add fe-release to coderabbit #2330
Conversation
|
Warning Rate Limit Exceeded@trajan0x has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 7 minutes and 57 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. WalkthroughThis update brings new configurations to enhance the review process in projects by adding settings for Changes
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Deploying sanguine-fe with
|
| Latest commit: |
1c041f3
|
| Status: | ⚡️ Build in progress... |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://github.com/avatars/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .coderabbit.yaml (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 3
.coderabbit.yaml (3)
- 8-9: The addition of
request_changes_workflow: trueunder theauto_reviewsection is a significant change aimed at automating the review process. This setting likely triggers some form of automated review or action when changes are requested on a pull request. It's important to ensure that this automation aligns with the team's workflow and doesn't become a hindrance, as noted in the comment. Consider documenting the specific actions taken when this workflow is triggered to provide clarity to the team.- 15-21: The
base_branchesconfiguration is a strategic addition that allows for more granular control over which branches are considered as the base for new features or releases. The inclusion of branches likefeat/.*,master, andfe-releaseis sensible, given the context of focusing on front-end releases and large features. However, it's crucial to ensure that the regex pattern forfeat/.*is correctly capturing the intended branches and not inadvertently including branches that shouldn't be considered as base branches. Additionally, consider adding a brief explanation in the comments for each branch pattern to help new team members understand the rationale behind these choices.- 5-25: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-22]
Overall, the changes to the
.coderabbit.yamlfile are well-structured and follow YAML syntax correctly. The comments added provide useful context for the configurations, which is beneficial for maintainability. Ensure that the entire team is aware of these changes, especially the newrequest_changes_workflowandbase_branchessettings, as they directly impact the review and release workflows. It might be helpful to have a team meeting or discussion to go over these changes and address any questions or concerns.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
.github/workflows/lint.yml (1)
- 32-44: The addition of steps to validate
coderabbitconfigurations is a positive change, ensuring that.coderabbit.yamladheres to the expected schema. However, there are a few improvements and considerations to address:
Hardcoded URL for JSON Schema: The URL to the JSON schema (
https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json) is hardcoded. Consider storing this URL in a GitHub Actions secret or a configuration file to make it easier to update in the future without modifying the workflow file.Use of
masterbranch in GitHub Actions: Theansible/ansible-lint-action@masteris used, which points to the latest commit on themasterbranch. It's recommended to use a specific version or tag instead ofmasterto ensure stability and predictability of your CI/CD pipeline.Error Handling: Ensure that the steps have adequate error handling. For instance, if the
wgetcommand fails to download the schema file, the subsequent validation step will likely fail. Consider adding error checks or using a step that inherently handles such errors.Documentation: Adding comments to explain the purpose of these steps and how they integrate with the overall workflow would be beneficial for maintainability and for new contributors to understand the workflow's components.
| - uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4 | ||
| if: steps.yaml-lint.outcome == 'success' | ||
| with: | ||
| name: yamllint-logfile | ||
| path: ${{ steps.yaml-lint.outputs.logfile }} | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's noted that there's a commented-out section for reinstating linting with actionlint. If there are plans to reintroduce this linting step in the future, consider tracking this task in the project's issue tracker or project management tool to ensure it doesn't get forgotten. This approach helps maintain the workflow file clean and focused on currently active steps, while also providing visibility into planned enhancements or fixes.
Would you like me to open a GitHub issue to track the reintroduction of actionlint linting step?
Description
Adds fe release and #2234 as base branches to coderabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
.coderabbit.yamlwith configurations for thereviewssection to enhance workflow efficiency.coderabbitconfigurations using a JSON schema file in the linting workflow..github/workflows/lint.yml.