✨ Run builder when source is changed. #4
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Author
|
This is a benchmark review for experiment This pull request was cloned from Experiment configurationreview_config:
# User configuration for the review
# - benchmark - use the user config from the benchmark reviews
# - <value> - use the value directly
user_config:
enable_ai_review: true
enable_rule_comments: false
enable_complexity_comments: benchmark
enable_docstring_comments: benchmark
enable_security_comments: benchmark
enable_tests_comments: benchmark
enable_comment_suggestions: benchmark
enable_functionality_review: benchmark
enable_approvals: true
ai_review_config:
# The model responses to use for the experiment
# - benchmark - use the model responses from the benchmark reviews
# - llm - call the language model to generate responses
model_responses:
comments_model: benchmark
comment_validation_model: benchmark
comment_suggestion_model: benchmark
complexity_model: benchmark
docstrings_model: benchmark
functionality_model: benchmark
security_model: benchmark
tests_model: benchmark
# The pull request dataset to run the experiment on
pull_request_dataset:
- https://github.com/Bilbottom/sql-problems/pull/1
- https://github.com/Bilbottom/sql-learning-materials/pull/13
- https://github.com/Bilbottom/python-template/pull/3
- https://github.com/Bilbottom/sql-problems/pull/2
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/kfactory/pull/304
- https://github.com/mslepko/wc-daily-logs-emailer/pull/2
- https://github.com/mslepko/wc-daily-logs-emailer/pull/3
- https://github.com/jquagga/ttt/pull/94
- https://github.com/mslepko/wc-daily-logs-emailer/pull/5
- https://github.com/rbanffy/pip-chill/pull/75
- https://github.com/yaitoo/sqle/pull/45
- https://github.com/Catrofe/AvaliationSystemECommerce/pull/5
- https://github.com/Catrofe/AvaliationSystemECommerce/pull/6
- https://github.com/ultralytics/JSON2YOLO/pull/87
- https://github.com/ultralytics/flickr_scraper/pull/24
- https://github.com/nikhilbadyal/docker-py-revanced/pull/512
- https://github.com/MusicalNinjaDad/FizzBuzz/pull/10
- https://github.com/petermcd/monzo-api/pull/71
- https://github.com/christian80gabi/RecycleAI/pull/3
- https://github.com/christian80gabi/RecycleAI/pull/4
- https://github.com/nbhirud/system_update/pull/22
- https://github.com/nbhirud/system_update/pull/23
- https://github.com/agatma/sprint1-http-server/pull/1
- https://github.com/mraniki/cefi/pull/464
- https://github.com/Idrinth/api-bench/pull/915
- https://github.com/Idrinth/api-bench/pull/921
- https://github.com/dashmug/glue-utils/pull/28
- https://github.com/Idrinth/api-bench/pull/917
- https://github.com/sett-and-hive/sarif-to-comment-action/pull/286
- https://github.com/uncscode/particula/pull/445
review_comment_labels:
- label: correct
question: Is this comment correct?
- label: helpful
question: Is this comment helpful?
- label: comment-type
question: Is the comment type correct?
- label: comment-area
question: Is the comment area correct?
- label: llm-test
question: |
What type of LLM test could this comment become?
- 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
- 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
- no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test
# Benchmark reviews generated by running
# python -m scripts.experiment benchmark <experiment_name>
benchmark_reviews: []
|
SourceryAI
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2024
SourceryAI
left a comment
SourceryAI
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @sourcery-ai-experiments-bot - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 4 issues found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟡 Testing: 2 issues found
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.
Comment on lines
+38
to
+47
| def get_last_version_source(self: Self, app: APP, resource_name: str) -> str: | ||
| """Get last patched version.""" | ||
| if os.getenv("DRY_RUN", default=None): | ||
| with Path(updates_file).open() as url: | ||
| data = json.load(url) | ||
| else: | ||
| with urllib.request.urlopen(self.update_file_url) as url: | ||
| data = json.load(url) | ||
| if data.get(app.app_name): | ||
| return str(data[app.app_name][app_dump_key][resource_name]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (code_refinement): Consider handling exceptions for JSON operations.
Loading JSON data can fail due to malformed data or I/O issues. It's advisable to wrap the json.load calls in a try-except block to handle potential exceptions and maintain robustness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What type of LLM test could this comment become?
- 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
- 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
- no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test
Comment on lines
+18
to
+22
| def should_trigger_build(self: Self, old_version: str, old_source: str, new_version: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | ||
| """Function to check if we should trigger a build.""" | ||
| if old_source != new_source: | ||
| logger.info(f"Trigger build because old source {old_source}, is different from new source {new_source}") | ||
| return True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (code_refinement): Refactor 'should_trigger_build' to reduce complexity.
The method now handles multiple conditions and logging, which increases its complexity. Consider breaking down the functionality into smaller, more manageable methods.
Suggested change
| def should_trigger_build(self: Self, old_version: str, old_source: str, new_version: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | |
| """Function to check if we should trigger a build.""" | |
| if old_source != new_source: | |
| logger.info(f"Trigger build because old source {old_source}, is different from new source {new_source}") | |
| return True | |
| def should_trigger_build(self: Self, old_version: str, old_source: str, new_version: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | |
| """Function to check if we should trigger a build.""" | |
| if self._is_source_changed(old_source, new_source): | |
| return True | |
| def _is_source_changed(self, old_source: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | |
| if old_source != new_source: | |
| logger.info(f"Trigger build because old source {old_source}, is different from new source {new_source}") | |
| return True | |
| return False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What type of LLM test could this comment become?
- 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
- 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
- no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test
Comment on lines
+22
to
+24
| old_integration_source = GitHubManager(env).get_last_version_source(app_obj, integrations_dl_key) | ||
| old_patches_version = GitHubManager(env).get_last_version(app_obj, patches_version_key) | ||
| old_patches_source = GitHubManager(env).get_last_version_source(app_obj, patches_dl_key) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (testing): Missing test cases for new source comparison logic in build triggers.
The changes include new logic to compare sources for integrations and patches to decide on triggering builds. It's crucial to add tests that verify this new functionality works as expected and handles edge cases, such as when sources are identical or when one is null.
Suggested change
| old_integration_source = GitHubManager(env).get_last_version_source(app_obj, integrations_dl_key) | |
| old_patches_version = GitHubManager(env).get_last_version(app_obj, patches_version_key) | |
| old_patches_source = GitHubManager(env).get_last_version_source(app_obj, patches_dl_key) | |
| github_manager = GitHubManager(env) | |
| old_integration_source = github_manager.get_last_version_source(app_obj, integrations_dl_key) | |
| old_patches_version = github_manager.get_last_version(app_obj, patches_version_key) | |
| old_patches_source = github_manager.get_last_version_source(app_obj, patches_dl_key) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What type of LLM test could this comment become?
- 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
- 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
- no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test
Comment on lines
+18
to
+22
| def should_trigger_build(self: Self, old_version: str, old_source: str, new_version: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | ||
| """Function to check if we should trigger a build.""" | ||
| if old_source != new_source: | ||
| logger.info(f"Trigger build because old source {old_source}, is different from new source {new_source}") | ||
| return True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (testing): Consider adding tests for the updated should_trigger_build method.
This method now includes additional parameters and logic for source comparison. Ensure there are tests that cover various scenarios, including cases where versions are the same but sources differ, and vice versa.
Suggested change
| def should_trigger_build(self: Self, old_version: str, old_source: str, new_version: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | |
| """Function to check if we should trigger a build.""" | |
| if old_source != new_source: | |
| logger.info(f"Trigger build because old source {old_source}, is different from new source {new_source}") | |
| return True | |
| def should_trigger_build(self: Self, old_version: str, old_source: str, new_version: str, new_source: str) -> bool: | |
| """Function to check if we should trigger a build.""" | |
| if old_source != new_source: | |
| logger.info(f"Trigger build because old source {old_source} is different from new source {new_source}") | |
| return True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What type of LLM test could this comment become?
- 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
- 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
- no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Type
enhancement
Description
GitHubManagerto fetch the last version source, supporting the new build trigger checks.should_trigger_buildmethod inReleaseManagerto consider source changes, improving the accuracy of build triggers.Changes walkthrough
check_resource_updates.py
Enhance build trigger checks with source versioningcheck_resource_updates.py
github.py
Add GitHub source version fetching methodsrc/manager/github.py
release_manager.py
Update build trigger logic to include source comparisonsrc/manager/release_manager.py
utils.py
Introduce new utility keys for resource managementsrc/utils.py