-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
Refactoring: do not loose models ordering #523
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
Refactoring: do not loose models ordering #523
Conversation
WalkthroughDeduplication in FeedbackRequest.validate_categories changed from set-based to Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes Pre-merge checks (3 passed)✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Pre-merge checks (3 passed)✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Poem
Tip 👮 Agentic pre-merge checks are now available in preview!Pro plan users can now enable pre-merge checks in their settings to enforce checklists before merging PRs.
Please see the documentation for more information. Example: reviews:
pre_merge_checks:
custom_checks:
- name: "Undocumented Breaking Changes"
mode: "warning"
instructions: |
Pass/fail criteria: All breaking changes to public APIs, CLI flags, environment variables, configuration keys, database schemas, or HTTP/GraphQL endpoints must be documented in the "Breaking Change" section of the PR description and in CHANGELOG.md. Exclude purely internal or private changes (e.g., code not exported from package entry points or explicitly marked as internal).Please share your feedback with us on this Discord post. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
34d4fcc to
3e6db29
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/models/requests.py (1)
369-371: Nit: fix typo in the inline comment ("loose" → "lose").Apply:
- unique_categories = list(dict.fromkeys(value)) # don't loose ordering + unique_categories = list(dict.fromkeys(value)) # don't lose ordering
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/models/requests.py(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
- GitHub Check: build-pr
- GitHub Check: e2e_tests
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/models/requests.py (1)
369-371: Order-preserving de-duplication: LGTM.Switching to dict.fromkeys(...) removes duplicates while keeping first-seen order, matching the PR goal.
3e6db29 to
e88ed25
Compare
Description
Refactoring: do not loose models ordering
Type of change
Summary by CodeRabbit