ```http[s]://<PR_INSIGHT_HOSTNAME>/webhook```. Set the secret token to the generated secret from step 2. | ||
| In the "Trigger" section, check the ‘comments’ and ‘merge request events’ boxes. | ||
| ``` | ||
| git clone https://github.com/Khulnasoft/pr-insight.git | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add language specification to code block
Add shell language specification to the code block for proper syntax highlighting.
-```
+```shell
git clone https://github.com/Khulnasoft/pr-insight.git
<details>
<summary>🧰 Tools</summary>
<details>
<summary>🪛 Markdownlint</summary>
55-55: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
</details>
</details>
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit -->
pr_insight/tools/pr_help_message.py
Outdated
| files_to_exclude = {'EXAMPLE_BEST_PRACTICE.md', 'compression_strategy.md', '/docs/overview/index.md'} | ||
| md_files = [file for file in md_files if not any(folder in str(file) for folder in folders_to_exclude) and not any(file.name == file_to_exclude for file_to_exclude in files_to_exclude)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential Issue with File Exclusion Logic
The exclusion condition compares file.name with entries in files_to_exclude, which includes paths like '/docs/overview/index.md'. Since file.name returns only the filename (e.g., 'index.md'), the comparison may not work as intended for files in subdirectories.
Consider updating the comparison to use the relative path of the file:
-md_files = [file for file in md_files if not any(folder in str(file) for folder in folders_to_exclude) and not any(file.name == file_to_exclude for file_to_exclude in files_to_exclude)]
+md_files = [
+ file for file in md_files
+ if not any(folder in str(file) for folder in folders_to_exclude)
+ and not any(str(file.relative_to(docs_path)) == file_to_exclude for file_to_exclude in files_to_exclude)
]This change ensures that the full relative path is used for exclusion, matching entries like '/docs/overview/index.md'.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
87-87: Line too long (201 > 120)
(E501)
| get_logger().debug( | ||
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}") | ||
| if get_settings().pr_code_suggestions.commitable_code_suggestions: | ||
| suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Line exceeds maximum length of 120 characters
Line 377 is too long (124 characters) and exceeds the maximum line length.
Apply this diff to break the line and enhance readability:
if get_settings().pr_code_suggestions.commitable_code_suggestions:
- suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR
+ # We need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR
+ suggestion['improved_code'] = ""📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR | |
| # We need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR | |
| suggestion['improved_code'] = "" |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
377-377: Line too long (124 > 120)
(E501)
| try: | ||
| if suggestion['existing_code'] == suggestion['improved_code']: | ||
| get_logger().debug( | ||
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Line exceeds maximum length of 120 characters
Line 375 is too long (137 characters) and exceeds the maximum line length, hindering readability.
Apply this diff to split the line and conform to style guidelines:
get_logger().debug(
- f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}")
+ f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, "
+ f"because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}"
+ )📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}") | |
| get_logger().debug( | |
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, " | |
| f"because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}" | |
| ) |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
375-375: Line too long (137 > 120)
(E501)
| r = re.compile(r"<!--.*?-->") | ||
| match = r.search(s) | ||
|
|
||
| up_to_commit_txt = "" | ||
| if comment is None: | ||
| return "" | ||
| if comment: | ||
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {comment.strip()}" | ||
| if match: | ||
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {match.group(0)[4:-3].strip()}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor regex to directly capture comment content
Currently, the code uses slicing to extract the content inside the comment tags. Modifying the regex to capture the content directly improves readability and efficiency.
Apply this diff to enhance the regex and simplify the extraction:
def extract_link(self, s):
- r = re.compile(r"<!--.*?-->")
+ r = re.compile(r"<!--\s*(.*?)\s*-->")
match = r.search(s)
up_to_commit_txt = ""
if match:
- up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {match.group(0)[4:-3].strip()}"
+ up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {match.group(1).strip()}"
return up_to_commit_txt📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| r = re.compile(r"<!--.*?-->") | |
| match = r.search(s) | |
| up_to_commit_txt = "" | |
| if comment is None: | |
| return "" | |
| if comment: | |
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {comment.strip()}" | |
| if match: | |
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {match.group(0)[4:-3].strip()}" | |
| r = re.compile(r"<!--\s*(.*?)\s*-->") | |
| match = r.search(s) | |
| up_to_commit_txt = "" | |
| if match: | |
| up_to_commit_txt = f" up to commit {match.group(1).strip()}" |
| if suggestion['existing_code'] == suggestion['improved_code']: | ||
| get_logger().debug( | ||
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}") | ||
| if get_settings().pr_code_suggestions.commitable_code_suggestions: | ||
| suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR | ||
| else: | ||
| suggestion['existing_code'] = "" | ||
| except Exception as e: | ||
| get_logger().error(f"Error processing suggestion {i + 1}, error: {e}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle potential KeyError when accessing 'existing_code' and 'improved_code'
The code assumes that 'existing_code' and 'improved_code' keys are always present in the suggestion dictionary. If these keys are missing, it could raise a KeyError.
Consider checking for the existence of these keys before accessing them:
for i, suggestion in enumerate(data["code_suggestions"]):
try:
suggestion["score"] = code_suggestions_feedback[i]["suggestion_score"]
suggestion["score_why"] = code_suggestions_feedback[i]["why"]
+ if 'existing_code' in suggestion and 'improved_code' in suggestion:
+ if suggestion['existing_code'] == suggestion['improved_code']:
+ get_logger().debug(
+ f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}")
+ if get_settings().pr_code_suggestions.commitable_code_suggestions:
+ suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR
+ else:
+ suggestion['existing_code'] = ""
+ else:
+ get_logger().warning(f"Suggestion {i + 1} missing 'existing_code' or 'improved_code' keys.")
except Exception as e:
get_logger().error(f"Error processing suggestion {i + 1}, error: {e}")📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| if suggestion['existing_code'] == suggestion['improved_code']: | |
| get_logger().debug( | |
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}") | |
| if get_settings().pr_code_suggestions.commitable_code_suggestions: | |
| suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR | |
| else: | |
| suggestion['existing_code'] = "" | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| get_logger().error(f"Error processing suggestion {i + 1}, error: {e}") | |
| if 'existing_code' in suggestion and 'improved_code' in suggestion: | |
| if suggestion['existing_code'] == suggestion['improved_code']: | |
| get_logger().debug( | |
| f"edited improved suggestion {i + 1}, because equal to existing code: {suggestion['existing_code']}") | |
| if get_settings().pr_code_suggestions.commitable_code_suggestions: | |
| suggestion['improved_code'] = "" # we need 'existing_code' to locate the code in the PR | |
| else: | |
| suggestion['existing_code'] = "" | |
| else: | |
| get_logger().warning(f"Suggestion {i + 1} missing 'existing_code' or 'improved_code' keys.") | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| get_logger().error(f"Error processing suggestion {i + 1}, error: {e}") |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
375-375: Line too long (137 > 120)
(E501)
377-377: Line too long (124 > 120)
(E501)
User description
Notes for Reviewers
This PR fixes #
Signed commits
PR Type
enhancement, documentation, tests, configuration changes, dependencies, formatting
Description
pr_insighttool, including PR help messages, ticket extraction, GitHub provider, and AI handlers.Changes walkthrough 📝
19 files
pr_help_message.py
Refactor PR help message to use full documentation content.pr_insight/tools/pr_help_message.py
databases.
prompts.
documentation.
ticket_pr_compliance_check.py
Refactor ticket extraction and compliance check logic.pr_insight/tools/ticket_pr_compliance_check.py
JIRA.
utils.py
Improve utility functions and error handling.pr_insight/algo/utils.py
gitlab_webhook.py
Enhance GitLab webhook handling and command execution.pr_insight/servers/gitlab_webhook.py
github_provider.py
Improve GitHub provider error handling and URL parsing.pr_insight/git_providers/github_provider.py
git_patch_processing.py
Improve git patch processing and error handling.pr_insight/algo/git_patch_processing.py
pr_code_suggestions.py
Enhance code suggestion processing and template rendering.pr_insight/tools/pr_code_suggestions.py
utils.py
Improve configuration error handling and logging.pr_insight/git_providers/utils.py
litellm_ai_handler.py
Enhance AI handler with Gemini API support and logging.pr_insight/algo/ai_handlers/litellm_ai_handler.py
azuredevops_provider.py
Enhance Azure DevOps provider error handling and diff processing.pr_insight/git_providers/azuredevops_provider.py
pr_description.py
Enhance PR description handling with header constants.pr_insight/tools/pr_description.py
github_app.py
Improve GitHub app PR processing logic.pr_insight/servers/github_app.py
bitbucket_app.py
Enhance Bitbucket app PR processing logic.pr_insight/servers/bitbucket_app.py
pr_add_docs.py
Simplify Jinja2 environment setup in PR add docs tool.pr_insight/tools/pr_add_docs.py
pr_generate_labels.py
Simplify Jinja2 environment setup in PR generate labels tool.pr_insight/tools/pr_generate_labels.py
pr_help_prompts.toml
Update help prompts for PR-Insight documentation.pr_insight/settings/pr_help_prompts.toml
pr_code_suggestions_prompts.toml
Update code suggestion prompts with clearer guidelines.pr_insight/settings/pr_code_suggestions_prompts.toml
pr_reviewer_prompts.toml
Refactor variable names and defaults in reviewer prompts.pr_insight/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml
pr_related_ticketstorelated_tickets.ticket_url.pr_code_suggestions_reflect_prompts.toml
Introduce new scoring guidelines for code suggestions.pr_insight/settings/pr_code_suggestions_reflect_prompts.toml
2 files
test_convert_to_markdown.py
Update markdown conversion tests for new output format.tests/unittest/test_convert_to_markdown.py
test_bitbucket_provider.py
Rename test function for clarity in Bitbucket provider tests.tests/unittest/test_bitbucket_provider.py
2 files
__init__.py
Update AI model token limits and add new models.pr_insight/algo/init.py
requirements.txt
Update dependencies and clean up requirements file.requirements.txt
24 files
pr_reviewer.py
Update auto-approval comment URL in PR reviewer tool.pr_insight/tools/pr_reviewer.py
footer.html
Update footer links and social media URLs.docs/overrides/partials/footer.html
improve.md
Enhance documentation for improve tool with new features.docs/docs/tools/improve.md
mode.
review.md
Update review tool documentation with correct references.docs/docs/tools/review.md
github.md
Improve GitHub installation guide with clearer instructions.docs/docs/installation/github.md
pr_insight_pro.md
Update PR-Insight Pro overview with correct references.docs/docs/overview/pr_insight_pro.md
gitlab.md
Improve GitLab installation guide with clearer instructions.docs/docs/installation/gitlab.md
additional_configurations.md
Update additional configurations guide with correct references.docs/docs/usage-guide/additional_configurations.md
bitbucket.md
Improve Bitbucket installation guide with correct references.docs/docs/installation/bitbucket.md
pr_insight_pro.md
Update URLs and correct application names in documentation.docs/docs/installation/pr_insight_pro.md
index.md
Add links to technical blogs on core abilities.docs/docs/core-abilities/index.md
processes, and cost optimization.
configuration_options.md
Update configuration options documentation and supported platforms.docs/docs/usage-guide/configuration_options.md
locally.md
Correct capitalization in local installation documentation.docs/docs/installation/locally.md
index.md
Fix typos and update URLs in installation guide.docs/docs/installation/index.md
instructions.
changing_a_model.md
Add configuration instructions for Google AI Studio models.docs/docs/usage-guide/changing_a_model.md
custom_labels.md
Fix typo in custom labels documentation.docs/docs/tools/custom_labels.md
automations_and_usage.md
Update URL for configuration file options in usage guide.docs/docs/usage-guide/automations_and_usage.md
index.md
Simplify tool name in overview documentation.docs/docs/overview/index.md
azure.md
Correct display name and image alt text in Azure installation guide.docs/docs/installation/azure.md
metadata.md
Correct URL for Dynamic Context in core abilities.docs/docs/core-abilities/metadata.md
describe.md
Update default configuration for publish_labels in describe tool.docs/docs/tools/describe.md
publish_labelsto false in documentation.index.md
Correct capitalization in FAQ documentation.docs/docs/faq/index.md
description.
introduction.md
Simplify tool name in introduction documentation.docs/docs/usage-guide/introduction.md
index.md
Simplify tool name in main overview.docs/docs/index.md
6 files
pyproject.toml
Refactor project metadata and ruff configuration.pyproject.toml
configuration.toml
Update default configuration settings for PR-Insight.pr_insight/settings/configuration.toml
mkdocs.yml
Update site name and correct social media links.docs/mkdocs.yml
.secrets_template.toml
Add Google AI Studio and GitLab webhook configurations.pr_insight/settings/.secrets_template.toml
atlassian-connect.json
Update Atlassian Connect permissions for enhanced functionality.pr_insight/servers/atlassian-connect.json
docs-ci.yaml
Update GitHub Actions bot email configuration..github/workflows/docs-ci.yaml
2 files
README.md
Remove unnecessary newline in README.README.md
pr_description_prompts.toml
Improve formatting consistency in description prompts.pr_insight/settings/pr_description_prompts.toml
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
describeandimprovetools, detailing new configuration options and functionalities.Bug Fixes
Refactor
Chores
requirements.txtandpyproject.toml.