Add CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md and CONTRIBUTING.md #102
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@yamadashy has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 25 minutes and 36 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. WalkthroughThe changes introduce two new documents to the project: Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Contributor
participant Maintainer
participant Project
Contributor->>Project: Submits contribution (issue/pull request)
Project-->>Contributor: Acknowledges submission
Maintainer->>Project: Reviews contribution
alt Contribution accepted
Maintainer->>Contributor: Notifies acceptance
Project->>Project: Updates documentation if needed
else Contribution not accepted
Maintainer->>Contributor: Provides feedback
end
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
CONTRIBUTING.md (6)
1-12: LGTM! Clear and informative introduction.The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of contribution methods and sets appropriate expectations.
Consider rephrasing line 3 for improved clarity:
- We appreciate your help in making repopack better. + We appreciate your efforts to improve repopack.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~3-~3: The wording of this phrase can be improved.
Context: ...are welcome! We appreciate your help in making repopack better. You can contribute in the following wa...(MAKE_STYLE_BETTER)
14-22: LGTM! Clear instructions for dependency installation.The instructions for installing dependencies are concise and easy to follow.
Consider adding information about the required or recommended versions of Node.js and npm to ensure compatibility. For example:
The `yamadashy/repopack` project uses [npm](https://www.npmjs.com/) as its package manager. Developers should have Node.js (version X.X or higher) and npm (version X.X or higher) installed.
24-30: LGTM! Comprehensive PR guidelines.The Pull Request guidelines cover essential aspects of code quality and documentation.
Consider adding the following best practices to enhance the PR process:
Create a new branch for each PR:
- Create a new branch for your changes: `git checkout -b feature/your-feature-name`Keep commits atomic and use meaningful commit messages:
- Make your changes in small, logical commits with clear and descriptive commit messages.Rebase your branch before submitting the PR:
- Rebase your branch on the latest main branch before submitting the PR: `git rebase main`
32-46: LGTM! Clear local development setup instructions.The local development setup instructions are concise and easy to follow.
Consider adding information about any necessary environment setup or configuration. For example:
## Local Development To set up Repopack for local development: ```bash git clone https://github.com/yamadashy/repopack.git cd repopack npm installIf any environment variables or configuration files are required, create them now:
cp .env.example .env # Edit .env with your local settingsTo run Repopack locally:
npm run cli-run--- `48-54`: **LGTM! Clear coding style guidelines.** The coding style section clearly specifies the use of Biome for linting and formatting. Consider adding information about auto-fixing linting issues if Biome supports it. For example: ```markdown ## Coding Style We use [Biome](https://biomejs.dev/) for linting and formatting. Please make sure your code follows the style guide by running: ```bash npm run lintTo automatically fix linting issues (if supported by Biome):
npm run lint:fix--- `56-68`: **LGTM! Comprehensive testing instructions.** The testing section clearly outlines how to run tests and check coverage using Vitest. Consider adding information about any specific testing requirements or conventions. For example: ```markdown ## Testing We use [Vitest](https://vitest.dev/) for testing. To run the tests: ```bash npm run testFor test coverage:
npm run test-coverageWhen writing tests:
- Place test files in the
__tests__directory- Name test files with the
.test.tsextension- Aim for at least 80% code coverage for new features
- Use descriptive test names that explain the expected behavior
</blockquote></details> <details> <summary>CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (3)</summary><blockquote> `12-32`: **LGTM: Well-defined standards with a minor suggestion** The "Our Standards" section effectively outlines both positive and negative behaviors, providing clear guidance for community members. The examples are concise and relevant to open-source communities. Consider strengthening the wording in line 27. For example, you could replace "attacks" with a more specific term like "confrontations" or "disputes" to emphasize the unacceptable nature of such behavior. <details> <summary>🧰 Tools</summary> <details> <summary>🪛 LanguageTool</summary><blockquote> [style] ~27-~27: Try using a synonym here to strengthen your wording. Context: ...vances * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Pu... (COMMENT_REMARK) </blockquote></details> </details> --- `46-53`: **LGTM: Well-defined scope with a suggestion for improvement** The "Scope" section clearly outlines where and when the Code of Conduct applies, including both project spaces and public spaces when representing the project. Consider adding more specific examples of project spaces, such as GitHub repositories, issue trackers, project chat channels, or mailing lists. This would provide clearer guidance on where the Code of Conduct is applicable within the project's digital infrastructure. --- `55-66`: **LGTM: Clear enforcement process with a minor suggestion** The "Enforcement" section effectively outlines the process for reporting and handling Code of Conduct violations. It provides a clear point of contact and emphasizes the confidentiality of the process. Consider rephrasing line 61 to use a more concise alternative to "with regard to". For example: ```diff - The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. + The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality concerning the reporter of an incident.This change maintains the meaning while slightly improving readability.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~61-~61: ‘with regard to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...s obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further de...(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_REGARD_TO)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (1 hunks)
- CONTRIBUTING.md (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
[style] ~27-~27: Try using a synonym here to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...vances * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Pu...(COMMENT_REMARK)
[style] ~61-~61: ‘with regard to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...s obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further de...(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_REGARD_TO)
CONTRIBUTING.md
[style] ~3-~3: The wording of this phrase can be improved.
Context: ...are welcome! We appreciate your help in making repopack better. You can contribute in the following wa...(MAKE_STYLE_BETTER)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
CONTRIBUTING.md (1)
70-78: LGTM! Clear guidelines for documentation and releasing.The Documentation and Releasing sections provide clear instructions and set appropriate expectations.
CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md (4)
3-10: LGTM: Comprehensive and inclusive pledgeThe "Our Pledge" section effectively sets the tone for an open and welcoming environment. It's inclusive and covers a wide range of personal characteristics, which is crucial for fostering diversity in the community.
34-44: LGTM: Clear definition of maintainer responsibilitiesThe "Our Responsibilities" section effectively outlines the duties and authority of project maintainers. It provides a solid framework for enforcing the Code of Conduct and taking appropriate actions when necessary.
68-76: LGTM: Proper attribution and additional resourcesThe "Attribution" section correctly credits the Contributor Covenant as the source of this Code of Conduct. It provides appropriate links to the original source and FAQ, which is helpful for anyone seeking more information.
1-76: Excellent addition of a comprehensive Code of ConductThe introduction of this Code of Conduct is a significant step towards achieving the PR objectives of promoting a welcoming community and establishing clear guidelines for contributors. The document is well-structured, comprehensive, and based on the widely-respected Contributor Covenant.
Key strengths:
- Clear and inclusive pledge
- Well-defined standards of behavior
- Explicit responsibilities for project maintainers
- Clearly outlined scope and enforcement procedures
The minor suggestions provided in the review comments can further enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the document. Overall, this is a valuable addition to the Repopack project that will help foster a positive and inclusive community.
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~27-~27: Try using a synonym here to strengthen your wording.
Context: ...vances * Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks * Pu...(COMMENT_REMARK)
[style] ~61-~61: ‘with regard to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...s obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further de...(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_REGARD_TO)
yamadashy
force-pushed
the
chore/guides
branch
from
01e869e to
6ee7bf9
Compare
yamadashy
force-pushed
the
chore/guides
branch
from
6ee7bf9 to
b005b0b
Compare
This PR introduces two crucial documents to the Repopack project: a Code of Conduct and a Contributing Guide. These additions aim to foster a welcoming community and provide clear guidelines for contributors.
Summary by CodeRabbit
These updates aim to enhance community engagement and streamline the contribution process for all users.