Update PRReview patchflow

[CTY-git]

PR Checklist

• The commit message follows our guidelines: Code of conduct
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
• Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
• Include PR in release notes?

PR Type

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Refactoring
• Build /CI
• Documentation
• Others

What is the current behavior?

Update current PRReview to our latest implementation on server side as well

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

N/A

Other information

[jonahdc]

lgtm

[patched-admin]

File Changed: .github/workflows/test.yml

Rule 1: Do not ignore potential bugs in the code

Details: Potential bug risk identified due to removal of pull request trigger events without replacement. Removing 'ready_for_review' and 'review_requested' events might cause tests to be skipped for certain PR states.

Affected Code Snippet:

on:
  pull_request:
    types:
      - ready_for_review
      - review_requested

Start Line: 1
End Line: 6

Rule 2: Do not overlook possible security vulnerabilities

Details: Security concern identified in credentials handling. The change from PATCHED_API_KEY to ANTHROPIC_API_KEY suggests an API key rotation or service change, but there's no validation or security context provided for the new key usage.

Affected Code Snippet:

          --patched_api_key=$https://github.com/patched-codes/patchwork/pull/1270/files#diff-9a4e1b5185aca60ac378253dd90a488e3b1858536e09d72d694490c065248833 \
          --anthropic_api_key=$https://github.com/patched-codes/patchwork/pull/1270/files#diff-8dc510059749ee3e0839a06a896bd35729de82fed0c19926bdefb3953e5e77e9 \

Start Line: 207
End Line: 207

File Changed: patchwork/patchflows/PRReview/PRReview.py

Details: In the refactored code, error handling has been removed for the diff_summary validation, which could lead to runtime errors. The code assumes valid input without proper validation, potentially causing bugs.

Affected Code Snippet:

-        diff_summary = final_inputs.get("diff_summary", _LONG)
-        if diff_summary.lower() not in _SUMMARY_LEVEL.keys():
-            raise ValueError(f"Invalid diff_summary, accepted diff_summary values: {_SUMMARY_LEVEL.keys()}")

Start Line: 38
End Line: 41

---

Details: The code modification removes input validation and type checking for prompt_template_file, which could expose the system to path traversal or file inclusion vulnerabilities if user input is not properly sanitized.

Affected Code Snippet:

-        if "prompt_template_file" not in final_inputs.keys():
-            final_inputs["prompt_template_file"] = _DEFAULT_PROMPT_JSON

Start Line: 35
End Line: 37

File Changed: patchwork/patchflows/PRReview/defaults.yml

Rule 1: Do not ignore potential bugs in the code

Details: A potential bug is introduced by removing the configuration parameters diff_summary and diff_suggestion without providing default values. This could cause undefined behavior if these parameters are referenced elsewhere in the codebase.

Affected Code Snippet:

# PRReview Inputs
-diff_summary: long
-diff_suggestion: false

Start Line: 2
End Line: 3

---

Rule 2: Do not overlook possible security vulnerabilities

Details: The code diff introduces use of a new AI model (claude-3-5-sonnet-latest) but doesn't specify or validate the client_base_url for this model. This could potentially lead to API endpoint security issues if the base URL is not properly configured.

Affected Code Snippet:

-# model: gpt-4o
+ model: claude-3-5-sonnet-latest

Start Line: 14
End Line: 14
Empty response - None of the code reviews are actionable or useful.

Reasoning:

1. Rule 1 review is not actionable since it just acknowledges removal of a debug print statement with no suggested improvements or concerns.
2. Rule 2 review is not actionable as it simply states there are no security issues.
3. Rule 3 review is not actionable as it just confirms the code adheres to standards after removing debug code.

All reviews are observations rather than actionable feedback that would help improve the code.

File Changed: patchwork/steps/CallShell/CallShell.py

Analysis for Rule 1: Ignore potential bugs in the code

Details: Removing the CallSQL import without any associated code changes could indicate dead code removal, which is generally safe. However, if there are any references to CallSQL elsewhere in the file that weren't shown in the diff, this could introduce runtime import errors.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps import CallSQL

Start Line: 11

End Line: 11

---

Summary:
The code change appears to be a simple removal of an unused import statement. While this generally improves code quality by removing dead code, there is a potential risk if CallSQL is used elsewhere in the file (not shown in the diff). A thorough check of the entire file context would be recommended to ensure the import removal doesn't break any existing functionality. From a security and coding standards perspective, the change is neutral to positive.

Recommendation:

• Verify that CallSQL is not used anywhere else in the file
• If this is part of a larger refactoring, ensure all references to CallSQL have been properly handled
• Consider adding a comment in the PR description explaining why this import was removed

File Changed: patchwork/steps/SimplifiedLLMOnce/typed.py

Rule 2: Do not overlook possible security vulnerabilities

Details: Observed security concern in the existing code related to API key handling. While not introduced by this change, the google_api_key annotation with multiple API key alternatives in the or_op could potentially lead to key leakage if not properly secured. Consider adding a note about secure key handling.

Affected Code Snippet:

google_api_key: Annotated[
    str, StepTypeConfig(is_config=True, or_op=["patched_api_key", "openai_api_key", "anthropic_api_key"])
]

Start Line: 38
End Line: 40