Skip to content

Conversation

@jan-janssen
Copy link
Member

@jan-janssen jan-janssen commented Jul 21, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved handling when core settings are undefined by issuing a warning and clarifying default behavior.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 21, 2025

Walkthrough

The function validate_number_of_cores in executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py was modified to add a warning when neither max_cores nor max_workers are set and set_local_cores is True. It now assigns the CPU count to a local variable, issues a warning, and returns this value explicitly.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py Added warning and explicit assignment before returning CPU count in fallback case of validate_number_of_cores.

Estimated code review effort

2 (10–30 minutes)

Poem

A rabbit hopped in code today,
Adjusting warnings on the way.
Where once the CPUs were returned,
Now caution’s given, lessons learned.
With gentle paws, it changed the flow—
“Mind your cores!” the warnings show.
🐇💻


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 44fd4bc and 8fee4c4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py (2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings

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.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page 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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

# Conflicts:
#	executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a 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)
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py (1)

194-199: Add stacklevel parameter to the warning call.

The warning implementation improves user experience by explicitly informing when max_workers defaults to CPU count. However, the static analysis tool correctly identifies that the stacklevel parameter should be set to point the warning to the caller's code.

Apply this diff to address the static analysis hint:

-        warn(
-            "max_workers parameter is not set, set default based on CPU count to: max_workers="
-            + str(max_workers)
-        )
+        warn(
+            "max_workers parameter is not set, set default based on CPU count to: max_workers="
+            + str(max_workers),
+            stacklevel=2
+        )
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81a0b73 and 44fd4bc.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff (0.12.2)
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py

195-195: No explicit stacklevel keyword argument found

Set stacklevel=2

(B028)

🔇 Additional comments (1)
executorlib/standalone/inputcheck.py (1)

6-6: LGTM!

The import addition is necessary for the warning functionality and follows Python conventions.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 21, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.42%. Comparing base (81a0b73) to head (8fee4c4).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #753   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.42%   97.42%           
=======================================
  Files          31       31           
  Lines        1396     1399    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits         1360     1363    +3     
  Misses         36       36           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jan-janssen jan-janssen merged commit 11771a5 into main Jul 21, 2025
31 checks passed
@jan-janssen jan-janssen deleted the test branch July 21, 2025 14:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants