Create test.py

[notox]

PR Type

Other

---

Description

• Add complete PRReviewer class implementation

• Implement AI-powered pull request review functionality

• Support incremental reviews and auto-approval features

• Include comprehensive error handling and logging

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["PRReviewer Init"] --> B["Parse Arguments"]
  B --> C["Get PR Diff"]
  C --> D["AI Prediction"]
  D --> E["Generate Review"]
  E --> F["Publish Comment"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Enhancement	test.py Complete PRReviewer implementation                                              test.py Complete PRReviewer class with 429 lines of code AI-powered PR review with incremental support Auto-approval logic and label management Comprehensive error handling and configuration +429/-0

---

[qodo-merge-for-open-source]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 3 🔵🔵🔵⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

✅ No TODO sections

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Possible Issue Using discussion_messages.reversed likely incorrect; typical API uses reversed(discussion_messages) or list[::-1]. for message in discussion_messages.reversed: if "Questions to better understand the PR:" in message.body: question_str = message.body elif '/answer' in message.body: answer_str = message.body Robustness Accessing nested keys in parsed YAML without guards can raise KeyError; add defaults/validation before indexing data['review']. if 'key_issues_to_review' in data['review']: key_issues_to_review = data['review'].pop('key_issues_to_review') data['review']['key_issues_to_review'] = key_issues_to_review incremental_review_markdown_text = None # Add incremental review section if self.incremental.is_incremental: last_commit_url = f"{self.git_provider.get_pr_url()}/commits/" \ f"{self.git_provider.incremental.first_new_commit_sha}" incremental_review_markdown_text = f"Starting from commit {last_commit_url}" markdown_text = convert_to_markdown_v2(data, self.git_provider.is_supported("gfm_markdown"), incremental_review_markdown_text, git_provider=self.git_provider, files=self.git_provider.get_diff_files()) # Add help text if gfm_markdown is supported if self.git_provider.is_supported("gfm_markdown") and get_settings().pr_reviewer.enable_help_text: markdown_text += "<hr>\n\n<details> <summary><strong>💡 Tool usage guide:</strong></summary><hr> \n\n" markdown_text += HelpMessage.get_review_usage_guide() markdown_text += "\n</details>\n" # Output the relevant configurations if enabled if get_settings().get('config', {}).get('output_relevant_configurations', False): markdown_text += show_relevant_configurations(relevant_section='pr_reviewer') # Add custom labels from the review prediction (effort, security) self.set_review_labels(data) Label Logic Security label triggered by presence of 'yes'/'true' substring; may yield false positives; consider structured boolean. get_logger().warning(f"Unexpected type for estimated_effort: {type(estimated_effort)}") if 1 <= estimated_effort_number <= 5: # 1, because ... review_labels.append(f'Review effort {estimated_effort_number}/5') if get_settings().pr_reviewer.enable_review_labels_security and get_settings().pr_reviewer.require_security_review: security_concerns = data['review']['security_concerns'] # yes, because ... security_concerns_bool = 'yes' in security_concerns.lower() or 'true' in security_concerns.lower() if security_concerns_bool: review_labels.append('Possible security concern')

[qodo-merge-for-open-source]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
High-level	Relocate and rename the new file The new file test.py, which contains the core PRReviewer logic, is poorly named and located at the project root. It should be renamed to pr_reviewer.py and moved to the pr_agent/tools/ directory to better fit the project's structure. Examples: test.py [1-429] import copy import datetime import traceback from collections import OrderedDict from functools import partial from typing import List, Tuple from jinja2 import Environment, StrictUndefined from pr_agent.algo.ai_handlers.base_ai_handler import BaseAiHandler ... (clipped 419 lines) Solution Walkthrough: Before: # Project structure before / ├── test.py # <-- Contains PRReviewer class ├── pr_agent/ │ ├── tools/ │ │ └── ... │ ├── algo/ │ │ └── ... │ └── ... └── ... After: # Project structure after / ├── pr_agent/ │ ├── tools/ │ │ ├── pr_reviewer.py # <-- Moved and renamed file │ │ └── ... │ ├── algo/ │ │ └── ... │ └── ... └── ... Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a major structural issue where core logic is in a poorly named (test.py) and misplaced file, and fixing it is crucial for project maintainability and clarity.	Medium
Learned best practice	Harden error handling Log a generic message without interpolating exception details and raise a wrapped RuntimeError for clarity. test.py [183-184] except Exception as e: - get_logger().error(f"Failed to review PR: {e}") + get_logger().error("Failed to review PR") + raise RuntimeError("PR review failed") from e Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 __ Why: Relevant best practice - Improve error handling to avoid leaking secrets and provide actionable, consistent exceptions.	Low
	Safely access nested config Safely access nested configuration using getattr to avoid AttributeError when keys/attributes are missing. test.py [60-61] +provider_name = getattr(getattr(get_settings(), "config", None), "git_provider", "unknown") if self.is_answer and not self.git_provider.is_supported("get_issue_comments"): - raise Exception(f"Answer mode is not supported for {get_settings().config.git_provider} for now") + raise Exception(f"Answer mode is not supported for {provider_name} for now") Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 __ Why: Relevant best practice - Guard access to nested settings and attributes with safe accessors and validation, providing defaults when missing.	Low
General	Simplify label update condition logic Simplify the label update condition by removing the redundant (current_labels or review_labels) check. The sorted(new_labels) != sorted(current_labels) comparison is sufficient on its own. test.py [409-413] -if (current_labels or review_labels) and sorted(new_labels) != sorted(current_labels): - get_logger().info(f"Setting review labels:\n{review_labels + current_labels_filtered}") +if sorted(new_labels) != sorted(current_labels): + get_logger().info(f"Setting review labels:\n{new_labels}") self.git_provider.publish_labels(new_labels) else: - get_logger().info(f"Review labels are already set:\n{review_labels + current_labels_filtered}") + get_logger().info(f"Review labels are already set:\n{new_labels}") Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 __ Why: The suggestion correctly simplifies the conditional logic by removing a redundant check, making the code more concise and readable without changing its behavior. The improved code also correctly uses new_labels in the logging message for consistency.	Low
	Simplify conditional check for emptiness Replace if markdown_text == None or len(markdown_text) == 0: with the more Pythonic if not markdown_text: to simplify the check for a null or empty string. test.py [276-277] -if markdown_text == None or len(markdown_text) == 0: +if not markdown_text: markdown_text = "" Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 3 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies that if not markdown_text: is a more Pythonic way to check for None or an empty string, improving code conciseness.	Low
More

• Author self-review: I have reviewed the PR code suggestions, and addressed the relevant ones.

[ofir-frd]

@notox

(1) To better understand the context, it would be helpful if you could link to the related issue and explain the objectives and why existing commands don't meet this need.
(2) Currently, this code appears to be isolated from the main flow. Let's try to integrate it.