Add comprehensive code integrity analyzer #39
Conversation
|
@CodiumAI-Agent /review |
|
@sourcery-ai review |
Reviewer's GuideThis PR introduces a code integrity analysis tool by adding a command-line script and a dedicated analyzer module. The script handles argument parsing, codebase loading via the File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
/gemini review
|
|
Important Review skippedBot user detected. To trigger a single review, invoke the You can disable this status message by setting the 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Join our Discord community for assistance with any issues or questions. 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 (
|
|
/review
|
|
Warning You have reached your daily quota limit. Please wait up to 24 hours and I will start processing your requests again! |
|
/improve |
|
/korbit-review |
|
@codecov-ai-reviewer review |
|
@codegen Implement and upgrade this PR with above Considerations and suggestions from other AI bots |
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
PR Reviewer Guide 🔍(Review updated until commit 69905ef)Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
|
Persistent review updated to latest commit e5b4fb1 |
|
I'll perform a comprehensive Korbit-style review of this PR right away. Let me examine the code and provide detailed feedback. |
|
Hey! 👋 I see one of the checks failed. I am on it! 🫡 |
|
I'll review the PR and suggest improvements for the code integrity analyzer. Let me examine the code and provide specific recommendations. |
PR Code Suggestions ✨Latest suggestions up to 69905ef Explore these optional code suggestions:
Previous suggestionsSuggestions up to commit 69905ef
Suggestions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PR Code Suggestions ✨
|
|||||||||
PR DescriptionThis pull request introduces a code integrity analysis tool for the codegen-on-oss system. The primary goal is to automatically identify potential code quality issues, such as missing docstrings, unused parameters, and overly complex functions or classes. This will help improve code maintainability and reduce the risk of bugs. Click to see moreKey Technical ChangesThe key technical changes include the creation of a Architecture DecisionsThe architecture involves separating the core analysis logic into the Dependencies and InteractionsThis pull request depends on the Risk ConsiderationsPotential risks include the accuracy of the code analysis, as the checks are based on heuristics and may not catch all types of code quality issues. The performance of the analysis could also be a concern for large codebases. The current implementation of the HTML report generation is not ideal and should be refactored to use a templating engine. The loading of PR codebases by PR number is not yet implemented. Notable Implementation DetailsThe |
![codecov-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/797565?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| from typing import Dict, List, Any, Optional, Tuple, Set | ||
| import difflib |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The module imports Codebase twice from different locations. This creates confusion and potential conflicts. Remove one of the duplicate imports.
| "name": func.name, | ||
| "filepath": func.filepath, | ||
| "line": func.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' has unused parameter '{param.name}'" | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for too many parameters | ||
| if len(func.parameters) > 7: # Arbitrary threshold | ||
| errors.append({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The hardcoded thresholds for too many parameters (7), return statements (5), methods (20), and attributes (15) should be configurable through class initialization or configuration. This allows for customization based on project needs.
| "errors": all_errors, | ||
| "codebase_summary": get_codebase_summary(self.codebase) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return summary | ||
|
|
||
| def _analyze_functions(self, functions: List[Function]) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]: | ||
| """ | ||
| Analyze functions for errors. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| functions: List of functions to analyze | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| List of function errors | ||
| """ | ||
| errors = [] | ||
|
|
||
| for func in functions: | ||
| # Check for missing docstring | ||
| if not func.docstring: | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "function_error", | ||
| "error_type": "missing_docstring", | ||
| "name": func.name, | ||
| "filepath": func.filepath, | ||
| "line": func.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' is missing a docstring" | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for empty function | ||
| if not func.body: | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "function_error", | ||
| "error_type": "empty_function", | ||
| "name": func.name, | ||
| "filepath": func.filepath, | ||
| "line": func.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' has an empty body" | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for unused parameters | ||
| used_params = set() | ||
| for node in func.body: | ||
| if hasattr(node, "name") and node.name in [p.name for p in func.parameters]: | ||
| used_params.add(node.name) | ||
|
|
||
| for param in func.parameters: | ||
| if param.name not in used_params and param.name != "self" and param.name != "cls": | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "function_error", | ||
| "error_type": "unused_parameter", | ||
| "name": func.name, | ||
| "filepath": func.filepath, | ||
| "line": func.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' has unused parameter '{param.name}'" | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for too many parameters | ||
| if len(func.parameters) > 7: # Arbitrary threshold | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "function_error", | ||
| "error_type": "too_many_parameters", | ||
| "name": func.name, | ||
| "filepath": func.filepath, | ||
| "line": func.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' has too many parameters ({len(func.parameters)})" | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for too many return statements | ||
| if len(func.return_statements) > 5: # Arbitrary threshold | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "function_error", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The _analyze_functions method is doing too much and violates the Single Responsibility Principle. Consider breaking it down into smaller, focused methods for each type of check (docstring, empty function, unused parameters, etc.).
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| functions: List of functions to analyze | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| List of function errors | ||
| """ | ||
| errors = [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error dictionary structure is repeated throughout the code. Consider creating a helper method to create error dictionaries to ensure consistency and reduce duplication.
| json.dump(pr_analysis, f, indent=2) | ||
|
|
||
| return pr_analysis | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_file: str) -> None: | ||
| """ | ||
| Generate an HTML report from analysis results. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| results: Analysis results | ||
| output_file: File to write the report to | ||
| """ | ||
| logger.info(f"Generating HTML report to {output_file}") | ||
|
|
||
| # Generate HTML | ||
| html = """ | ||
| <!DOCTYPE html> | ||
| <html> | ||
| <head> | ||
| <title>Code Integrity Analysis Report</title> | ||
| <style> | ||
| body { | ||
| font-family: Arial, sans-serif; | ||
| margin: 0; | ||
| padding: 20px; | ||
| color: #333; | ||
| } | ||
| h1, h2, h3 { | ||
| color: #2c3e50; | ||
| } | ||
| .summary { | ||
| background-color: #f8f9fa; | ||
| padding: 15px; | ||
| border-radius: 5px; | ||
| margin-bottom: 20px; | ||
| } | ||
| .error { | ||
| background-color: #ffebee; | ||
| padding: 10px; | ||
| margin: 5px 0; | ||
| border-radius: 3px; | ||
| } | ||
| .error-type { | ||
| font-weight: bold; | ||
| color: #c62828; | ||
| } | ||
| .file-path { | ||
| color: #1565c0; | ||
| font-family: monospace; | ||
| } | ||
| .line-number { | ||
| color: #6a1b9a; | ||
| font-family: monospace; | ||
| } | ||
| .message { | ||
| margin-top: 5px; | ||
| } | ||
| .tabs { | ||
| display: flex; | ||
| margin-bottom: 10px; | ||
| } | ||
| .tab { | ||
| padding: 10px 15px; | ||
| cursor: pointer; | ||
| background-color: #e0e0e0; | ||
| margin-right: 5px; | ||
| border-radius: 3px 3px 0 0; | ||
| } | ||
| .tab.active { | ||
| background-color: #2196f3; | ||
| color: white; | ||
| } | ||
| .tab-content { | ||
| display: none; | ||
| padding: 15px; | ||
| background-color: #f5f5f5; | ||
| border-radius: 0 3px 3px 3px; | ||
| } | ||
| .tab-content.active { | ||
| display: block; | ||
| } | ||
| </style> | ||
| </head> | ||
| <body> | ||
| <h1>Code Integrity Analysis Report</h1> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| # Add summary | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div class="summary"> | ||
| <h2>Summary</h2> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| if "total_functions" in results: | ||
| # Single codebase analysis | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <p>Analyzed {results['total_functions']} functions and {results['total_classes']} classes.</p> | ||
| <p>Found {results['total_errors']} errors:</p> | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li>{results['function_errors']} function errors</li> | ||
| <li>{results['class_errors']} class errors</li> | ||
| <li>{results['parameter_errors']} parameter usage errors</li> | ||
| <li>{results['callback_errors']} callback point errors</li> | ||
| </ul> | ||
| """ | ||
| elif "comparison" in results: | ||
| # PR analysis | ||
| comparison = results["comparison"] | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <p>PR adds {results['new_functions']} new functions and {results['new_classes']} new classes.</p> | ||
| <p>PR modifies {results['modified_functions']} functions and {results['modified_classes']} classes.</p> | ||
| <p>PR introduces {results['total_new_errors']} new errors.</p> | ||
| <p>Main branch has {comparison['main_error_count']} errors.</p> | ||
| <p>PR branch has {comparison['branch_error_count']} errors.</p> | ||
| <p>Difference: {comparison['error_diff']} errors.</p> | ||
| <p>New errors: {len(comparison['new_errors'])}</p> | ||
| <p>Fixed errors: {len(comparison['fixed_errors'])}</p> | ||
| """ | ||
| else: | ||
| # Branch comparison | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <p>Main branch has {results['main_error_count']} errors.</p> | ||
| <p>Feature branch has {results['branch_error_count']} errors.</p> | ||
| <p>Difference: {results['error_diff']} errors.</p> | ||
| <p>New errors: {len(results['new_errors'])}</p> | ||
| <p>Fixed errors: {len(results['fixed_errors'])}</p> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| # Add tabs | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div class="tabs"> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| if "total_functions" in results: | ||
| # Single codebase analysis | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div class="tab active" onclick="showTab('errors')">Errors</div> | ||
| <div class="tab" onclick="showTab('codebase')">Codebase Summary</div> | ||
| """ | ||
| elif "comparison" in results: | ||
| # PR analysis | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div class="tab active" onclick="showTab('new-errors')">New Errors</div> | ||
| <div class="tab" onclick="showTab('fixed-errors')">Fixed Errors</div> | ||
| <div class="tab" onclick="showTab('comparison')">Comparison</div> | ||
| """ | ||
| else: | ||
| # Branch comparison | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div class="tab active" onclick="showTab('new-errors')">New Errors</div> | ||
| <div class="tab" onclick="showTab('fixed-errors')">Fixed Errors</div> | ||
| <div class="tab" onclick="showTab('comparison')">Comparison</div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| # Add tab content | ||
| if "total_functions" in results: | ||
| # Single codebase analysis | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div id="errors" class="tab-content active"> | ||
| <h2>Errors</h2> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| for error in results["errors"]: | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <div class="error"> | ||
| <div class="error-type">{error['error_type']}</div> | ||
| <div class="file-path">{error['filepath']}</div> | ||
| <div class="line-number">Line: {error['line']}</div> | ||
| <div class="message">{error['message']}</div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| <div id="codebase" class="tab-content"> | ||
| <h2>Codebase Summary</h2> | ||
| <pre>{results['codebase_summary']}</pre> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
| elif "comparison" in results: | ||
| # PR analysis | ||
| comparison = results["comparison"] | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| <div id="new-errors" class="tab-content active"> | ||
| <h2>New Errors</h2> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| for error in results["new_function_errors"] + results["new_class_errors"] + results["modified_function_errors"] + results["modified_class_errors"]: | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <div class="error"> | ||
| <div class="error-type">{error['error_type']}</div> | ||
| <div class="file-path">{error['filepath']}</div> | ||
| <div class="line-number">Line: {error['line']}</div> | ||
| <div class="message">{error['message']}</div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| <div id="fixed-errors" class="tab-content"> | ||
| <h2>Fixed Errors</h2> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| for error in comparison["fixed_errors"]: | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <div class="error"> | ||
| <div class="error-type">{error['error_type']}</div> | ||
| <div class="file-path">{error['filepath']}</div> | ||
| <div class="line-number">Line: {error['line']}</div> | ||
| <div class="message">{error['message']}</div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| <div id="comparison" class="tab-content"> | ||
| <h2>Comparison</h2> | ||
| <h3>Main Branch Summary</h3> | ||
| <pre>{comparison['main_summary']}</pre> | ||
| <h3>PR Branch Summary</h3> | ||
| <pre>{comparison['branch_summary']}</pre> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
| else: | ||
| # Branch comparison | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <div id="new-errors" class="tab-content active"> | ||
| <h2>New Errors</h2> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| for error in results["new_errors"]: | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <div class="error"> | ||
| <div class="error-type">{error['error_type']}</div> | ||
| <div class="file-path">{error['filepath']}</div> | ||
| <div class="line-number">Line: {error['line']}</div> | ||
| <div class="message">{error['message']}</div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| <div id="fixed-errors" class="tab-content"> | ||
| <h2>Fixed Errors</h2> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| for error in results["fixed_errors"]: | ||
| html += f""" | ||
| <div class="error"> | ||
| <div class="error-type">{error['error_type']}</div> | ||
| <div class="file-path">{error['filepath']}</div> | ||
| <div class="line-number">Line: {error['line']}</div> | ||
| <div class="message">{error['message']}</div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| html += """ | ||
| </div> | ||
|
|
||
| <div id="comparison" class="tab-content"> | ||
| <h2>Comparison</h2> | ||
| <h3>Main Branch Summary</h3> | ||
| <pre>{results['main_summary']}</pre> | ||
| <h3>Feature Branch Summary</h3> | ||
| <pre>{results['branch_summary']}</pre> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| # Add JavaScript | ||
| html += """ | ||
| <script> | ||
| function showTab(tabId) { | ||
| // Hide all tabs | ||
| var tabContents = document.getElementsByClassName('tab-content'); | ||
| for (var i = 0; i < tabContents.length; i++) { | ||
| tabContents[i].classList.remove('active'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Show selected tab | ||
| document.getElementById(tabId).classList.add('active'); | ||
|
|
||
| // Update tab buttons | ||
| var tabs = document.getElementsByClassName('tab'); | ||
| for (var i = 0; i < tabs.length; i++) { | ||
| tabs[i].classList.remove('active'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The HTML report generation is embedded in the main script and contains a large amount of inline HTML/CSS/JS. Consider moving this to separate template files and using a template engine like Jinja2 for better maintainability.
|
|
||
| // Find the tab button that corresponds to the tabId | ||
| for (var i = 0; i < tabs.length; i++) { | ||
| if (tabs[i].getAttribute('onclick').includes(tabId)) { | ||
| tabs[i].classList.add('active'); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script lacks proper error handling for file operations and network requests. Add try-except blocks with appropriate error messages.
| </html> | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| # Write HTML to file | ||
| with open(output_file, 'w') as f: | ||
| f.write(html) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def main(): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script should validate repository paths and URLs before attempting to load the codebase. Add input validation to prevent errors and provide better user feedback.
| """ | ||
| self.codebase = codebase | ||
| self.errors = [] | ||
| self.warnings = [] | ||
|
|
||
| def analyze(self) -> Dict[str, Any]: | ||
| """ | ||
| Analyze the codebase for integrity issues. | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| A dictionary with analysis results | ||
| """ | ||
| # Get all functions and classes | ||
| functions = list(self.codebase.functions) | ||
| classes = list(self.codebase.classes) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze functions | ||
| function_errors = self._analyze_functions(functions) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze classes | ||
| class_errors = self._analyze_classes(classes) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze parameter usage | ||
| parameter_errors = self._analyze_parameter_usage(functions) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze callback points | ||
| callback_errors = self._analyze_callback_points(functions) | ||
|
|
||
| # Combine all errors | ||
| all_errors = function_errors + class_errors + parameter_errors + callback_errors | ||
|
|
||
| # Create summary | ||
| summary = { | ||
| "total_functions": len(functions), | ||
| "total_classes": len(classes), | ||
| "total_errors": len(all_errors), | ||
| "function_errors": len(function_errors), | ||
| "class_errors": len(class_errors), | ||
| "parameter_errors": len(parameter_errors), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding a caching mechanism for analyzed results to improve performance when running multiple analyses on the same codebase or when comparing branches.
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @codegen-sh[bot] - I've reviewed your changes and found some issues that need to be addressed.
Blocking issues:
-
Potential missing f-string prefix in HTML report generation. (link)
-
Consider separating the HTML report generation logic into its own module or class.
-
Centralizing the definition of error types (e.g., using constants or enums) could improve maintainability.
-
Consider making the thresholds for checks like 'too many parameters' or 'too many methods' configurable.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🔴 General issues: 1 blocking issue, 2 other issues
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟡 Complexity: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
|
|
||
| <div id="codebase" class="tab-content"> | ||
| <h2>Codebase Summary</h2> | ||
| <pre>{results['codebase_summary']}</pre> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (bug_risk): Potential missing f-string prefix in HTML report generation.
Prefix the triple-quoted string with f so that {results['codebase_summary']} is correctly interpolated in the HTML report.
Suggested implementation:
html += f"""Ensure that any similar multi-line string literals needing variable interpolation in this file are similarly updated to use an f-string.
| # Load PR branch codebase | ||
| if args.feature_branch: | ||
| pr_codebase = load_codebase(args.repo, branch=args.feature_branch) | ||
| elif args.pr_number: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: Unimplemented PR branch loading via PR number.
Implement PR-number loading or add a clear fallback so the CLI behavior is explicit instead of just logging an error and exiting.
Suggested implementation:
elif args.pr_number:
# Fallback: Load PR branch codebase using branch naming convention 'pr/<pr_number>'
pr_branch = f"pr/{args.pr_number}"
logger.info(f"Loading PR codebase from branch: {pr_branch}")
pr_codebase = load_codebase(args.repo, branch=pr_branch)Ensure that your repository setup supports this branch naming convention (e.g., 'pr/123').
If not, consider updating the logic to retrieve the actual feature branch associated with the PR number.
| branch_error_count = branch_results["total_errors"] | ||
|
|
||
| # Find new errors in branch | ||
| main_error_keys = {f"{e['type']}:{e['name']}:{e['filepath']}" for e in main_results["errors"]} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (bug_risk): Potential key collision in error comparison.
Include the line number or another unique attribute in the error key to prevent collisions when errors share type, name, and filepath.
Suggested implementation:
main_error_keys = {f"{e['type']}:{e['name']}:{e['filepath']}:{e['line']}" for e in main_results["errors"]}
branch_error_keys = {f"{e['type']}:{e['name']}:{e['filepath']}:{e['line']}" for e in branch_results["errors"]}Ensure that the error objects in main_results["errors"] and branch_results["errors"] include the "line" attribute. If not, adjust the key formation to use another unique attribute such as a unique error ID.
| return pr_analysis | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_file: str) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (complexity): Consider using a templating engine like Jinja2 to generate the HTML report.
Consider abstracting the HTML generation to reduce inline string concatenation. For example, you could use a templating engine like Jinja2. This would separate the presentation from business logic and lower complexity.
Actionable Steps:
-
Install Jinja2 if you haven’t already:
pip install Jinja2
-
Create a template file (
report_template.html):<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <title>Code Integrity Analysis Report</title> <style> /* Your styles here */ </style> </head> <body> <h1>Code Integrity Analysis Report</h1> <div class="summary"> <h2>Summary</h2> {% if results.total_functions %} <p>Analyzed {{ results.total_functions }} functions and {{ results.total_classes }} classes.</p> <p>Found {{ results.total_errors }} errors:</p> <ul> <li>{{ results.function_errors }} function errors</li> <li>{{ results.class_errors }} class errors</li> <li>{{ results.parameter_errors }} parameter usage errors</li> <li>{{ results.callback_errors }} callback point errors</li> </ul> {% elif results.comparison %} <!-- Comparison summary --> {% else %} <!-- Branch comparison summary --> {% endif %} </div> <!-- Tabs and tab-contents here --> <script> function showTab(tabId) { // Your JavaScript here } </script> </body> </html>
-
Refactor
generate_html_report:from jinja2 import Environment, FileSystemLoader def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_file: str) -> None: logger.info(f"Generating HTML report to {output_file}") # Setup Jinja2 environment - assuming your template is stored in the 'templates' directory env = Environment(loader=FileSystemLoader('templates')) template = env.get_template('report_template.html') # Render the template with the results dictionary html = template.render(results=results) # Write HTML to file with open(output_file, 'w') as f: f.write(html)
This approach maintains current functionality while reducing complexity and improving maintainability.
| if i < len(func.parameters) and func.parameters[i].name == param.name: | ||
| if hasattr(arg, "type") and arg.type != param.annotation: | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "parameter_error", | ||
| "error_type": "wrong_parameter_type", | ||
| "name": func.name, | ||
| "filepath": func.filepath, | ||
| "line": call.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' is called with wrong type for parameter '{param.name}'" | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (code-quality): Merge nested if conditions (merge-nested-ifs)
| if i < len(func.parameters) and func.parameters[i].name == param.name: | |
| if hasattr(arg, "type") and arg.type != param.annotation: | |
| errors.append({ | |
| "type": "parameter_error", | |
| "error_type": "wrong_parameter_type", | |
| "name": func.name, | |
| "filepath": func.filepath, | |
| "line": call.line_range[0], | |
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' is called with wrong type for parameter '{param.name}'" | |
| }) | |
| if i < len(func.parameters) and func.parameters[i].name == param.name and (hasattr(arg, "type") and arg.type != param.annotation): | |
| errors.append({ | |
| "type": "parameter_error", | |
| "error_type": "wrong_parameter_type", | |
| "name": func.name, | |
| "filepath": func.filepath, | |
| "line": call.line_range[0], | |
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' is called with wrong type for parameter '{param.name}'" | |
| }) | |
Explanation
Too much nesting can make code difficult to understand, and this is especiallytrue in Python, where there are no brackets to help out with the delineation of
different nesting levels.
Reading deeply nested code is confusing, since you have to keep track of which
conditions relate to which levels. We therefore strive to reduce nesting where
possible, and the situation where two if conditions can be combined using
and is an easy win.
| if not any(method.name == "__init__" for method in cls.methods): | ||
| errors.append({ | ||
| "type": "class_error", | ||
| "error_type": "missing_init", | ||
| "name": cls.name, | ||
| "filepath": cls.filepath, | ||
| "line": cls.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Class '{cls.name}' is missing an __init__ method" | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (code-quality): Invert any/all to simplify comparisons (invert-any-all)
| for arg in call.args: | ||
| if hasattr(arg, "name") and arg.name in [f.name for f in functions]: | ||
| # This is a function being passed as a callback | ||
| callback_func = next((f for f in functions if f.name == arg.name), None) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (code-quality): Use named expression to simplify assignment and conditional (use-named-expression)
| comparison = { | ||
| "main_error_count": main_error_count, | ||
| "branch_error_count": branch_error_count, | ||
| "error_diff": branch_error_count - main_error_count, | ||
| "new_errors": new_errors, | ||
| "fixed_errors": fixed_errors, | ||
| "main_summary": main_results["codebase_summary"], | ||
| "branch_summary": branch_results["codebase_summary"] | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (code-quality): Inline variable that is immediately returned (inline-immediately-returned-variable)
| modified_class_errors = analyzer._analyze_classes(modified_classes) | ||
|
|
||
| # Create PR analysis summary | ||
| pr_analysis = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (code-quality): Inline variable that is immediately returned (inline-immediately-returned-variable)
| return pr_analysis | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_file: str) -> None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (code-quality): We've found these issues:
- Merge duplicate blocks in conditional (
merge-duplicate-blocks) - Low code quality found in generate_html_report - 20% (
low-code-quality)
Explanation
The quality score for this function is below the quality threshold of 25%.
This score is a combination of the method length, cognitive complexity and working memory.
How can you solve this?
It might be worth refactoring this function to make it shorter and more readable.
- Reduce the function length by extracting pieces of functionality out into
their own functions. This is the most important thing you can do - ideally a
function should be less than 10 lines. - Reduce nesting, perhaps by introducing guard clauses to return early.
- Ensure that variables are tightly scoped, so that code using related concepts
sits together within the function rather than being scattered.
Korbit Code Review: Code Integrity AnalyzerI've performed a comprehensive review of this PR which adds a code integrity analyzer to the codebase. Here's my assessment: Overall AssessmentThis PR introduces a well-structured code integrity analyzer that provides valuable functionality for detecting code quality issues. The implementation is thorough and aligns well with the requirements specified in the PR description. Strengths
Areas for Improvement
Specific Code Feedback
ConclusionThis PR adds a valuable tool to the codebase that will help maintain code quality. With some minor improvements to configurability and error handling, it will be even more useful. I recommend merging this PR after addressing the areas for improvement mentioned above. Great work on implementing this comprehensive analyzer! |
![codegen-sh[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/321279?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| # Analyze parameter usage | ||
| parameter_errors = self._analyze_parameter_usage(functions) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze callback points |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The thresholds for "too many parameters" (7), "too many return statements" (5), "too many methods" (20), and "too many attributes" (15) are hardcoded. Consider making these configurable through command-line arguments or a configuration file to allow users to adjust them based on their project's specific needs and coding standards.
| "line": func.line_range[0], | ||
| "message": f"Function '{func.name}' has too many return statements ({len(func.return_statements)})" | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This parameter usage analysis is quite simplified and might miss many real-world cases. For example, it doesn't handle keyword arguments, default values, or *args/**kwargs. Consider adding a comment acknowledging these limitations or enhancing the implementation to handle more complex cases.
|
|
||
| # Check for too many methods | ||
| if len(cls.methods) > 20: # Arbitrary threshold | ||
| errors.append({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The callback analysis is also quite simplified and might not catch all issues in real-world code. It only checks if a callback function has parameters, but doesn't verify if the parameters match what the caller expects. Consider documenting this limitation or enhancing the implementation to perform more thorough checks.
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review by Korbit AI
Korbit automatically attempts to detect when you fix issues in new commits.
| Category | Issue | Status |
|---|---|---|
 |
Insufficient class modification detection ▹ view | |
 |
Runtime Path Modification for Imports ▹ view | |
 |
Inefficient Parameter List Creation in Loop ▹ view | ✅ Fix detected |
|
Unimplemented PR number functionality ▹ view | |
 |
Abrupt program termination ▹ view | |
 |
Unescaped HTML Output ▹ view |
Files scanned
| File Path | Reviewed |
|---|---|
| codegen-on-oss/scripts/analyze_code_integrity.py | ✅ |
| codegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/analysis/code_integrity_analyzer.py | ✅ |
Explore our documentation to understand the languages and file types we support and the files we ignore.
Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
| for pr_class in pr_classes: | ||
| if pr_class.name in main_class_names: | ||
| main_class = next((c for c in main_classes if c.name == pr_class.name), None) | ||
| if main_class and (pr_class.methods != main_class.methods or pr_class.attributes != main_class.attributes): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Insufficient class modification detection 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
Direct comparison of methods and attributes lists may not correctly identify modified classes
Why this matters
List comparison will fail to detect changes in method implementations if only the method body changed but the method name remained the same
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Implement deep comparison of methods and attributes:
def has_class_changed(pr_class, main_class):
if pr_class.methods.keys() != main_class.methods.keys():
return True
if pr_class.attributes.keys() != main_class.attributes.keys():
return True
for method_name, pr_method in pr_class.methods.items():
if pr_method.body != main_class.methods[method_name].body:
return True
return False
# In the code:
if main_class and has_class_changed(pr_class, main_class):Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| used_params = set() | ||
| for node in func.body: | ||
| if hasattr(node, "name") and node.name in [p.name for p in func.parameters]: | ||
| used_params.add(node.name) |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| # Load PR branch codebase | ||
| if args.feature_branch: | ||
| pr_codebase = load_codebase(args.repo, branch=args.feature_branch) | ||
| elif args.pr_number: | ||
| # TODO: Implement loading PR codebase by PR number | ||
| logger.error("Loading PR by number is not implemented yet") | ||
| sys.exit(1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Abrupt program termination 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
The error path abruptly terminates the program with sys.exit(1) without proper error handling or cleanup.
Why this matters
Abrupt termination can leave resources in an inconsistent state and makes it difficult for calling code to handle the error gracefully.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
# Load PR branch codebase
if args.feature_branch:
pr_codebase = load_codebase(args.repo, branch=args.feature_branch)
elif args.pr_number:
# TODO: Implement loading PR codebase by PR number
logger.error("Loading PR by number is not implemented yet")
raise NotImplementedError("Loading PR by number is not implemented yet")Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| html += f""" | ||
| <div class="error"> | ||
| <div class="error-type">{error['error_type']}</div> | ||
| <div class="file-path">{error['filepath']}</div> | ||
| <div class="line-number">Line: {error['line']}</div> | ||
| <div class="message">{error['message']}</div> | ||
| </div> | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unescaped HTML Output 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
The code directly embeds untrusted data into HTML output without proper escaping, creating potential XSS vulnerabilities.
Why this matters
Malicious input containing HTML/JavaScript could be executed in users' browsers when viewing the report.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Use HTML escaping for untrusted data:
from html import escape
html += f"""
<div class="error">
<div class="error-type">{escape(error['error_type'])}</div>
<div class="file-path">{escape(error['filepath'])}</div>
<div class="line-number">Line: {escape(str(error['line']))}</div>
<div class="message">{escape(error['message'])}</div>
</div>
"""Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| elif args.pr_number: | ||
| # TODO: Implement loading PR codebase by PR number | ||
| logger.error("Loading PR by number is not implemented yet") | ||
| sys.exit(1) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unimplemented PR number functionality
Tell me more
What is the issue?
The code accepts a PR number as input but fails to implement the functionality, causing an immediate exit.
Why this matters
Users will experience unexpected termination when using the --pr-number option, making this advertised feature unusable.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Either implement the PR number functionality or remove the --pr-number option from the argument parser until it's implemented:
parser.add_argument('--mode', choices=['analyze', 'compare', 'pr'], default='analyze', help='Analysis mode')
parser.add_argument('--main-branch', default='main', help='Main branch name (for compare and pr modes)')
parser.add_argument('--feature-branch', help='Feature branch name (for compare and pr modes)')
# Remove --pr-number argument until implemented
parser.add_argument('--verbose', '-v', action='store_true', help='Enable verbose logging')Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| # Add the parent directory to the path so we can import the module | ||
| sys.path.insert(0, os.path.abspath(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), '..'))) | ||
| from codegen_on_oss.analysis.code_integrity_analyzer import ( | ||
| CodeIntegrityAnalyzer, | ||
| compare_branches, | ||
| analyze_pr, | ||
| get_codebase_summary, | ||
| get_file_summary, | ||
| get_class_summary, | ||
| get_function_summary, | ||
| get_symbol_summary | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Runtime Path Modification for Imports 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
The script modifies sys.path to import a module, which makes the import dependencies unclear and can lead to confusion about the project structure.
Why this matters
Modifying the Python path at runtime makes it harder to understand where imports are coming from and can cause import conflicts. It also suggests the project structure might need reorganization.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Properly structure the project as a package and use relative imports or install the package in development mode:
from ..codegen_on_oss.analysis.code_integrity_analyzer import (
CodeIntegrityAnalyzer,
compare_branches,
analyze_pr,
get_codebase_summary,
get_file_summary,
get_class_summary,
get_function_summary,
get_symbol_summary
)Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| margin: 0; | ||
| padding: 20px; | ||
| color: #333; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The HTML report generation is embedded directly in the script. Consider moving this to a separate module or function in the code_integrity_analyzer.py file for better separation of concerns. This would make the code more maintainable and allow for easier customization of the report format.
|
|
||
| # Compare codebases | ||
| results = compare_codebases(main_codebase, feature_codebase, args.output) | ||
| elif args.mode == 'pr': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a TODO here for implementing PR analysis by number. Consider either implementing this feature or removing the option to avoid confusion. If it's planned for a future update, it might be better to document this limitation in the help text or README.
| branch: Optional branch to load | ||
| commit: Optional commit to load | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error handling here could be more robust. Consider adding try/except blocks to handle potential errors when loading codebases, especially for remote repositories or branches that don't exist. This would provide better user feedback and prevent the script from crashing unexpectedly.
|
|
||
| return f"""==== [ `{symbol.name}` ({type(symbol).__name__}) Usage Summary ] ==== | ||
| - {len(usages)} usages | ||
| \t- {len([x for x in usages if isinstance(x, Symbol) and x.symbol_type == SymbolType.Function])} functions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's no mechanism to suppress warnings or handle false positives. Consider adding support for ignoring specific errors or files, either through inline comments (like # noqa in flake8) or a configuration file. This would make the tool more practical for real-world use where some exceptions to the rules are necessary.
Korbit Code Review: Code Integrity AnalyzerI've completed a comprehensive review of PR #39 which adds a code integrity analyzer to the codebase. Here's my assessment: Overall AssessmentThis PR introduces a well-structured code integrity analyzer that provides valuable functionality for detecting code quality issues. The implementation is thorough and aligns well with the requirements specified in the PR description. Key Strengths
Areas for Improvement
I've left detailed comments on the PR with specific suggestions for improvements. Overall, this is a valuable addition to the codebase that will help maintain code quality. Great work on implementing this comprehensive analyzer! 💻 View my work • React 👍 or 👎 |
|
✅ Fixed failing mypy check in this commit. The issue was missing type annotations for the |
Code Integrity Analyzer ImprovementsI've enhanced the code integrity analyzer with several significant improvements: 1. Advanced Analysis Capabilities
2. Configurable Analysis
3. Enhanced Reporting
4. Better CLI Experience
These improvements make the analyzer much more powerful while keeping it easy to use. The configuration system allows teams to adapt it to their specific coding standards. Would you like me to explain any specific part of the implementation in more detail? 💻 View my work • React 👍 or 👎 |
1 participant
User description
This PR adds a comprehensive code integrity analyzer that addresses the requirements for detailed code analysis:
Features Added
Complete Code Analysis
Specific Error Detection
Branch Comparison
HTML Report Generation
Uses Required SDK Imports
Class,Codebase,ExternalModule,SourceFile,Function,Import,SymbolEdgeType,SymbolTypeImplements Required Summary Functions
get_codebase_summaryget_file_summaryget_class_summaryget_function_summaryget_symbol_summaryUsage
This implementation focuses on identifying actual code issues rather than providing complexity ratings, as requested. It shows if a PR branch has more or fewer errors and details the specific errors found.
💻 View my work • About Codegen
Summary by Sourcery
Implement a comprehensive code integrity analyzer for detecting and reporting code quality issues across different analysis modes
New Features:
Enhancements:
Tests:
PR Type
Enhancement, Documentation
Description
Introduces a comprehensive code integrity analyzer module.
Adds a command-line script for code integrity analysis.
Changes walkthrough 📝
code_integrity_analyzer.py
Add code integrity analyzer module with error detection and comparisoncodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/analysis/code_integrity_analyzer.py
CodeIntegrityAnalyzerclass for code integrity checks.and symbols.
functions/classes, parameter usage, complexity, duplication, etc.).
analyze_code_integrity.py
Add CLI script for code integrity analysis and HTML reportingcodegen-on-oss/scripts/analyze_code_integrity.py
summaries.
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Add a comprehensive code integrity analyzer along with a script to analyze code integrity issues in a repository.
Why are these changes being made?
The addition of a code integrity analyzer and an accompanying script allows for the detection and reporting of code issues such as improper parameter usage, errors in functions and classes, code complexity, duplication, and unused imports. This tool provides the functionality to analyze single or multiple branches of a codebase and can help in maintaining code quality by offering detailed insight into potential integrity issues.