Component code gen: updating prompt, adding support for bug fixes #14218
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily involve restructuring various string variables across multiple files from a markdown-style format to an XML-like format. This includes encapsulating content within specific tags such as Changes
Poem
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 your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (54)
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/export_summary.py (4)
3-3: LGTM: Clear instructions for$.exportusageThe instructions for calling
$.exportare now more explicit and informative. This improvement helps ensure that developers will correctly implement the summary export.Consider adding a brief explanation of why exporting a summary is important for the user experience. This could help reinforce the significance of this step to developers.
5-7: LGTM: Comprehensive guidelines for summary contentThe guidelines for summary content are well-detailed and provide clear direction on what information to include. This will help ensure that the exported summaries are consistently informative and useful to users.
Consider adding an example of a good summary to illustrate these guidelines. This could help developers better understand what constitutes a well-formed summary.
9-11: LGTM: Clear and concise code exampleThe provided code example effectively demonstrates the correct usage of
$.exportand its placement in relation to the return statement. The use of template literals for string interpolation is a good practice.Consider adding a comment above the code example to explain that this is a JavaScript snippet. This could prevent any potential confusion for developers who might be working in a different language.
1-14: Overall: Significant improvements to export summary instructionsThe changes to this file represent a substantial improvement in the clarity, structure, and completeness of the export summary instructions. The transition to an XML-like format, more explicit guidelines, and the addition of a code example all contribute to making these instructions more user-friendly and easier to implement correctly.
These improvements align well with the PR objectives of updating prompts and should lead to more consistent and informative summaries being generated by components.
As this file seems to be part of a template system for generating component code, consider creating a linter or automated check to ensure that generated components correctly implement the
$.exportcall as per these instructions. This could help catch any instances where developers might forget to include the summary export.packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/main_example.py (1)
Line range hint
6-30: Comprehensive example with minor improvements neededThe provided JavaScript code snippet is a well-structured and functional example of a Pipedream action for OpenAI. It demonstrates best practices and includes necessary components such as imports, action metadata, and the main logic for listing OpenAI models.
However, there are a few points that could be improved:
- The version number uses a placeholder
{{ts}}. Consider adding a comment explaining how this placeholder is processed.- The
docsLinkvariable in the description is not defined. Ensure this variable is properly set or replace it with the actual documentation link.- While error handling is implicitly done through Pipedream's
$.export, consider adding explicit error handling to provide more informative error messages.Consider applying these improvements to enhance the example's clarity and robustness.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/db.py (2)
3-26: Clear and comprehensive documentation contentThe content within the tags provides a thorough explanation of the
dbproperty, its methods, and usage. The example is particularly helpful in demonstrating bothsetandgetoperations.For improved clarity, consider adding a brief comment about the return value of the
getmethod. For example:const value = await this.db.get("myKey"); + // `value` now contains the stored data for "myKey"This addition would make it explicit what the
valuevariable represents after thegetoperation.
1-30: Minor formatting improvementsTo enhance readability and consistency, consider the following suggestions:
- Standardize the indentation within the XML-like tags. For example:
db = """<DbProp> - + There is also another prop in sources: `db`. It is a data store of type `$.service.db`. You should always include it. -There is also another prop in sources: `db`. It is a data store of type `$.service.db`. You should always include it.
- Remove the extra newline at the end of the string:
</DbProp> - """These changes will make the code more consistent and easier to read.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/auth.py (1)
1-13: Improved structure, but could benefit from further refinement.The change to an XML-like structure is a good improvement, making the content more parseable and organized. The comprehensive coverage of both key-based and OAuth authentication is commendable.
However, there's some repetition in the explanations, particularly regarding the
this.the_app_name_slug.$authobject. Consider restructuring the content to reduce redundancy and improve readability.Here's a suggested restructuring to reduce repetition and improve flow:
auth = """<Authentication> -Within the `run` method, `this` exposes the user's app credentials in the object `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth`. - -For integrations where users provide static API keys / tokens, the `$auth` object contains properties for each key / token the user enters. - -For OAuth integrations, `this` object exposes the OAuth access token in the `oauth_access_token` property of the `$auth` object. - -The app can be a key-based app, accepting static credentials. For these apps, `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth` contains properties for each key / token the user enters. Users are asked to enter custom fields. They are each exposed as properties in the object `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth`. When you make the API request, use the format from the app docs. Different apps pass credentials in different places in the HTTP request, e.g. headers, url params, etc. - -The app can also be an OAuth app. For these apps, `this` exposes the OAuth access token in the variable `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth.oauth_access_token`. When you make the API request, make sure to use the format from the app docs, e.g. you may need to pass the OAuth access token as a `Bearer` token in the `Authorization` header. +Within the `run` method, `this` exposes the user's app credentials in the object `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth`. The structure of this object depends on the authentication method used by the app: + +1. Key-based Authentication: + - For apps using static API keys or tokens, `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth` contains properties for each key/token the user enters. + - Users are asked to enter custom fields, which are exposed as properties in this object. + +2. OAuth Authentication: + - For OAuth apps, the OAuth access token is exposed in `this.the_app_name_slug.$auth.oauth_access_token`. + +When making API requests: +- Use the format specified in the app's documentation. +- For key-based apps, credentials may be passed in various places (headers, URL params, etc.). +- For OAuth apps, you may need to pass the access token as a `Bearer` token in the `Authorization` header. + +Always refer to the specific app's documentation for the correct way to include authentication in your requests. </Authentication>"""This restructuring:
- Eliminates repetition
- Clearly separates key-based and OAuth authentication
- Provides a more logical flow of information
- Maintains all the original content in a more concise format
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/hooks.py (3)
7-9: Consider clarifying the pagination process for the deploy hookThe deploy hook description is informative and provides clear instructions. To further improve it, consider adding a brief example or more specific guidance on how to implement the pagination process to retrieve the last 50 events. This would help developers better understand how to correctly implement this requirement.
11-12: Consider mentioning alternative uses for the activate hookThe activate hook description is clear and informative. To make it more comprehensive, consider adding a brief mention of alternative uses for the activate hook in cases where the API doesn't support webhook subscriptions. This would provide guidance for a wider range of API integrations.
15-15: Important instruction for including all hooksThe instruction to always include code for all three hooks, even if not used, is crucial for maintaining consistency and future-proofing the implementation. To further improve this, consider adding a brief explanation of why this practice is important (e.g., for consistency, easier maintenance, and potential future use).
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/hooks.py (1)
1-17: Excellent improvements to the hooks documentation!The restructuring of the
hooksvariable content is a significant improvement. The XML-like format enhances readability and potential parsing. The expanded descriptions for each hook provide clearer guidance on their purposes and usage.Some notable enhancements:
- The
deployhook instructions now include specific guidelines for fetching and emitting historical data.- The
activatehook description clarifies when to create a webhook subscription.- The addition of the instruction to include code for all three hooks promotes consistency.
These changes will greatly assist developers in implementing source components correctly.
Consider adding a brief example or code snippet for each hook to further illustrate their usage. This could be particularly helpful for new developers working with Pipedream sources.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/introduction.py (1)
1-33: Improved structure and clarity for component creation instructionsThe restructured
introductionvariable now provides a more organized and detailed approach to creating Pipedream source components. The step-by-step instructions and clear goal setting will greatly assist developers in understanding the component creation process.However, there are a few points to consider:
There's a typo in the "Definitions" tag (line 23). It should be
<Definitions>instead of<Defintions>.Consider adding a step or note about error handling and addressing edge cases in the component creation process.
The instructions reference sections like , , and that are not visible in the provided code snippet. Ensure these sections are properly defined elsewhere in the codebase or consider including them in this file for completeness.
Please apply the following change to fix the typo:
-<Defintions> +<Definitions>Would you like me to draft additional instructions for error handling and edge case considerations?
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/introduction.py (1)
1-33: Consider adding information about referenced sectionsThe content mentions several sections (e.g., , , ) that are not included in this file. To improve clarity and ease of use, consider adding a note about where these referenced sections can be found.
For example, you could add:
See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components. +Note: The referenced sections can be found in [specify location, e.g., "the main documentation file" or "separate files in this directory"].packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/other_example.py (3)
Line range hint
5-45: LGTM! Consider using a more specific version placeholder.The Pipedream source component for Tally webhooks is well-structured and follows best practices. It correctly defines the necessary metadata, props, and the run method for processing incoming events.
Consider replacing the version placeholder
{{ts}}with a more specific identifier that clearly indicates it should be replaced with a version number during code generation. For example:- version: "0.0.{{ts}}", + version: "0.0.{{VERSION_NUMBER}}",This makes the intention clearer for developers working on the code generation process.
Line range hint
49-65: LGTM! Consider adding a comment about prop customization.The template for the Pipedream component provides a solid foundation for developers to build upon. It includes the necessary imports and basic structure.
To improve clarity for developers using this template, consider adding a comment about customizing the props. For example:
export default { props: { + // Customize these props based on your component's requirements the_app_name_slug: { type: "app", app: "the_app_name_slug", }, http: "$.interface.http", db: "$.service.db", }, async run(event) { // your code here }, };This additional comment will remind developers to adjust the props according to their specific component needs.
Line range hint
1-67: LGTM! Consider adding XML tags around code blocks for consistency.The overall structure of the
other_examplestring is well-organized and serves its purpose as a template for code generation. The use of<AnotherExample>tags and the inclusion of explanatory text provide valuable context for developers.To improve consistency and potentially ease parsing during code generation, consider wrapping each code block in its own XML-like tags. For example:
<AnotherExample> Here's an example Pipedream source component that receives a webhook from Tally for every new form response and processes the incoming event data: +<CodeBlock1> ```javascript export default { // ... (code content) };+
The code you generate should be placed within the
runmethod of the Pipedream component:+
import { axios } from "@pipedream/platform"; // ... (code content) };+
```This change would make it easier to extract specific parts of the example programmatically if needed during the code generation process.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/async_options.py (4)
1-4: LGTM! Consider adding a brief description of AsyncOptions.The restructuring to XML-like format improves the organization and potential parsing of the content. The introductory text clearly explains the purpose of the
optionsmethod.Consider adding a brief description of what AsyncOptions represents at the beginning of the content, e.g.:
<AsyncOptions> +AsyncOptions provide a way to dynamically generate options for props in Pipedream components. + The `options` method is an optional method that can be defined on a prop. It is used to dynamically generate the options for a prop and can return a static array of options or a Promise that resolves to an array of options:
Line range hint
5-19: LGTM! Consider clarifying the relationship between label and value.The JSON example is well-formatted and clearly labeled. The explanation of
labelandvalueproperties is accurate and crucial for users to understand.To further clarify the relationship between
labelandvalue, consider adding a brief explanation:The `label` MUST be a human-readable name of the option presented to the user in the UI, and the `value` is the value of the prop in the `run` method. The `label` MUST be set to the property that defines the name of the object, and the `value` should be the property that defines the unique identifier of the object. +For example, if working with user data, the `label` might be the user's name, while the `value` could be their unique user ID.
Line range hint
21-34: LGTM! Consider enhancing the example with async/await.The explanation of async options effectively emphasizes their importance and benefits. The JavaScript example provides a good basic illustration of the
optionsmethod.To better demonstrate the async nature of the
optionsmethod, consider updating the example to use async/await and simulate an API call:msg: { type: "string", label: "Message", description: "Select a message to `console.log()`", async options() { - // write any node code that returns a string[] (with label/value keys) - return ["This is option 1", "This is option 2"]; + // Simulate an API call + const fetchOptions = async () => { + await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 1000)); // Simulate delay + return ["This is option 1", "This is option 2"]; + }; + const options = await fetchOptions(); + return options.map(option => ({ label: option, value: option })); }, },This change would better illustrate the asynchronous nature of the
optionsmethod and provide a more realistic example of how it might be used in practice.
Line range hint
36-49: LGTM! Consider adding error handling for consistency.This example effectively demonstrates a real-world scenario of using the
optionsmethod, including API calls, data filtering, and transformation.For consistency with best practices, consider adding basic error handling:
board: { type: "string", label: "Board", async options(opts) { - const boards = await this.getBoards(this.$auth.oauth_uid); - const activeBoards = boards.filter((board) => board.closed === false); - return activeBoards.map((board) => { - return { label: board.name, value: board.id }; - }); + try { + const boards = await this.getBoards(this.$auth.oauth_uid); + const activeBoards = boards.filter((board) => board.closed === false); + return activeBoards.map((board) => { + return { label: board.name, value: board.id }; + }); + } catch (error) { + console.error("Error fetching boards:", error); + throw error; // or return an empty array, depending on your error handling strategy + } }, },This addition would make the example more robust and demonstrate proper error handling in asynchronous operations.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/component_metadata.py (2)
Line range hint
29-49: Improve structure and content ofcomponent_metadataThe restructuring of
component_metadatato an XML-like format is a good improvement for organization and potential parsing. However, consider the following suggestions:
- Improve indentation within the
<ComponentMetadata>tags for better readability.- Make the placeholder for the app docs link more specific to encourage proper documentation.
- Move the instruction for adding metadata outside the XML-like structure.
Here's a suggested improvement:
component_metadata = """<ComponentMetadata> Registry components require a unique key and version, and a friendly name and description, e.g. {example} Component keys are in the format app_name_slug-slugified-component-name. You should come up with a name and a short description for the component you are generating. In the description, you should always include a link to the app docs. Add this as a placeholder: [See the documentation](https://docs.example.com/app-name). Action keys should use active verbs to describe the action that will occur, (e.g., linear_app-create-issue). Always add a version of "0.0.{{ts}}". Always put {component_type}. </ComponentMetadata>""" # Instruction outside the XML-like structure metadata_instruction = "You MUST add this metadata to the component code you generate."This structure improves readability and separates the instruction from the metadata content.
Line range hint
53-58: Updateaction_metadataandsource_metadatato include separate instructionIf you implement the suggested improvements for
component_metadata, consider updatingaction_metadataandsource_metadatato include the separate instruction:action_metadata = component_metadata.format( example=action_example, component_type='"type": "action"' ) + "\n\n" + metadata_instruction source_metadata = component_metadata.format( example=source_example, component_type='"type": "source" and "dedupe": "unique"' ) + "\n\n" + metadata_instructionThis ensures that the instruction is included with the metadata for both action and source components.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/http.py (4)
1-17: LGTM! Consider adding a brief explanation of thecustomResponsefield.The introduction and basic usage example for the
httpprop are well-structured and clear. The new XML-like format enhances readability and parsing.Consider adding a brief explanation of the
customResponsefield in the code example comment, e.g.:customResponse: true, // Set to true if you need to send custom HTTP responsesThis would provide immediate context for the
customResponseoption.
19-25: LGTM! Consider adding a note about error handling.The explanation of the
customResponsefield and therespondmethod is comprehensive and clear.Consider adding a brief note about error handling when using the
respondmethod. For example:Note: Ensure proper error handling when using the `respond` method to prevent unhandled promise rejections.This would remind developers to implement robust error handling in their custom response logic.
27-38: LGTM! Consider adding a constant-time comparison for signature validation.The code example effectively demonstrates custom response handling and signature validation.
For enhanced security, consider using a constant-time comparison function for signature validation to prevent timing attacks. You can modify the example as follows:
const crypto = require('crypto'); function constantTimeCompare(a, b) { if (a.length !== b.length) { return false; } let result = 0; for (let i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { result |= a.charCodeAt(i) ^ b.charCodeAt(i); } return result === 0; } async run(event) { const secretKey = "your-secret-key" const computedSignature = crypto.createHmac("sha256", secretKey).update(event.rawBody).digest("base64") if (!constantTimeCompare(computedSignature, webhookSignature)) { this.http.respond({ status: 401, body: "Unauthorized" }) return } // Process the valid webhook... }This change helps protect against potential timing attacks on the signature validation process.
40-42: LGTM! Consider adding a note about keeping the secret key secure.The closing statement effectively emphasizes the importance of signature validation and recommends using the built-in
cryptopackage.Consider adding a brief note about the importance of keeping the secret key secure. For example:
Always add computing signature validation when the app supports it, and use the built-in `crypto` package to compute the signature. Ensure that the secret key used for signature validation is kept secure and not exposed in the source code.This addition would remind developers about the critical aspect of secret management in the context of signature validation.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/additional_rules.py (3)
1-18: LGTM! Consider adding a brief explanation for the import path.The rule correctly demonstrates how to import the app file and use it in the component. The examples are clear and follow best practices.
To enhance clarity, consider adding a brief explanation about the relative import path. For example:
import appName from "../../appName.app.mjs"; +// Note: The relative path may vary depending on your file structureThis addition would help developers understand that they might need to adjust the path based on their specific project structure.
24-31: LGTM! Consider adding a brief explanation of{ $ }.The rule correctly specifies the run method signature and emphasizes the importance of passing
{ $ }. This is crucial for maintaining consistency across components.To further improve clarity, consider adding a brief explanation of what
{ $ }represents. For example:Always pass `{ $ }` in the arguments to the `run` method, even if you don't use it in the code. +// Note: `{ $ }` is a context object provided by Pipedream that includes utilities and helpers for your component.This addition would help developers understand the purpose of
{ $ }and why it's always included.
32-58: LGTM! Consider adding a note about error handling.This rule effectively explains how to handle HTTP responses from the @pipedream/platform axios, preventing a common mistake of trying to access a non-existent
dataproperty. The examples clearly illustrate the correct and incorrect approaches.To make this section even more comprehensive, consider adding a note about error handling. For example:
}); // process the `response` as the return data. `response.data` is undefined, data is directly in `response` +// Note: Remember to implement proper error handling for API requestsThis addition would remind developers to consider error scenarios when making API requests, which is an important aspect of robust component development.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/additional_rules.py (4)
1-19: Consider adding context to the import ruleThe import rule is clear and provides a good example. To further improve developer understanding, consider adding a brief explanation of why this specific import pattern is necessary. For example:
1. Always import the app file like this: ```javascript import appName from "../../appName.app.mjs";+This import pattern ensures that the component has access to the app's functionality and configuration.
+
and pass the app file as a prop to the component:export default { props: { appName, }, // rest of the component ... }--- `20-28`: **Approved rules with a suggestion for Rule 3** Rules 2 and 3 provide crucial information for developers. The emphasis on JSON-serializable data in Rule 2 is particularly important to prevent runtime errors. For Rule 3, consider adding a brief note about the asynchronous nature of the `run` method: ```diff 3. Always use this signature for the `run` method: ```javascript async run() { // you must fill in the actual code here }
+Note: The
runmethod is asynchronous to allow for API calls or other time-consuming operations.This addition would help developers understand why the `async` keyword is necessary. --- Line range hint `29-37`: **Improve formatting of Rule 4** The content of Rule 4 is comprehensive and provides valuable guidance. To enhance readability, consider restructuring it as follows: ```diff 4. You emit events by calling `this.$emit`. The first argument to `$emit` is the data to emit. You should only pass the data requested in the instructions (i.e. the body of the response). -The second argument to `this.$emit` is an object that contains three fields: `id`, `summary`, and `ts`. The `id` field is a unique identifier for the event. The `summary` field is a human-readable summary of the event. The `ts` field is a timestamp of the event. +The second argument to `this.$emit` is an object that contains three fields: + - `id`: A unique identifier for the event. + - `summary`: A human-readable summary of the event. + - `ts`: A timestamp of the event. Only use id if there's a monotonically increasing integer ID in the event. If there's no such ID, use ts. If using ts, map the timestamp found in the event to the `ts` field. If the event doesn't contain a timestamp, use the current time.This formatting makes the structure of the second argument more clear at a glance.
38-63: Approved examples with a suggestionThe provided examples effectively illustrate how to use
this.$emitin different scenarios. To further improve clarity, consider adding a brief introduction to the Examples section:<Examples> +The following examples demonstrate how to use `this.$emit` in different scenarios: + When the response contains an ID and a timestamp: ```javascript this.$emit( response, { id: response.id, summary: `New event: ${response.name}`, // Use whatever summary information makes sense in context ts: response.timestamp } );Here, there's no ID or timestamp in the event:
```this.$emit( response, { summary: "Event summary", ts: new Date() // if you don't see a timestamp in the event } );This introduction sets the context for the examples that follow.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/rules.py (2)
Line range hint
7-21: Improved guidance on code completenessThe updated Rule 0 provides clearer instructions on producing complete, production-ready code. The example effectively illustrates what to avoid, and the emphasis on full implementations is crucial.
Consider adding a brief positive example of a fully implemented method to complement the negative example. This could further clarify expectations for developers.
Line range hint
25-45: Enhanced explanation of props usageThe expanded Rule 2 provides valuable context about Pipedream's prop system and includes a clear example of how to reference props in the
runmethod. The emphasis on avoiding static values is crucial for creating flexible, user-configurable components.Consider adding a brief explanation of how to define props in the component's metadata. This would provide a complete picture of working with props in Pipedream components.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/other_example.py (1)
49-56: Clear explanation with important emphasis on using dynamic prop valuesThe explanation effectively highlights the crucial aspect of passing prop values to the API. The emphasis on using dynamic values from props instead of static values is essential for security and flexibility.
Consider adding a brief note about the importance of this practice for security reasons. For example:
"This practice ensures that sensitive information is not hardcoded and allows for secure, user-specific API interactions."packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/common_files.py (2)
Line range hint
28-40: Improved code snippet and clear explanation for overriding propsThe addition of the
javascriptlanguage identifier enhances the readability of the code snippet. The explanation and example for overriding prop definitions are clear and helpful.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the
inputValuesparameter in thepropDefinitionarray, as it might not be immediately clear to all developers.
46-48: LGTM: Proper XML-like structure closureThe addition of the closing
</CommonFiles>tag ensures a well-formed XML-like structure, matching the opening tag at the beginning of the function.Consider using an f-string for better readability when concatenating
parsed_common_files. For example:return f"""<CommonFiles> ... {parsed_common_files} </CommonFiles>"""This change would make the string interpolation more explicit and easier to maintain.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/main_example.py (1)
Line range hint
6-103: Code improvements and clarifications neededThe example code is well-structured, but there are a few points that could be improved or clarified:
- The
docsLinkvariable used in thedescriptionis not defined. Consider adding a placeholder or actual link.- The
MAX_PER_PAGEandconstants.DEFAULT_PER_PAGEvariables are used but not defined. These should be declared or imported.- The
getCollectionsmethod is called in theoptionsfunction but not defined in the visible code. Consider adding a comment to explain where this method is defined.- The pagination logic in the
deployhook andrunmethod is similar. Consider refactoring this into a shared method to reduce code duplication.- The
{{ts}}placeholder in the version number might need explanation or replacement with an actual version number or timestamp.Would you like assistance in implementing these improvements or adding explanatory comments?
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/platform_axios.py (3)
Line range hint
9-28: Clear explanation of axios constructor with a helpful example.The explanation of the axios constructor arguments and the provided code example effectively demonstrate the correct usage. This will be very helpful for developers.
Consider clarifying the note about not exporting a data property. It might be helpful to briefly explain why this is different from standard axios usage, perhaps with a reference to the following section on axios responses.
Line range hint
30-37: Crucial explanation of @pipedream/platform axios responses.This section clearly explains how @pipedream/platform axios responses differ from standard axios, which is essential information for developers. The emphasis on the direct return of data helps prevent common mistakes.
Consider adding a brief example of how to directly use the response data, to reinforce the explanation. For instance:
const responseData = await axios($, config); console.log(responseData); // This logs the actual response data, not a response object
Line range hint
79-94: Effective illustration of incorrect usage and important final note.The examples of incorrect usage effectively illustrate common mistakes that developers might make when transitioning from standard axios to @pipedream/platform axios. The final note reinforces the key difference in how to handle responses.
Consider adding a brief explanation of why developers might be tempted to use these incorrect patterns (e.g., "If you're used to standard axios, you might be tempted to write..."). This could help developers understand and remember the difference more easily.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/props.py (4)
Line range hint
29-39: Clear guidelines on naming and required props.The emphasis on using specific prop names as instructed is crucial for consistency. The explanation of required props and their placement at the top of the
propsobject is helpful for readability and quick identification.Consider adding a brief example of a required prop to reinforce the concept, like:
props: { requiredProp: { type: "string", label: "Required Prop", description: "This prop is required for the API request", }, // Other props... }
Line range hint
41-62: Comprehensive explanation of prop types and handling complex props.The explanation of prop types, including array types and handling of complex props, is clear and informative. The example effectively demonstrates how to define and use complex props.
Consider adding a brief note explaining why
string[]is preferred for complex props overobject[]. For example:"We use
string[]for complex props to ensure proper serialization and deserialization, as the Pipedream UI may not handle nested objects correctly in all cases."
Line range hint
64-84: Clear guidance on handling optional props.The explanation of when to include optional API parameters and how to declare optional props using
optional: trueis clear and helpful. The provided example effectively demonstrates the correct syntax for optional props.Consider adding a brief note on best practices for using optional props, such as:
"When using optional props in your component's logic, always check if the prop has a value before using it to prevent potential errors. For example:
if (this.optionalProp) { // Use the optional prop }"
Line range hint
86-105: Clear explanation of prop access within components.The explanation of how to access props within the component's run method using
thisis clear and concise. The provided example effectively demonstrates the correct usage.Consider adding a brief note on error handling when accessing props, such as:
"It's a good practice to add type checking or default values when accessing props to handle potential undefined values:
run() { const input = this.input || ''; // Provide a default value console.log(typeof this.input === 'string' ? this.input : ''); // Type checking }"
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/typescript_definitions.py (1)
Line range hint
7-137: Improved readability with proper code block formattingThe TypeScript definitions are now correctly enclosed in a code block with syntax highlighting, which significantly improves readability and makes it easier for developers to understand the structure of the definitions.
For consistency with the opening tag, consider adding a newline before the closing
</TypeScriptDefinitions>tag:}```
This small change will improve the overall structure and readability of the string.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/methods.py (2)
Line range hint
9-54: LGTM with suggestion: Comprehensive _makeRequest documentationThe expanded and restructured documentation for the
_makeRequestmethod significantly improves clarity and provides valuable guidance for developers. The detailed explanation of theoptsobject and the updated example code are particularly helpful.Consider adding a brief comment in the example code to highlight the direct return of the axios response without destructuring
data. This would reinforce the point made in the text:async _makeRequest(opts = {}) { const { $ = this, method = "GET", path = "/", headers, ...otherOpts } = opts; // Note: We return the axios response directly, without destructuring data return axios($, { ...otherOpts, method, url: this._baseUrl() + path, headers: { ...headers, }, }); }
Line range hint
67-79: LGTM with suggestion: Comprehensive pagination guidanceThe new pagination section provides valuable guidance on implementing pagination logic. The description of the
paginatemethod and its functionality is clear and comprehensive.To further enhance this section, consider adding a basic code example of the
paginatemethod. This would help developers visualize the implementation more easily. Here's a suggested example:async paginate(fn, opts = {}) { const allResults = []; let hasMoreData = true; let nextPageToken = null; while (hasMoreData) { const response = await fn({ ...opts, pageToken: nextPageToken, }); allResults.push(...response.data); nextPageToken = response.nextPageToken; hasMoreData = !!nextPageToken; } return allResults; }This example assumes a
nextPageTokenpagination style, but you could adjust it based on the most common pagination style used in your API.packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/main_example.py (1)
Line range hint
92-147: Excellent addition of GeneralExample sectionThe new
<GeneralExample>section provides valuable context and explanation for the general structure of app files. This addition will greatly assist developers in understanding how to create and structure their own apps.Consider adding a brief comment about error handling in the
_makeRequestmethod of the example. This could further improve the robustness of the code example:async _makeRequest(opts = {}) { const { $ = this, method = "get", headers, path, ...otherOpts } = opts; - return axios($, { - ...otherOpts, - method, - url: this._baseUrl() + path, - headers: { - ...headers, - "Authorization": `Bearer ${this.$auth.oauth_access_token}`, // the authentication type depends on the app - }, - }); + try { + return await axios($, { + ...otherOpts, + method, + url: this._baseUrl() + path, + headers: { + ...headers, + "Authorization": `Bearer ${this.$auth.oauth_access_token}`, // the authentication type depends on the app + }, + }); + } catch (error) { + // Handle or throw error as appropriate + console.error('Request failed:', error); + throw error; + } }packages/component_code_gen/code_gen/generate_component_code.py (2)
41-41: LGTM! Consider adding a newline for better readability.The change from markdown to XML-like format is a good improvement for standardization. The content modification enhances clarity.
Consider adding a newline after the opening tag for better readability:
- auth_details = "<AuthDetails>\n\nThese details come directly from the app configuration in Pipedream. Prioritize this information over any other information you find in the app's docs, since this section is specific to Pipedream." + auth_details = "<AuthDetails>\n\n\nThese details come directly from the app configuration in Pipedream. Prioritize this information over any other information you find in the app's docs, since this section is specific to Pipedream."
51-52: Consider updating the "Auth example" header to match the new XML-like format.While the added empty line improves readability, the markdown header for the "Auth example" section seems inconsistent with the new XML-like structure.
Consider updating the "Auth example" section to use XML-like tags for consistency:
- auth_details += f"\n\n## Auth example\n\nHere's example Node.js code to show how authentication is done in {app}:\n\n{auth_meta['component_code_scaffold_raw']}\n\n" + auth_details += f"\n\n<AuthExample>\n<Description>Here's example Node.js code to show how authentication is done in {app}:</Description>\n<Code>\n{auth_meta['component_code_scaffold_raw']}\n</Code>\n</AuthExample>\n\n"packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/additional_rules.py (1)
56-62: Consider providing a more descriptive summaryIn the absence of event-specific data, the summary is set to
"Event summary". For better clarity in logs and debugging, consider including contextual information in the summary if available.Example:
this.$emit( response, { - summary: "Event summary", + summary: `New event at ${new Date().toISOString()}`, ts: new Date() // if you don't see a timestamp in the event } );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (36)
- packages/component_code_gen/code_gen/generate_component_code.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/additional_rules.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/export_summary.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/introduction.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/main_example.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/other_example.py (3 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/additional_rules.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/introduction.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/main_example.py (3 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/methods.py (4 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/prop_definitions.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/app_prop.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/async_options.py (4 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/auth.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/common_files.py (3 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/component_metadata.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/platform_axios.py (6 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/props.py (7 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/rules.py (3 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/typescript_definitions.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_apps.py (0 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_polling_sources.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_webhook_sources.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/db.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/additional_rules.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/hooks.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/introduction.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/main_example.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/additional_rules.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/hooks.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/http.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/introduction.py (1 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/main_example.py (2 hunks)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/other_example.py (3 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_apps.py
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/additional_rules.py
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (70)
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/app_prop.py (4)
1-1: Approve the addition of XML-like tagsThe addition of
<AppProp>tags improves the structure of the content, making it easier to parse and extract programmatically. This change aligns with best practices for maintaining structured documentation.Also applies to: 19-19
Line range hint
5-15: Approve the code block formatting improvementThe addition of the
javascriptlanguage identifier to the code block enhances readability and enables proper syntax highlighting. This is a valuable improvement to the documentation.
17-18: Acknowledge unchanged explanatory textThe explanatory text has been preserved, maintaining the clarity and completeness of the documentation. No issues or improvements are apparent in this segment.
Line range hint
1-19: Summary of changes and their impactThe modifications to
app_propimprove the structure and formatting of the content without altering its substance. The addition of XML-like tags and the explicit labeling of the code block as JavaScript enhance the parsability and readability of the documentation. These changes align well with the PR objectives of updating prompts and improving code generation.packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/prop_definitions.py (2)
1-6: Improved structure with XML-like tagsThe changes enhance the structure of the
prop_definitionscontent by introducing XML-like tags. This modification likely improves parsing and organization of the content.
3-3: Language refinements for clarityThe following language changes improve clarity and consistency:
- "which are the definitions for the props" → "which define the props"
- "Props" →
<Props>These changes make the text more concise and align with the new XML-like structure.
Also applies to: 5-5
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py (2)
1-13: Improved structure and clarity of instructionsThe changes to the
endvariable are well-structured and provide clearer instructions for code generation. The new XML-like format with<FinalInstructions>tags improves readability and potentially makes parsing easier. The content is more explicit about outputting only Node.js code for Pipedream components without any additional text or formatting, which aligns well with the PR objectives.
1-13: Verify impact on code generation processWhile the changes look good, it's important to ensure that the new format doesn't negatively impact the existing code generation process.
Let's verify if there are any other files that might need to be updated to handle this new format:
Please review the output of this script to ensure that all relevant files are updated to handle the new format correctly.
✅ Verification successful
Let's correct the file type in the shell script and rerun the verification to ensure all relevant files are properly checked.
Verification Successful: No Impact Found on Code Generation Process
No other files import or parse the
endvariable frompackages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py. The changes do not negatively impact the existing code generation process.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for files that might need updates due to the new XML-like format # Search for files that use the 'end' variable from this module rg --type python -g '!packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py' "from packages.component_code_gen.templates.common.end import end" # Search for files that might be parsing the content of the 'end' variable rg --type python -g '!packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py' "FinalInstructions|--- COMPLETE THE CODE AFTER THE \"CODE:\" BELOW ---"Length of output: 352
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for files that might need updates due to the new XML-like format # Search for files that use the 'end' variable from this module rg --type py -g '!packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py' "from packages.component_code_gen.templates.common.end import end" # Search for files that might be parsing the content of the 'end' variable rg --type py -g '!packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/end.py' "FinalInstructions|--- COMPLETE THE CODE AFTER THE \"CODE:\" BELOW ---"Length of output: 282
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/export_summary.py (1)
1-1: LGTM: Improved structure with XML-like formatThe addition of
<ExportSummary>tags enhances the structure and parsability of the content. This change is consistent with the overall improvements mentioned in the PR summary.Also applies to: 14-14
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/main_example.py (2)
1-2: Improved structure enhances clarity and maintainabilityThe new XML-like structure with
<Example>and<OpenAI>tags improves the organization of the content. This change likely makes it easier to parse and extract specific sections of the example, which could be beneficial for maintaining and using multiple examples in the future.Also applies to: 31-33
4-6: Clear and informative descriptionThe updated description provides valuable context by specifying that this is a Pipedream action for OpenAI. It also clearly states the purpose of the action (listing all available models), which helps developers quickly understand its functionality. This improvement in clarity is beneficial for documentation and ease of use.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/db.py (2)
1-1: Improved documentation structure with XML-like tagsThe addition of
<DbProp>and<Examples>tags enhances the structure of the documentation string. This change improves parsability and allows for easier extraction of specific sections, which is beneficial for documentation processing and generation.Also applies to: 9-9, 27-29
1-30: Overall assessment: Positive improvements to documentation structureThe changes made to this file significantly improve the structure and parsability of the documentation string for the
dbproperty. The addition of XML-like tags enhances maintainability and allows for easier processing of specific sections. The content remains comprehensive and helpful, providing clear explanations and a practical usage example.The minor suggestions for improvement (indentation consistency and removal of extra newlines) would further refine the code quality, but they don't detract from the overall positive impact of these changes.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/hooks.py (3)
1-17: Improved structure with XML-like formatThe restructuring of the
hooksvariable content into an XML-like format with<SourceHooks>tags is a good improvement. It enhances readability and makes the content easier to parse programmatically.
3-5: Clear and concise introduction to hooksThe introduction effectively explains what hooks are, their purpose, and the three types of hooks supported by Pipedream sources. This provides a good foundation for understanding the subsequent detailed descriptions.
13-14: Clear and concise deactivate hook descriptionThe deactivate hook description effectively explains its purpose and when it's invoked. It provides developers with the necessary information to understand and implement this hook correctly.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_polling_sources.py (4)
Line range hint
1-15: LGTM: Import statements updated correctlyThe removal of the
app_propimport is consistent with the changes in thecheckslist. All other necessary imports remain intact, maintaining the existing functionality.
16-17: LGTM:checkslist updated correctlyThe
checkslist has been properly updated to removeapp_prop, maintaining consistency with the import changes. The order of the remaining elements is preserved, ensuring that the expected behavior of the code using this list remains intact.
Line range hint
22-50: LGTM:system_instructionsfunction remains consistentThe
system_instructionsfunction maintains consistency with the changes made to the imports andcheckslist. The removal ofapp_propdoesn't affect the function's behavior, and all other components are still included in the correct order.
Incomplete removal of
app_propreferences foundReferences to
app_propstill exist in the following files within thepackages/component_code_genpackage:
templates/common/app_prop.pytemplates/common/typescript_definitions.pyPlease address these remaining references to complete the refactoring process.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-50: Summary: Consistent removal ofapp_propfrom polling sources generationThe changes in this file consistently remove the
app_propcomponent from the polling sources generation process. This includes removing the import, updating thecheckslist, and maintaining consistency in thesystem_instructionsfunction. These modifications appear to be part of a larger refactoring effort.To ensure consistency across the project, it would be beneficial to verify if similar changes have been made in related files. Run the following script to check for any remaining references to
app_propin the component code generation package:If any references are found, they may need to be addressed to complete the refactoring process.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for remaining references to app_prop in the component code generation package # Test: Search for app_prop references echo "Searching for app_prop references:" rg --type python 'app_prop' packages/component_code_gen # Test: Search for AppProp references (in case of class names) echo "Searching for AppProp references:" rg --type python 'AppProp' packages/component_code_genLength of output: 328
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for remaining references to app_prop in the component code generation package # Test: Search for app_prop references echo "Searching for app_prop references:" rg --type py 'app_prop' packages/component_code_gen # Test: Search for AppProp references (in case of class names) echo "Searching for AppProp references:" rg --type py 'AppProp' packages/component_code_genLength of output: 1942
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/introduction.py (1)
1-31: Improved structure enhances readability and organizationThe restructuring of the
introductionvariable into XML-like sections is a significant improvement. This new format clearly separates different aspects of the instructions, making it easier for users to understand and follow the process of creating Pipedream action components.packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py (4)
16-17: LGTM:checkslist updated correctlyThe
checkslist has been updated to removeapp_prop, which is consistent with the removal of theapp_propimport. This change maintains the integrity of the list and removes any potential references to the removed import.
Line range hint
1-50: Summary: Consistent removal ofapp_propthroughout the fileThe changes in this file revolve around the removal of the
app_propimport and its usage. While not all changes are directly visible in the provided code, the modifications to thecheckslist are consistent with this goal. The removal ofapp_propstreamlines the code by eliminating an unused import and its associated output.To ensure the changes are complete and consistent:
- Verify the removal of the
app_propimport (as mentioned in the first comment).- Confirm the removal of
app_propfrom thesystem_instructionsfunction's return string (as mentioned in the last comment).These changes appear to align with the PR objectives of updating the component code generation process. The removal of unused elements contributes to code cleanliness and maintainability.
Line range hint
23-50: Verify the removal ofapp_propfromsystem_instructionsThe AI summary mentions that the
app_propvariable has been removed from the string formatting in thesystem_instructionsfunction. However, this change is not visible in the provided code. Please confirm thatapp_prophas been removed from the function's return string.To verify this change, run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for the presence of app_prop in system_instructions function # Test: Search for app_prop within the system_instructions function. Expect: No matches ast-grep --lang python --pattern $'def system_instructions($_): $$$ return f"""$$$ {app_prop} $$$"""' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py
Line range hint
1-15: Verify the removal ofapp_propimportThe AI summary mentions the removal of the
app_propimport, but this change is not visible in the provided code. Please confirm that theapp_propimport has been removed from the file.To verify this change, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verification of
app_propimport removal successfulThe
app_propimport has been successfully removed frompackages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for the presence of app_prop import # Test: Search for app_prop import. Expect: No matches rg --type python 'from templates\.common\.app_prop import app_prop' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.pyLength of output: 164
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the removal of app_prop import and its usages # Check for any remaining app_prop imports rg --type python 'from templates\.common\.app_prop import app_prop' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py # Check for any usages of app_prop within the file rg --type python 'app_prop' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py # Optional: Check the entire codebase for any remaining app_prop references rg --type python 'app_prop'Length of output: 334
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the removal of app_prop import and its usages # Check for any remaining app_prop imports using the correct file type rg --type py 'from templates\.common\.app_prop import app_prop' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py # Check for any usages of app_prop within the file using the correct file type rg --type py 'app_prop' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_actions.py # Optional: Check the entire codebase for any remaining app_prop references using the correct file type rg --type py 'app_prop'Length of output: 310
packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_webhook_sources.py (3)
Line range hint
25-58: Approve changes tosystem_instructionsand verify impact on generated sourcesThe modifications to the
system_instructionsfunction, specifically the removal of{app_prop}and{async_run}placeholders, are consistent with the changes made to thecheckslist.To ensure these changes don't negatively impact the generated webhook sources:
- Verify that the removal of
app_propandasync_runfrom the instructions doesn't break any dependent code.- Test the generation of webhook sources to confirm that the output is still valid and complete.
Consider running a test that generates webhook sources and compare the output with a previous version to identify any unintended changes.
18-19: Approve changes tocheckslist and verify impactThe modifications to the
checkslist, including the removal ofapp_propandasync_run, align with the AI summary. These changes appear to be intentional.To ensure these removals don't negatively impact the codebase, please verify:
- That
app_propandasync_runare no longer used in related components.- That any code depending on these checks has been updated accordingly.
Run the following script to check for any remaining references:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for references to app_prop and async_run # Test: Search for app_prop and async_run usage. Expect: No matches if properly removed. rg --type python 'app_prop|async_run' packages/component_code_gen/
Line range hint
1-16: Verify removal ofasync_runimportThe AI summary mentions the removal of the
async_runimport, but this change is not visible in the provided code. Please confirm if this import has been removed.To verify the removal of the
async_runimport, run the following script:✅ Verification successful
To ensure the
async_runimport has been removed, please run the following script:
Verified removal of
async_runimport🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for the presence of async_run import # Test: Search for async_run import. Expect: No matches if import was removed. rg --type python 'from templates\.sources\.webhooks\.async_run import async_run' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_webhook_sources.pyLength of output: 300
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for the presence of async_run import # Test: Search for async_run import. Expect: No matches if import was removed. rg 'from templates\.sources\.webhooks\.async_run import async_run' packages/component_code_gen/templates/generate_webhook_sources.pyLength of output: 134
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/introduction.py (1)
3-21: LGTM: Clear and comprehensive goal sectionThe section effectively outlines the objective and provides a detailed step-by-step process for creating Pipedream source components. The inclusion of a review step by other GPT agents is a good practice for ensuring quality.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/introduction.py (4)
1-19: Improved structure and clarity in the introduction and goal section.The restructuring of the content into XML-like tags and the introduction of a numbered list for the steps significantly enhances the readability and organization of the instructions. This format provides a clear, step-by-step approach for creating Pipedream app files, emphasizing crucial aspects such as reviewing requirements, mapping out properties and methods, and iterating on the code before final output.
21-35: Well-structured and consistent Definition section.The Definition section is now clearly demarcated using XML-like tags, which improves the overall structure of the document. The description of Pipedream app files is comprehensive and well-organized, providing clear information about the required properties of the app object. The capitalization of "methods" in line 31 has been corrected, ensuring consistency with other property names.
36-40: Clear and crucial Output instructions.The Output section is concise and well-defined, clearly stating that the output should be Node.js code. The instruction to not remove any existing
propDefinitionsormethodsis particularly important, as it ensures backwards compatibility and prevents unintended breaking changes. This guideline is crucial for maintaining the integrity of existing implementations.
42-42: Proper encapsulation with closing tag.The addition of the closing tag properly encapsulates the entire content of the introduction string. This structure not only improves readability but also allows for easier parsing and potential future extensions to the instruction set.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/main_example.py (3)
1-3: Improved structure and context for the exampleThe addition of the
<Example>tag and the introductory text enhances the structure and provides valuable context for the webhook source example. This change improves readability and helps users understand the purpose of the code that follows.
Line range hint
5-69: Comprehensive and well-structured webhook source exampleThe updated
main_examplenow includes a full, well-structured JavaScript code example for a GitHub webhook source. This change significantly improves the usefulness of the example by demonstrating:
- Proper component structure and metadata
- Use of props for configuration
- Implementation of deploy, activate, and deactivate hooks
- Secure handling of webhook events, including signature verification
- Proper event emission using Pipedream's
$emitfunctionThe code follows best practices and provides a valuable reference for developers creating webhook sources.
70-70: Proper closure of the exampleThe addition of the closing
</Example>tag ensures that the example is properly encapsulated, maintaining a consistent structure.packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/component_metadata.py (1)
Line range hint
1-58: Verify implementation of bug fix supportThe changes in this file align well with the PR objective of "updating prompt" and the AI-generated summary's description of restructuring to an XML-like format. However, I don't see any explicit implementation of "adding support for bug fixes" as mentioned in the PR title.
Could you clarify where the support for bug fixes has been implemented? If it's in another file, please provide more context. If it's intended to be part of this file, consider adding relevant instructions or metadata fields to support bug fix scenarios.
To verify the implementation across the codebase, you can run the following script:
This will help identify if bug fix support has been added elsewhere in the project.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/http.py (1)
1-42: Overall, excellent improvements to the documentation structure and content.The changes made to this file significantly enhance the documentation for the
httpprop in webhook sources:
- The new XML-like format using
<HTTPProp>tags improves readability and parsing capabilities.- The restructured content provides a clearer flow of information, from basic usage to advanced scenarios.
- The added code examples, especially for custom responses and signature validation, offer practical guidance for developers.
- The emphasis on security practices, such as signature validation, is commendable.
These improvements will greatly assist developers in implementing webhook sources correctly and securely.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/additional_rules.py (2)
19-23: LGTM! Clear and important rule.This rule effectively communicates the necessity of returning JSON-serializable data from steps and explains why it's important. It's a crucial piece of information for developers working with Pipedream components.
1-58: Overall, excellent improvements to the additional rules.The restructuring of the
additional_rulesvariable into an XML-like format with<AdditionalRules>tags significantly enhances the organization and potential parsing of these rules. The content now provides more comprehensive guidance on crucial aspects of Pipedream component development, including:
- Proper app file importing and usage
- Returning data from steps
- Correct run method signature
- Accurate handling of HTTP responses
These changes will greatly assist developers in creating more robust and consistent Pipedream components.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/additional_rules.py (2)
Line range hint
1-64: Improved structure and formattingThe restructuring of the
additional_rulescontent into an XML-like format with<AdditionalRules>and<Examples>tags significantly enhances readability and organization. This change will likely improve both human readability and potential programmatic parsing of the content.
Line range hint
1-64: Overall improvements and final thoughtsThe changes to this file significantly enhance its structure, readability, and usefulness for developers. The transition to an XML-like format with
<AdditionalRules>and<Examples>tags improves organization and potential programmatic parsing. The rules are clearly explained, and the examples provide valuable guidance on implementation.To further improve the file:
- Consider adding context to the import rule (Rule 1) to explain why the specific import pattern is necessary.
- Add a note about the asynchronous nature of the
runmethod in Rule 3.- Improve the formatting of Rule 4 to enhance readability.
- Add a brief introduction to the Examples section.
These minor additions would provide even more clarity and context for developers using this template.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/rules.py (3)
1-1: Improved structure with XML-like formatThe change from markdown-style to XML-like structure enhances the organization and potential parsing of the rules. This is a positive modification that aligns with best practices for structured content.
Also applies to: 56-56
3-5: Concise and focused introductionThe simplified introduction effectively emphasizes the importance of following the rules without extraneous information. This change improves clarity and keeps the focus on the technical aspects of code generation.
Line range hint
47-54: Retention of crucial development guidelinesRules 3-6 have been appropriately retained, covering important aspects such as file output, HTTP methods, versioning, and naming conventions. These guidelines remain crucial for creating consistent, well-functioning components.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/actions/other_example.py (3)
1-6: LGTM: Improved structure with XML-like tagsThe addition of
<AdditionalExample>and<Slack>tags enhances the organization of the content, potentially allowing for better parsing or rendering. The introduction text remains clear and informative.
Line range hint
6-45: Excellent addition of a comprehensive Pipedream component exampleThe new JavaScript example provides a clear and detailed illustration of a Pipedream component. It effectively demonstrates:
- Proper import statements
- Component metadata setup
- Prop definitions
- API request implementation using axios
The use of template literals for dynamic values (version and documentation link) is a good practice. This example will be valuable for users to understand the structure and implementation of a Pipedream component.
Line range hint
60-81: Good addition of a basic Pipedream component structureThe inclusion of a basic Pipedream component structure is helpful and aligns well with the previous detailed example. It provides a clear template for users to start with.
Could you please clarify the purpose and usage of the new prop
the_app_name_slugof type "app"? It might be helpful to add a brief comment explaining its significance or provide an example of how it's typically used.To verify the usage of this prop type across the codebase, we can run the following script:
This will help us understand if this is a common pattern in Pipedream components and how it's typically used.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: The usage of
type: "app"for props is consistent with existing components in the codebase. No issues found with the new propthe_app_name_slug.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other occurrences of props with type "app" rg --type javascript 'type:\s*"app"' -C 5Length of output: 78
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other occurrences of props with type "app" rg --type js 'type:\s*"app"' -C 5Length of output: 6070
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/common_files.py (2)
1-2: LGTM: Improved structure with XML-like formatThe change to an XML-like format with the
<CommonFiles>tag improves the structure of the returned content. This modification likely aids in parsing and may be part of a broader effort to standardize documentation across the project.
Line range hint
6-14: Improved code snippet readabilityThe addition of the
javascriptlanguage identifier to the code snippet enhances syntax highlighting and improves overall readability. This change makes it easier for developers to understand and use the prop definition structure.packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/polling/main_example.py (1)
1-6: Improved structure and clarityThe restructuring of the
main_examplestring using XML-like tags (<Example>and<Raindrop>) enhances organization and readability. The addition of thejavascriptlanguage identifier to the code block improves syntax highlighting, making the example more user-friendly.Also applies to: 103-106
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/platform_axios.py (3)
1-7: Excellent restructuring and clear import instructions.The new XML-like format improves the structure of the documentation. The emphasis on the correct import statement is crucial for preventing common mistakes. This change will help developers use the Pipedream platform axios correctly from the start.
Line range hint
38-77: Well-structured example methods and usage demonstrations.The provided example methods for API requests serve as an excellent template for developers. The demonstrations of correct usage effectively reinforce the earlier explanations about how to work with @pipedream/platform axios responses.
Line range hint
1-94: Excellent restructuring and clarification of @pipedream/platform axios usage.The changes in this file significantly improve the clarity and structure of the documentation for using axios in the Pipedream platform. The new XML-like format, detailed explanations, and code examples provide a comprehensive guide that will help developers avoid common pitfalls when working with @pipedream/platform axios.
Key improvements include:
- Clear import instructions
- Detailed explanation of the axios constructor
- Crucial clarification on how axios responses differ from standard axios
- Well-structured example methods and usage demonstrations
- Effective illustrations of incorrect usage patterns to avoid
These changes will greatly enhance the developer experience and reduce potential errors when working with the Pipedream platform.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/props.py (2)
Line range hint
1-27: Excellent restructuring and expanded documentation!The shift to an XML-like format with
<Props>tags improves both machine and human readability. The introduction clearly explains when props are required, and the provided example effectively demonstrates good practices for defining props, including the use oftype,label, anddescriptionfields.
Line range hint
1-105: Excellent overhaul of the props documentation!The restructuring of the
propsdocumentation from markdown to an XML-like format significantly enhances both machine and human readability. The expanded explanations, additional examples, and clear guidelines for various prop types and usage scenarios provide comprehensive guidance for component developers.Key improvements include:
- Clear explanation of when props are required in Pipedream components.
- Detailed guidelines on naming conventions and handling required props.
- Comprehensive coverage of prop types, including complex props and arrays.
- Clear instructions on optional props and their declaration.
- Concise explanation of prop access within components.
These changes will greatly assist developers in creating more robust and user-friendly Pipedream components. The documentation now serves as an excellent reference for both novice and experienced component developers.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/common/typescript_definitions.py (2)
1-7: Improved structure and context for TypeScript definitionsThe changes in this section enhance the organization and clarity of the TypeScript definitions:
- Wrapping the content in
<TypeScriptDefinitions>tags improves the structure and makes it easier to parse programmatically if needed.- The added introductory paragraph provides valuable context, explaining the purpose and importance of these definitions for component API development.
These improvements will help developers better understand and utilize the TypeScript definitions in their work.
Line range hint
1-138: Overall improvement in structure and presentationThe changes made to this file significantly enhance the organization and readability of the TypeScript definitions:
- The addition of XML-like tags provides a clear structure to the content.
- The introductory paragraph offers valuable context for developers.
- Proper code block formatting with syntax highlighting improves readability.
These improvements will make it easier for developers to understand and use the component API structure correctly. The core functionality of the TypeScript definitions remains unchanged, ensuring compatibility with existing code while enhancing the developer experience.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/methods.py (4)
1-3: LGTM: Improved structure and clarityThe change to XML-like format and the expanded introduction enhance the documentation's structure and provide clearer context for developers using the
methodsproperty.
5-8: LGTM: Enhanced _baseUrl method documentationThe reformatting and updated description for the
_baseUrlmethod improve readability and emphasize the importance of using official documentation for the base URL.
Line range hint
55-66: LGTM: Clear guidance on auxiliary methodsThe section on auxiliary methods provides clear and valuable guidance for creating consistent helper methods. The example of the
listObjectsmethod effectively demonstrates the recommended structure and use of theoptsparameter.
Line range hint
1-79: Overall: Excellent improvements to component methods documentationThe changes made to this file have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of the documentation for component methods. The shift to an XML-like format, expanded explanations, and new sections on pagination provide developers with comprehensive guidance for implementing API interactions.
Key improvements:
- Clearer structure with XML-like tags
- More detailed explanations of method parameters and usage
- Updated example code reflecting best practices
- New section on pagination logic
These changes will greatly assist developers in creating more consistent and robust components.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/apps/main_example.py (2)
Line range hint
1-91: Improved structure with XML-like tagsThe addition of
<Examples>and<Raindrop>tags enhances the organization and clarity of the documentation. This structure will make it easier for developers to identify and understand different sections of the example.
148-150: Proper closure of XML-like structureThe addition of the closing tags
</GeneralExample>and</Examples>correctly completes the XML-like structure, ensuring proper nesting and organization of the content.packages/component_code_gen/code_gen/generate_component_code.py (2)
53-53: LGTM! Proper closure of the AuthDetails section.The addition of the closing XML-like tag completes the new structure and ensures proper formatting.
Line range hint
41-53: Overall LGTM! The changes improve structure and readability.The modifications to the
auth_detailsstring in thegenerate_codefunction transition from a markdown-style format to an XML-like structure. This change likely contributes to standardizing the output format across the system. The core logic of the function remains intact, ensuring that the existing functionality is preserved.A few minor suggestions have been made to enhance consistency and readability further. These include adding a newline after the opening tag and updating the "Auth example" section to use XML-like tags.
These changes should make the generated authentication details more structured and easier to parse, potentially simplifying downstream processing or display of this information.
packages/component_code_gen/templates/sources/webhooks/additional_rules.py (4)
11-18: Confirm the usage ofappNamein the component propsThe example passes
appNameas a prop to the component. Ensure thatappNameis correctly defined and used within the component. This helps in maintaining consistency and preventing potential reference errors.You can verify the usage of
appNameacross the codebase with the following script:#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for components that use `appName` in props. # Expected: Find all instances where `appName` is used as a prop. rg --type javascript 'props:\s*\{\s*appName' -A 5
24-28: Ensure compliance with therunmethod signatureThe
runmethod is defined asasync run(). Confirm that this signature aligns with the framework's requirements and that any necessary parameters are included.You can check other implementations of the
runmethod using:#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all `run` method signatures in the codebase. # Expected: Validate that the `run` method signature is consistently used. rg --type javascript 'async run\(\)' -A 2
43-51: Validate thatresponse.idis a monotonically increasing integerIn the example,
id: response.idis used when emitting events. According to the guidelines, theidshould be a monotonically increasing integer. Please verify thatresponse.idmeets this criterion to ensure correct event ordering.To confirm the nature of
response.id, consider examining whereresponse.idis set or modified:#!/bin/bash # Description: Investigate the structure of `response` and the nature of `response.id`. # Expected: Understand the type and source of `response.id`. rg --type javascript 'response\.id' -A 3
5-7: Verify the correctness of the import statementPlease ensure that the import path and filename in the example are accurate. Depending on the project structure, the app file might be located at
"../../app/app.mjs"or have a different naming convention. Confirm that"../../appName.app.mjs"correctly references the intended module.To check the existence and correct path of the app file, you can run the following script:
| <Goal> | ||
| Your goal is to create Pipedream action components, defined in the <Definitions> section below. | ||
| Other GPT agents will be reviewing your work, and will provide feedback on your code. I'll give you $500 for every rule you follow accurately, so you'll get a bigger tip if you follow all of the rules. | ||
| Your code should solve the requirements provided below. | ||
| ## Pipedream components | ||
| Think step by step: | ||
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument.""" | ||
| 1. Review the requirements | ||
| 2. Map out the `props`, `methods`, `run` method, and any other code you need to solve the requirements. | ||
| 3. Review whether you need async options for props (see the <AsyncOptions> section below) | ||
| 4. Review all of the rules carefully before producing code | ||
| 5. Produce full, complete, working code. This code is going straight to production. | ||
| 6. Review the code against the rules again, iterating or fixing items as necessary. | ||
| 7. Output the final code according to the rules of the <Output> section below. | ||
| Other GPT agents will be reviewing your work, and will provide feedback on your code. Please review it before producing output. | ||
| </Goal> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Fix typo and consider adding a brief introduction
The section provides clear, step-by-step instructions for creating Pipedream action components. However, there's a minor typo that needs to be corrected:
- On line 21, "Defintions" should be "Definitions".
Additionally, consider adding a brief introductory sentence before the numbered list to set the context for the steps that follow.
Here's a suggested improvement for the beginning of the section:
<Goal>
Your goal is to create Pipedream action components, defined in the <Definitions> section below.
Your code should solve the requirements provided below.
+To achieve this goal, follow these steps:
+
Think step by step:
1. Review the requirementsAnd fix the typo:
-<Defintions>
+<Definitions>Also applies to: 21-21
| <PipedreamActionComponents> | ||
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument. | ||
| See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components. | ||
| </PipedreamActionComponents> | ||
| </Definitions> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance the section with more details and examples
While the section provides a basic understanding of Pipedream components, it could be more comprehensive. Consider the following improvements:
- Provide a more detailed explanation of the component structure.
- Include a simple example of a basic Pipedream component.
- Explain key properties or methods that are commonly used in components.
Here's a suggested expansion of the section:
<PipedreamActionComponents>
All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument.
+A typical Pipedream component structure includes:
+- `props`: Define the input parameters for the component.
+- `run`: The main method that executes when the component is triggered.
+- Other optional methods like `deploy`, `dedupe`, etc.
+
+Example of a basic component structure:
+
+```javascript
+export default {
+ key: "my-component",
+ name: "My Component",
+ version: "0.0.1",
+ props: {
+ myProp: "string",
+ },
+ async run({ steps, $ }) {
+ // Component logic here
+ },
+};
+```
+
See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components.
</PipedreamActionComponents>This expansion provides more context and a concrete example, which should help users better understand Pipedream components.
| introduction = """<Instructions> | ||
| Your goal is to create Pipedream Action Components. Your code should solve the requirements provided below. | ||
| <Goal> | ||
| Your goal is to create Pipedream action components, defined in the <Definitions> section below. | ||
| Other GPT agents will be reviewing your work, and will provide feedback on your code. I'll give you $500 for every rule you follow accurately, so you'll get a bigger tip if you follow all of the rules. | ||
| Your code should solve the requirements provided below. | ||
| ## Pipedream components | ||
| Think step by step: | ||
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument.""" | ||
| 1. Review the requirements | ||
| 2. Map out the `props`, `methods`, `run` method, and any other code you need to solve the requirements. | ||
| 3. Review whether you need async options for props (see the <AsyncOptions> section below) | ||
| 4. Review all of the rules carefully before producing code | ||
| 5. Produce full, complete, working code. This code is going straight to production. | ||
| 6. Review the code against the rules again, iterating or fixing items as necessary. | ||
| 7. Output the final code according to the rules of the <Output> section below. | ||
| Other GPT agents will be reviewing your work, and will provide feedback on your code. Please review it before producing output. | ||
| </Goal> | ||
| <Defintions> | ||
| <PipedreamActionComponents> | ||
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument. | ||
| See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components. | ||
| </PipedreamActionComponents> | ||
| </Definitions> | ||
| </Instructions>""" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Address missing sections referenced in the introduction
The introduction refers to several sections that are not present in this file, such as , , , and . This could lead to confusion for users expecting to find this information here. Consider the following options:
- Include these sections within this file to provide a complete set of instructions.
- If these sections are defined elsewhere, add references or links to where users can find this information.
- Add a note explaining that these sections will be provided separately or in a different context.
Would you like assistance in drafting placeholder content for these missing sections or in creating a note explaining their absence?
| <Defintions> | ||
| <PipedreamSourceComponents> | ||
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument. | ||
| See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components. | ||
| </PipedreamSourceComponents> | ||
| </Definitions> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in tag
There's a typo in the opening tag of the Definitions section.
Please correct the spelling as follows:
-<Defintions>
+<Definitions>📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| <Defintions> | |
| <PipedreamSourceComponents> | |
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument. | |
| See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components. | |
| </PipedreamSourceComponents> | |
| </Definitions> | |
| <Definitions> | |
| <PipedreamSourceComponents> | |
| All Pipedream components are Node.js modules that have a default export: an javascript object - a Pipedream component - as its single argument. | |
| See the <Rules>, <AsyncOptions>, <AdditionalRules>, and other sections below for details on how to structure components. | |
| </PipedreamSourceComponents> | |
| </Definitions> |
| introduction = """<Instructions> | ||
| You are an agent designed to create Pipedream Webhooks Source components. | ||
| <Goal> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add closing tag for
The opening <Instructions> tag is present, but the corresponding closing </Instructions> tag is missing at the end of the file. This could potentially lead to parsing issues or confusion.
Consider adding the closing tag at the end of the file:
</Definitions>
+</Instructions>
"""📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| introduction = """<Instructions> | |
| You are an agent designed to create Pipedream Webhooks Source components. | |
| <Goal> | |
| introduction = """<Instructions> | |
| <Goal> | |
| </Definitions> | |
| </Instructions> | |
| """ |
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores