Feature/add gitlab retriever

[cloud26]

#14

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

File	Stmts	Miss	Cover	Missing
codedog
localization.py	17	2	88%	17, 30
codedog/chains/code_review
base.py	58	27	53%	31, 39, 47, 50–63, 70–83, 89–98, 101–104, 114
codedog/chains/pr_summary
base.py	75	36	52%	57, 65, 73, 76–95, 102–121, 124–134, 137–140, 147, 161–164
codedog/models
commit.py	23	7	70%	23–29
issue.py	23	7	70%	23–29
pull_request.py	39	5	87%	42–46
repository.py	23	7	70%	23–29
codedog/processors
pull_request_processor.py	51	1	98%	108
codedog/retrievers
__init__.py	3	3	0%	1–4
base.py	22	22	0%	1–44
github_retriever.py	100	100	0%	1–232
gitlab_retriever.py	117	117	0%	1–244
codedog/utils
diff_utils.py	6	6	0%	1–19
langchain_utils.py	13	13	0%	1–30
TOTAL	868	353	59%

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
17	0 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	5.021s ⏱️

[codedog-assistant]

codedog-ai/codedog #22 - Feature/add gitlab retriever Pull Request Report

powered by GPT and codedog 0.8.1

Execution

• Start at: 2023-08-15 10:55:43
• Time usage: 17.02s
• Openai api tokens: 0
• Openai api costs: $0.0000

PR Summary

PR Overview

This PR is a new feature ✨

This PR is about adding a new feature to the project. It introduces a Gitlab retriever, which is a new functionality that allows the retrieval of data from Gitlab. The codedog/retrievers/gitlab_retriever.py file has been modified to include the necessary classes and functions for this feature. Additionally, an example script examples/gitlab_review.py has been added to demonstrate the usage of this new feature.

Change Details

Major Changes	Description
gitlab_retriever.py	This diff contains the following changes in the file codedog/retrievers/gitlab_retriever.py: - Imports were added for base64, itertools, re, and typing. - Several classes and functions were imported from external libraries. - Several classes and functions were imported from the codedog.models module. - A class named GitlabRetriever was defined, inheriting from the Retriever class. - A constant named ISSUE_PATTERN was defined. - A constant named LIST_DIFF_LIMIT was defined. - The __init__ method of the GitlabRetriever class was defined, taking several parameters. - Several properties and methods were defined within the GitlabRetriever class, including retriever_type. Note: The code contains a comment indicating that the implementation of the GitlabRetriever class is still pending.
gitlab_review.py	This diff adds several imports and initializes variables for GitLab and OpenAI. It also creates instances of PRSummaryChain and CodeReviewChain using pre-loaded language models. The code includes two asynchronous functions, pr_summary() and code_review(), which make API calls to retrieve pull request summaries and code reviews respectively. The report() function calculates the cost of the summary and review calls and creates a PullRequestReporter object with the retrieved data.

Change File List

Added files:

• examples/gitlab_review.py

Modified files:

• codedog/retrievers/gitlab_retriever.py

Code Review (preview)

This feature is still under test. Suggestions are given by AI and might be incorrect.

codedog/retrievers/gitlab_retriever.py

Based on the code diff, here are my observations and suggestions:

1. It seems that the code is adding new imports at the beginning of the file. This is fine as long as the imported modules are necessary for the code implementation.

2. The code introduces new classes and functions related to GitLab retrieval. It's important to review these new additions thoroughly to ensure they are implemented correctly and follow best practices.

3. The code defines a regular expression pattern ISSUE_PATTERN and a constant LIST_DIFF_LIMIT. It would be helpful to add comments explaining the purpose and usage of these variables.

4. The GitlabRetriever class is being implemented as a subclass of Retriever. It would be beneficial to review the Retriever class and its methods to ensure that the implementation of GitlabRetriever aligns with the intended behavior.

5. The __init__ method of GitlabRetriever takes several parameters. It would be helpful to add type hints and docstrings to clearly explain the purpose and expected values of each parameter.

6. The code initializes various properties in the GitlabRetriever class. It would be good to review these properties and their implementations to ensure they are correct and efficient.

7. The code defines several private methods (_build_repository, _build_blob, _build_commit, _build_merge_request) that are used for constructing instances of different models. It would be beneficial to review these methods and ensure they handle the data correctly and return the expected model instances.

8. The code uses the @property decorator for some methods. It would be helpful to review these properties and their implementations to ensure they are correctly defined and return the expected values.

9. The code references a change_files property of self._merge_request. It would be important to review the implementation of PullRequest and its associated change_files property to ensure it provides the necessary data.

10. The code defines two methods, get_blob and get_commit, which seem to retrieve specific data from the GitLab repository. It would be beneficial to review these methods and ensure they handle the retrieval correctly and return the expected model instances.

11. The code includes a method _parse_and_build_related_issues that is not implemented in the provided code diff. It would be important to review the implementation of this method and ensure it is correctly implemented and handles the related issues appropriately.

12. It would be helpful to review the overall structure and organization of the code to ensure it follows best practices and is easy to understand and maintain.

These are some general observations and suggestions based on the provided code diff. It's important to thoroughly review the entire codebase and consider the specific requirements and context of the project to provide more specific and detailed feedback.

examples/gitlab_review.py

The code change looks correct overall. However, I have a few suggestions for the author:

1. It's a good practice to include comments in the code to explain the purpose and functionality of different sections or functions. Consider adding comments to improve code readability and maintainability.

2. It seems that the code is using environment variables to store sensitive information like GitLab URL and token. Make sure to handle these variables securely and avoid hardcoding them in the code. Consider using a configuration file or a secrets manager to store and retrieve these values.

3. The code is using the asyncio library for asynchronous execution. It's important to ensure that all the functions used in the asyncio event loop are actually asynchronous. Check if the functions pr_summary() and code_review() have any blocking operations that may affect the performance of the asynchronous execution. If there are any blocking operations, consider using appropriate asynchronous alternatives or wrapping them in asyncio.to_thread().

4. The code is using the time.sleep(60) function at the end. It's not clear why this sleep is necessary. If it's intended to delay the program's termination, consider using a more explicit and controlled approach, such as waiting for a specific event or using a timeout mechanism.

5. Consider adding error handling and exception catching to handle potential exceptions that may occur during the execution of the code. This will help in providing better error messages and handling unexpected scenarios gracefully.

6. It's always a good practice to follow a consistent coding style. Consider using a linter or code formatter to ensure consistent indentation, spacing, and naming conventions throughout the code.

Overall, the code change looks good, but implementing these suggestions will help improve the code's quality, readability, and maintainability.