-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 152
some error checks added (static checks) #788
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
Conversation
Signed-off-by: abohoss <[email protected]>
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @abohoss, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request primarily focuses on enhancing the robustness of the codebase by introducing additional error checks. Specifically, it addresses potential issues in file reading and copying operations, ensuring that errors are properly caught and handled, which helps fix issue #784.
Highlights
- Error Handling in Helm Test Converter: Improved error handling when extracting manifests from Helm charts by adding a check for io.Copy operations.
- Error Handling in GitHub URL Generator: Enhanced error handling during file content retrieval from GitHub URLs by adding a check for os.ReadFile operations.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
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.
Code Review
This pull request addresses missing error checks identified by static analysis. The changes correctly add error handling for io.Copy
in converter/tests/helm_test.go
and for os.ReadFile
in generators/github/url.go
, preventing potential panics and silent failures. The added error handling is idiomatic and improves the robustness of the code.
While reviewing, I noticed a couple of other places in generators/github/url.go
where errors are still ignored: the result of os.Create
on line 45, and the error from w.Flush()
in the deferred function on line 51. Since this PR is focused on improving error handling, it would be great if you could address these as well to make the function fully robust.
Thank you @abohoss for your contribution!! |
Description
This PR fixes #784
Notes for Reviewers
Signed commits