Skip to content

Don't include alpha versions in tutorial bundle #7067

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 23, 2025

Conversation

emilypgoogle
Copy link
Collaborator

@emilypgoogle emilypgoogle commented Jun 23, 2025

Simple filtering for alpha versions from the tutorial bundle.

Copy link
Contributor

Firebase AI Mock Responses Check ⚠️

A newer major version of the mock responses for Firebase AI unit tests is available. update_responses.sh should be updated to clone the latest version of the responses: v14.1

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Summary of Changes

Hello @emilypgoogle, 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!

This pull request refines the process of generating tutorial bundles by ensuring that only stable artifact versions are included. Specifically, it introduces a mechanism to automatically filter out any pre-release (alpha) versions, thereby improving the quality and stability of the generated tutorial content.

Highlights

  • Filtering Logic: Implemented a new check within the artifactVariableString function to identify and exclude artifact versions that contain 'alpha' (case-insensitive) from being included in the tutorial bundle.
  • Code Optimization: Refactored the artifactVariableString function to store the result of versionString(fullArtifactName) in a local variable, version, to avoid redundant function calls.
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

  1. 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.

@emilypgoogle emilypgoogle requested a review from davidmotson June 23, 2025 17:01
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

The pull request introduces a change to exclude alpha versions from the tutorial bundle generation. The core logic involves checking if the artifact's version string contains "alpha" (case-insensitive). My review focuses on the robustness of this version check, suggesting a more precise approach to prevent potential false positives.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jun 23, 2025

Test Results

 1 058 files  + 1 014   1 058 suites  +1 014   36m 5s ⏱️ + 29m 46s
 5 985 tests + 5 849   5 963 ✅ + 5 827  22 💤 +22  0 ❌ ±0 
12 033 runs  +11 741  11 989 ✅ +11 697  44 💤 +44  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 636190a. ± Comparison against base commit 43491db.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@google-oss-bot
Copy link
Contributor

google-oss-bot commented Jun 23, 2025

@google-oss-bot
Copy link
Contributor

google-oss-bot commented Jun 23, 2025

Coverage Report 1

Affected Products

  • firebase-config

    Overall coverage changed from ? (7966873) to 84.31% (10eb610) by ?.

    34 individual files with coverage change

    FilenameBase (7966873)Merge (10eb610)Diff
    AutoValue_ConfigUpdate.java?29.41%?
    Code.java?0.00%?
    ConfigAutoFetch.java?86.73%?
    ConfigCacheClient.java?93.33%?
    ConfigContainer.java?94.29%?
    ConfigFetchHandler.java?92.94%?
    ConfigFetchHttpClient.java?86.27%?
    ConfigGetParameterHandler.java?96.45%?
    ConfigRealtimeHandler.java?41.38%?
    ConfigRealtimeHttpClient.java?73.57%?
    ConfigSharedPrefsClient.java?87.50%?
    ConfigStorageClient.java?100.00%?
    ConfigUpdate.java?100.00%?
    ConfigUpdateListener.java?0.00%?
    ConfigUpdateListenerRegistration.java?0.00%?
    CustomSignals.java?100.00%?
    DefaultsXmlParser.java?0.00%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfig.java?89.76%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigClientException.java?75.00%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigException.java?95.65%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigFetchThrottledException.java?100.00%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigInfo.java?0.00%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigInfoImpl.java?100.00%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigServerException.java?68.42%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigSettings.java?61.54%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigValue.java?0.00%?
    FirebaseRemoteConfigValueImpl.java?84.62%?
    Personalization.java?91.43%?
    RemoteConfig.kt?31.58%?
    RemoteConfigComponent.java?90.70%?
    RemoteConfigConstants.java?0.00%?
    RemoteConfigRegistrar.java?100.00%?
    RolloutsStateFactory.java?95.24%?
    RolloutsStateSubscriptionsHandler.java?100.00%?

  • firebase-messaging

    Overall coverage changed from 84.13% (7966873) to 84.10% (10eb610) by -0.04%.

    FilenameBase (7966873)Merge (10eb610)Diff
    FirebaseMessaging.java76.00%75.60%-0.40%
  • firebase-storage

    Overall coverage changed from 84.33% (7966873) to 84.08% (10eb610) by -0.25%.

    FilenameBase (7966873)Merge (10eb610)Diff
    StorageTask.java83.99%83.69%-0.30%
    UploadTask.java83.17%81.52%-1.65%
  • firebase-firestore

    FilenameBase (7966873)Merge (10eb610)Diff
    DeleteMutation.java95.24%90.48%-4.76%
    SetMutation.java94.44%97.22%+2.78%

Test Logs

  1. https://storage.googleapis.com/firebase-sdk-metric-reports/4PcN0KDNB0.html

@google-oss-bot
Copy link
Contributor

google-oss-bot commented Jun 23, 2025

Startup Time Report 1

Note: Layout is sometimes suboptimal due to limited formatting support on GitHub. Please check this report on GCS.

Startup time comparison between the CI merge commit (10eb610) and the base commit (7966873) are not available.

No macrobenchmark data found for the base commit (7966873). Analysis for the CI merge commit (10eb610) can be found at:

  1. https://storage.googleapis.com/firebase-sdk-metric-reports/6RuiBZsspd/index.html

@emilypgoogle emilypgoogle requested a review from rlazo June 23, 2025 19:49
@emilypgoogle emilypgoogle enabled auto-merge (squash) June 23, 2025 20:02
@emilypgoogle emilypgoogle merged commit 89c2f6c into main Jun 23, 2025
276 of 277 checks passed
@emilypgoogle emilypgoogle deleted the ep/tutorial-alpha-versions branch June 23, 2025 20:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants