fix: updating code review output format for granular control

[sauravpanda]

Code Review Output Format Update

This pull request aims to update the code review output format for granular control. The significant modifications include:

• Refactoring the create_pr_review_from_json function into the CodeReviewer class
• Introducing the merge_topics and create_pr_review_text methods to handle topic merging and review text creation
• Adding the is_code_review_prompt_within_limit method to check the token limit for code review prompts
• Updating the version to 0.1.11 in the pyproject.toml file
• Adding tests for the new methods and functionality

These changes enhance the code review process by providing more control over the output format and improving the efficiency of code review prompts. The refactoring and new features contribute to better maintainability and readability of the codebase.

✨ Generated with love by Kaizen ❤️

Original Description

None

[kaizen-bot]

Code Review

Code Quality

[important] -> These functions are commented out and not being used in the codebase, removing them will improve code readability and maintainability.

code_review.py | 28 - 37

[moderate] -> Adding a docstring will improve the readability and maintainability of the function, providing clarity on its functionality and usage.

code_review.py | 40 - 57

[important] -> Type hints improve code readability and maintainability.

review_output.py | 14 - 26

[moderate] -> Clear and descriptive variable names enhance code understanding.

review_output.py | 28 - 32

[important] -> Smaller functions improve code maintainability and testability.

review_output.py | 34 - 87

[moderate] -> It's generally a good practice to manage the version in a separate configuration file or through a build tool to avoid manual updates in the source code.

pyproject.toml | 2 - 2

[moderate] -> The 'patch' import is not used in the code, and it should be removed to maintain code cleanliness.

code_review.py | 3 - 3

[moderate] -> The 'fuzz' import is not used in the code, and it should be removed to maintain code cleanliness.

code_review.py | 3 - 3

[moderate] -> The 'Mock' import is not used in the code, and it should be removed to maintain code cleanliness.

code_review.py | 3 - 3

[High] -> The code follows best practices and coding standards.

output.py | 37 - 37

Potential Issues

[critical] -> Lack of error handling can lead to unexpected failures and poor user experience.

review_output.py | 34 - 87

[important] -> The test function 'test_review_pull_request' is commented out and should be either uncommented or removed to avoid confusion and maintain code clarity.

code_review.py | 7 - 26

[important] -> The test function 'test_is_code_review_prompt_within_limit_false' does not have an assertion, it should include an assertion to validate the expected behavior.

code_review.py | 60 - 78

Improvements

[moderate] -> Descriptive method names improve code readability and understanding.

review_output.py | 89 - 97

[important] -> Complex methods can be refactored for better maintainability and testability.

review_output.py | 99 - 123

[moderate] -> The use of 'pytest.mark.parametrize' is commented out and should be either uncommented or removed to ensure proper test parameterization.

code_review.py | 6 - 26

[moderate] -> The test function 'test_review_pull_request' is defined but not being used, it should be either utilized or removed to avoid dead code.

code_review.py | 7 - 26

Performance

[Medium] -> There are some inefficient loops and data structures used.

output.py | 39 - 57

[Medium] -> There are some inefficient loops and data structures used.

output.py | 39 - 57

Security

[NA] -> NA

output.py | NA - NA

✨ Generated with love by Kaizen ❤️