ci: fix config for dependabot.yml & more robust sortJSON #83
Conversation
WalkthroughThe project's dependency management shifted from Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on X ? TipsChat with CodeRabbit Bot (
|
Deploying with
|
| Latest commit: |
f4ff165
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://20c7f848.awesome-digital-history.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://fix-dependabot-config.awesome-digital-history.pages.dev |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to filter (2)
- package.json
- pnpm-lock.yaml
Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/dependabot.yml (1 hunks)
- utils/sortJSON.js (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/dependabot.yml
Additional comments: 2
utils/sortJSON.js (2)
33-34: Sorting the JSON array by the "title" field is done correctly using
localeCompare. This is a good choice for string comparison that respects locale-specific rules.44-45: The error handling for JSON parsing is appropriate, providing clear feedback on the nature of the error.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- utils/sortJSON.js (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 2
utils/sortJSON.js (2)
30-31: The sorting logic by the "title" field using
localeCompareis correct and ensures that the JSON array is sorted alphabetically.11-47: The try-catch blocks for JSON parsing and stringifying are correctly implemented, providing clear error messages for each type of error.
maehr
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 3
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to filter (1)
- package.json
Files selected for processing (2)
- utils/compileReadme.js (2 hunks)
- utils/sortJSON.js (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- utils/sortJSON.js
Additional comments: 3
utils/compileReadme.js (3)
20-29: The
generateReadmeContentfunction is well-structured, breaking down the README generation into modular functions. This improves readability and maintainability.1-35: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [31-44]
The
generateHeaderfunction is concise and returns a static header. Ensure that the static content like the badge URL and the favicon image path are correct and accessible.
- 46-61: The
generateTableOfContentsfunction dynamically creates the table of contents based on the regions. Verify that theregionfield is always present and correctly formatted in the entries to avoid broken links in the README.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- utils/compileReadme.js (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 2
utils/compileReadme.js (2)
- 41-119: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [20-119]
The restructuring of the README generation logic into separate functions enhances modularity and maintainability. Good use of single-responsibility principle.
- 114-117: The
writeFilefunction is implemented with proper error handling using promises, which is a good practice for asynchronous operations.
| try { | ||
| const entries = JSON.parse(data); | ||
| const readmeContent = generateReadmeContent(entries); | ||
| writeFile('./README.md', readmeContent); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| console.error(`Error parsing JSON data: ${error.message}`); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider whether the process should terminate or continue after catching a JSON parsing error. If the README generation is critical, you might want to halt further execution or implement a fallback mechanism.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- utils/compileReadme.js (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 4
utils/compileReadme.js (4)
114-117: The implementation of
writeFileusingfs.promises.writeFilewith proper error handling is correct and follows best practices for asynchronous file operations in Node.js.20-29: The
generateReadmeContentfunction is well-structured, with a clear and modular approach to generating the README content by composing it from separate parts created by other functions.41-118: > Note: This review was outside the patches, so it was mapped to the patch with the greatest overlap. Original lines [31-112]
The refactoring of README content generation into separate functions such as
generateHeader,generateTableOfContents,generateSections,generateLearningSection,generateMoreAwesomeSection, andgenerateFooterenhances modularity and maintainability.
- 3-4: The changes to the declarations of exported or public entities, such as the removal of global variables and the addition of new functions, align with the PR objectives and improve the codebase's structure and maintainability.
Verification successful
The changes to
utils/compileReadme.jsare consistent with the PR objectives and the AI-generated summaries. The new functionsgenerateLearningSection,generateMoreAwesomeSection,generateFooter, andwriteFileare used within the same file, which aligns with the refactoring goal of improving modularity and maintainability of the codebase. ThewriteFilefunction inutils/sortJSON.jsrefers to the Node.js filesystem module method, not the newly added function, and thus does not conflict with the changes incompileReadme.js.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify that the new functions are used consistently across the codebase. rg --type js 'generateLearningSection|generateMoreAwesomeSection|generateFooter|writeFile'Length of output: 748
Pull Request
Add / Remove / Change
{entry name}insrc/lib/data/entries.json.Short pitch
Describe why this change is made. Alternatively, refer to existing issues if any. You could try to answer:
Checklist
Please ensure that you have completed the following tasks:
npm run prepareto sort the entries insrc/lib/data/entries.jsonalphabetically and to generate theREADME.mdfile.npm run formatto format the repository code.npm run awesome-lintto ensure that theREADME.mdfile is formatted correctly.Criteria for accepting a pull request
Contributors, please ensure that:
Maintainers, please ensure that:
Updating your PR
If the maintainers notice anything that needs to be changed, they will ask you to edit your PR before merging it. Please do not open a new PR, just edit the existing one. If you're not sure how to do that, here is a guide on the different ways you can update your PR.
Appendix: running lint tests
To run tests locally using Node.js, you need to install the dependencies first:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Refactor
Documentation
Chores