feat: Add custom CodeRabbit instructions for examples #1189
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Adityarya11 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Adityarya11 <[email protected]>
Adityarya11
changed the title
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1189 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.26% 91.26%
=======================================
Files 139 139
Lines 8447 8447
=======================================
Hits 7709 7709
Misses 738 738 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR configures CodeRabbit to apply maintainer-level review standards specifically to the /examples directory, ensuring SDK examples work correctly when users copy-paste them.
Key Changes:
- Adds path-specific instructions for reviewing examples with focus on transaction lifecycle correctness
- Enforces role-based naming conventions and proper method chaining patterns
- Validates import paths and flags non-existent module references
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
.coderabbit.yaml |
Adds comprehensive path_instructions for examples/**/* with 5-priority review framework covering correctness, transaction lifecycle, naming, consistency, and user experience |
CHANGELOG.md |
Documents the addition of CodeRabbit review instructions for examples directory |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request extends the CodeRabbit configuration to include custom review instructions for the examples directory, specifying quality criteria for example code including correctness, transaction lifecycle management, clarity, and consistency with the rest of the codebase. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.coderabbit.yamlCHANGELOG.md
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
CHANGELOG.md
59-59: Trailing spaces
Expected: 0 or 2; Actual: 1
(MD009, no-trailing-spaces)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (8)
- GitHub Check: Agent
- GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
- GitHub Check: StepSecurity Harden-Runner
- GitHub Check: run-examples
- GitHub Check: build-and-test (3.13)
- GitHub Check: build-and-test (3.10)
- GitHub Check: build-and-test (3.12)
- GitHub Check: build-and-test (3.11)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
.coderabbit.yaml (7)
21-25: LGTM! Well-structured path instructions.The path_instructions configuration correctly follows the CodeRabbit schema. The glob pattern
examples/**/*appropriately targets all files in the examples directory, aligning with the PR objective to apply maintainer-level review standards across all examples.
28-32: Excellent correctness priorities.These instructions directly address the core PR objectives around transaction lifecycle correctness. The emphasis on verifying method existence against the actual codebase is particularly valuable for preventing hallucinated APIs.
34-39: LGTM! Comprehensive transaction lifecycle checks.The transaction lifecycle instructions are thorough and aligned with SDK best practices. The error handling pattern
ResponseCode(receipt.status).nameis consistent with recent codebase changes documented in the CHANGELOG (line 87).
41-45: Strong naming conventions aligned with PR objectives.The role-based naming requirements directly implement the PR objective for clear variable names (owner, spender, treasury, receiver). The suffix conventions (_id for AccountId, _key for PrivateKey) provide clear type differentiation, which is valuable for users copying these examples.
47-53: Import rules successfully address PR objectives.The import validation logic correctly implements the PR goal of accepting both import styles while preventing hallucinated import paths. The specific example flagging
hiero_sdk_python.keysas non-existent is helpful.One minor clarification: Line 51's instruction to "Compare against other files in
/examplesor your knowledge of the SDK file tree" assumes CodeRabbit can access the full codebase structure during review, which should work as expected.
55-58: User-focused review philosophy.These guidelines correctly prioritize the user experience, aligning with the PR objective to avoid "nitpicky suggestions that can be handled by linters." The distinction between users and contributors is crucial for maintaining example quality without over-engineering.
60-64: Philosophy aligns perfectly with PR objectives.The philosophy section effectively captures the maintainer-level review approach requested in issue #1180. The emphasis on "explicitness over brevity" and avoiding linter-catchable suggestions directly implements the PR objectives for example code quality.
|
Really really amazing PR! Fantastic job |
Couldn't been possible without you thanks for help and support ✌️🥳 |
) Signed-off-by: Adityarya11 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: prishajaiswal75 <[email protected]>
) Signed-off-by: Adityarya11 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: prishajaiswal75 <[email protected]>
2 participants
Description:
Configures CodeRabbit to apply maintainer-level review standards to the
/examplesdirectory.path_instructionsforexamples/**/*.freeze->sign->execute).Related issue(s):
Fixes #1180