test0421-5 #38
test0421-5 #38
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@qiancai has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 6 minutes and 53 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 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 (
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @qiancai, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
Summary of Changes
This pull request updates the br/br-checkpoint-backup.md documentation file. The changes involve minor grammatical and stylistic improvements, such as correcting "due t" to "due to", changing "affords" to "afford", and replacing "You" with "Users" in a couple of places to maintain a consistent tone. The overall intent is to improve the clarity and readability of the documentation regarding the checkpoint backup feature in TiDB.
Highlights
- Grammar Correction: Corrected "due t" to "due to" for better readability.
- Wording Improvement: Changed "affords" to "afford" for grammatical accuracy.
- Consistency: Replaced "You" with "Users" to maintain a consistent and professional tone in the documentation.
Changelog
- br/br-checkpoint-backup.md
- Corrected "due t" to "due to" in the introduction.
- Changed "affords" to "afford" in the application scenarios section.
- Replaced "You" with "Users" in the application scenarios section.
- Replaced "You" with "Users" in the note about gc-safepoint deletion.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The changes in this pull request aim to improve the clarity and accuracy of the documentation regarding checkpoint backups. The edits are generally good, but there are a few areas where further refinement is needed to ensure the documentation is clear, concise, and easy to understand for TiDB users.
Summary of Findings
- Typos: There are a few typos that need to be corrected for improved readability and professionalism.
- Grammar: Some sentences could benefit from minor grammatical adjustments to enhance clarity.
- Consistency in phrasing: Maintaining a consistent voice by using 'users' instead of mixing 'you' and 'users' will improve the document's flow and readability.
Merge Readiness
The pull request is almost ready for merging. Addressing the identified typos and grammatical issues will significantly improve the quality of the documentation. Once these issues are resolved, the pull request should be ready for merging. I am unable to directly approve the pull request, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging. At a minimum, the high severity comments should be addressed before merging.
|
/gemini review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request introduces checkpoint backup functionality to TiDB's Backup & Restore (BR) tool. The changes primarily involve updates to the documentation file br/br-checkpoint-backup.md to reflect this new feature. Overall, the documentation is clear and concise, but there are a few areas where improvements can be made to enhance readability and adherence to the style guide.
Summary of Findings
- Typos and Grammatical Errors: Several typos and grammatical errors were identified, such as "t" instead of "to" and "affords" instead of "afford". These errors can impact the clarity and professionalism of the documentation.[^1]
- Inconsistent Terminology: The documentation uses both "users" and "you" when addressing the reader. Maintaining a consistent voice by using "users" throughout the document would improve clarity and readability.[^2]
- Formatting Issues: There are instances where the formatting could be improved for better readability, such as adding a space after "B" in "Backup & Restore (B)".[^3]
Merge Readiness
The pull request introduces important documentation updates for the checkpoint backup feature. While the content is generally good, addressing the identified typos, grammatical errors, and inconsistencies is crucial for maintaining the documentation's quality and clarity. I recommend addressing these issues before merging. I am unable to approve this pull request, and other reviewers should review and approve this code before merging.
|
@ gemini-code-assist, do you know what "When you finish the review, you directly add comments to the PR instead of requesting changes." means? I will add it to my style guide. |
|
Hi @qiancai, I can help clarify what "When you finish the review, you directly add comments to the PR instead of requesting changes" means. It means that the reviewer should use the 'Add single comments' option (rather than 'Request changes') when providing feedback. This is generally used when the changes are relatively minor and don't necessarily block the pull request from being merged. Requesting changes signals that the author must address the comments before the PR is approved, while leaving individual comments suggests improvements that the author should address but aren't necessarily blockers. In essence, it's a stylistic preference for how feedback is communicated, indicating a less strict approach to the review process. Does that help clarify it? |
|
@gemini-code-assist, do you know what "When you finish the review, you directly add comments to the PR instead of requesting changes." means? I will add it to my style guide. |
|
Hi @qiancai, it appears you're asking the same question twice in this thread. My previous response above should still apply. Let me know if you have any further questions! |
1 participant
First-time contributors' checklist
What is changed, added or deleted? (Required)
Which TiDB version(s) do your changes apply to? (Required)
Tips for choosing the affected version(s):
By default, CHOOSE MASTER ONLY so your changes will be applied to the next TiDB major or minor releases. If your PR involves a product feature behavior change or a compatibility change, CHOOSE THE AFFECTED RELEASE BRANCH(ES) AND MASTER.
For details, see tips for choosing the affected versions.
What is the related PR or file link(s)?
Do your changes match any of the following descriptions?