-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 275
docs(amazonq): Update autobuild setting strings #5301
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
rli
merged 4 commits into
aws:feature/dev-execution
from
neilk-aws:feature/q-dev-execution
Jan 28, 2025
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
603f629
chore(amazonq): Update autobuild setting strings
neilk-aws 583bccb
fix: Add @get:Property on autoBuildSetting field of CodeWhispererSett…
neilk-aws 2ed8be0
test: Add tests to validate backwards compatibility of CodeWhispererS…
neilk-aws 7ddc473
Merge branch 'feature/dev-execution' into feature/q-dev-execution
neilk-aws File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
needs
@get:Propertylike the other properties in hereafter release, renaming this will be a breaking change for customers so it is probably worth a test case
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added the missing
@get:Property. Do you have a recommendation on how to test that we aren't renaming a variable? I recognize renaming this would be breaking and is only done now since we are pre-release.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oh great there are no existing tests on this state component
basic ser/deser tests similar to below should be sufficient coverage:
aws-toolkit-jetbrains/plugins/amazonq/codewhisperer/jetbrains-community/tst/software/aws/toolkits/jetbrains/services/codewhisperer/CodeWhispererModelConfiguratorTest.kt
Lines 297 to 440 in 2e39dc0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
on another note, doing a map of project -> boolean isnt really the best way to model this.
if you don't want the setting to be application-wide, you should define a new project-level state component so that the setting is saved per-project. right now the implementation looks like it makes a new check box for every project the user opens?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The setting is application wide and mirrors the structure that we're able to give in VSCode. I think there is opportunity for improvement in modeling, but I don't think I want to block on that right now. I'd love to learn about where project-level state component and what other features are using it. If we do migrate, we'll implement the logic to import the settings accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the pointer on the tests. I've added them here, with an initial focus on our property. I've kept it generic for other teams to be able to contribute more validation there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
switching between the two is not exactly trivial so it would be better to get that right now.
the configurable is already set up to support project-level settings so the only difference would be creating a new state service, and you can get rid of the weird map layer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can take this as a follow up. Given we're trying to merge the feature branch into main today, I think we'll accept the risk of needing to implement a pathway to import settings from the storage layer from the existing format into a the new format once we migrate to it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sure