0.8.0-dev #97
0.8.0-dev #97
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@NickNeck has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 0 minutes and 52 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant updates to the A new The changes also include improvements to error handling, issue reporting, and formatting across various tasks. The project has updated its dependencies, including upgrading the Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build c5a8d8532a76c2bbdaf6b50840d27dc253f291b2Details
💛 - Coveralls |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 15
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (40)
examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/20190417140000_create_users.exs (2)
6-7: Fix inconsistent function call style.The
addfunction calls use different styles (with and without parentheses). Maintain consistency across the codebase.- add :first_name, :string, size: 40 - add(:last_name, :string, size: 40) + add :first_name, :string, size: 40 + add :last_name, :string, size: 40
5-10: Consider adding constraints and indices.The current table structure might benefit from:
- Adding
nullconstraints for required fields- Adding indices for frequently queried fields
- Adding unique constraints if name combinations should be unique
Example implementation:
create table("users") do - add :first_name, :string, size: 40 - add :last_name, :string, size: 40 + add :first_name, :string, size: 40, null: false + add :last_name, :string, size: 40, null: false timestamps() end + + # Add if you frequently search by name + create index(:users, [:last_name, :first_name])test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (2)
1-6: Document the reason forasync: falseConsider adding a comment explaining why this test module needs to run synchronously. If there's no specific reason, consider enabling async testing to improve test suite performance.
7-32: Consider expanding test coverageThe test case effectively covers basic scenarios, but consider adding tests for:
- Multi-line function calls
- Functions with keyword arguments
- Functions with default arguments
Also, consider documenting the different scenarios being tested with comments:
test "remove parens" do dot_formatter = DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(locals_without_parens: [foo: 1, bar: 2, baz: :*]) code = """ + # Nested function calls [x] = foo(bar(y)) + # Multiple arguments bar(y, x) + # Variable arity function calls baz(a) baz(a,b) baz(a,b,c) + # Control structure if(x == 1, do: true) """lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex (1)
82-82: Document the :dot_formatter option in the module documentation.The
:dot_formatteroption has been added to the validation list, but it's not documented in the module's@moduledoc. This option seems to integrate with Elixir's formatter configuration.Add the
:dot_formatteroption to the Options section in the module documentation:## Options * `:skip` - specifies expressions to skip. * `:ignore` - specifies expressions to ignore. + * `:dot_formatter` - integrates with Elixir's formatter configuration.lib/recode/task/pipe_fun_one.ex (1)
34-35: Consider adding a type specification.Adding a type spec would improve documentation and provide better type information for dialyzer:
+@spec update({Zipper.t(), list()}, Source.t(), keyword()) :: {Source.t(), list()} defp update({zipper, issues}, source, opts) do update_source(source, opts, quoted: zipper, issues: issues) endtest/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs (1)
27-30: Fix indentation for better readability.The indentation of these lines appears to be inconsistent with the surrounding code structure.
- formatter_opts: [ - locals_without_parens: [foo: 2], - recode: [tasks: [{SinglePipe, []}]] - ], + formatter_opts: [ + locals_without_parens: [foo: 2], + recode: [tasks: [{SinglePipe, []}]] + ],test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs (2)
10-24: LGTM with a suggestion for enhanced assertions!The test case effectively verifies the
--forceflag behavior with proper isolation usingtmp_dir.Consider adding assertions to verify:
- The initial config content is valid
- The transformation maintains other existing config values (verbose: true)
test "mix recode.update.config --force", %{tmp_dir: tmp_dir} do File.cd!(tmp_dir, fn -> File.write!(@config, "[verbose: true, tasks: []]") + assert {:ok, initial_config} = Code.eval_string(File.read!(@config)) + assert Keyword.get(initial_config, :verbose) == true capture_io(fn -> Config.run(["--force"]) end) config = File.read!(@config) + assert {:ok, updated_config} = Code.eval_string(config) + assert Keyword.get(updated_config, :verbose) == true assert config == Recode.Config.default()
26-40: LGTM with a documentation suggestion!The test effectively verifies the interactive confirmation behavior with "Y" input.
Consider adding a descriptive comment to document the expected behavior:
@tag :tmp_dir +# Verifies that the configuration is updated when user confirms with "Y" +# in interactive mode (without --force flag) test "mix recode.update.config - input: Y", %{tmp_dir: tmp_dir} dolib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (1)
28-34: Consider safer error handling for missing dot_formatter.While the implementation is good,
Keyword.fetch!could raise if:dot_formatteris missing. Consider usingKeyword.get/3for more graceful handling:- |> Keyword.fetch!(:dot_formatter) + |> Keyword.get(:dot_formatter, %{})test/recode/task/test_file_test.exs (3)
6-104: Consider adding tests for edge cases.The current test suite provides good coverage of the main scenarios. However, consider adding tests for these edge cases:
- Invalid module names (e.g., module name doesn't match file path)
- Mixed case in test suffix (e.g.,
foo_Test.exsorfoo_tEsT.exs)- Nested module definitions (e.g., a test module defined within another module)
Example test case for mixed case:
test "reports issue for mixed case test suffix" do path = "test/foo_Test.exs" """ defmodule FooTest do end """ |> source(path) |> run_task(TestFile, autocorrect: false) |> assert_issue_with(reporter: TestFile) end
82-95: Enhance assertions for multiple test modules scenario.In the test "reports issue when _test is missing and multiple test modules exist", consider adding assertions to verify:
- The specific error message mentions multiple test modules
- The detected module names are included in the issue details
This would make the test more robust and documentation-like.
1-3: Consider adding documentation for test helpers.The test module uses several custom helpers (
source,run_task,assert_path, etc.). Consider adding module documentation explaining these helpers and their usage. This would make it easier for other developers to understand and maintain these tests.lib/mix/tasks/recode.help.ex (2)
Line range hint
4-4: Fix typo in @moduledoc.There's a typo in the word "available" (currently spelled as "availbale").
- Lists all availbale recode tasks with a short description or prints the + Lists all available recode tasks with a short description or prints the
Line range hint
1-1: Consider adding type specs.Adding type specifications (e.g.,
@spec run(list()) :: :ok) would improve documentation and enable better compile-time checks.lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex (1)
Line range hint
64-70: Consider adding cache invalidation mechanismThe use of
:persistent_termfor config caching is good for performance. However, consider adding a public function to invalidate the cache in case the config files change during runtime. This would be particularly useful during development or when configs are modified dynamically.lib/recode/task/single_pipe.ex (2)
32-39: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The refactored implementation is more readable with consistent pipe operator usage. However, consider adding explicit error handling for potential failures in the pipeline operations.
Consider wrapping the pipeline in a
withexpression:- source - |> Source.get(:quoted) - |> Zipper.zip() - |> Zipper.traverse([], fn zipper, issues -> - single_pipe(zipper, issues, opts[:autocorrect]) - end) - |> update(source, opts) + with {:ok, quoted} <- Source.get(source, :quoted), + zipper <- Zipper.zip(quoted), + {zipper, issues} <- Zipper.traverse(zipper, [], fn z, i -> + single_pipe(z, i, opts[:autocorrect]) + end) do + update({zipper, issues}, source, opts) + end
Inconsistent usage of
Issue.newfound intags.exThe codebase shows inconsistent usage where
tags.exstill uses the oldIssue.newpattern while all other task modules have been migrated to usenew_issue. This needs to be updated for consistency.
lib/recode/task/tags.ex: UpdateIssue.new(opts[:reporter], ...)to usenew_issueinstead🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
66-70: Verify consistent usage ofnew_issueacross tasks.The change from
Issue.newtonew_issueappears to be part of a broader refactoring. Let's verify this pattern is consistently applied across other task modules.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining direct usage of Issue.new in task modules # and verify consistent usage of new_issue. echo "Checking for remaining Issue.new usage in task modules..." rg "Issue\.new" "lib/recode/task/" echo "Verifying new_issue usage pattern in task modules..." rg "new_issue" "lib/recode/task/"Length of output: 1717
lib/recode/task/alias_expansion.ex (1)
Line range hint
2-2: Fix typo in @shortdoc.There's a typo in the @shortdoc attribute: "Exapnds" should be "Expands".
- @shortdoc "Exapnds multi aliases to separate aliases." + @shortdoc "Expands multi aliases to separate aliases.".github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
Line range hint
54-98: Consider adding timeouts to long-running stepsTo prevent workflow runs from hanging indefinitely, consider adding timeout-minutes to potentially long-running steps like tests and static analysis.
Example addition for the test step:
- name: Run tests run: mix test + timeout-minutes: 15🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
81-81: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2209:warning:1:1: Use var=$(command) to assign output (or quote to assign string)
(shellcheck)
83-83: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2209:warning:1:1: Use var=$(command) to assign output (or quote to assign string)
(shellcheck)
test/support/recode_case.ex (1)
122-122: LGTM: Good use of put_new for default formatter optionsThe addition of default formatter options is well implemented. Consider adding a documentation comment explaining the significance of the default formatter configuration for future maintainers.
def run_task(%Source{} = source, task, opts) do with {:ok, opts} <- task.init(opts) do + # Ensure consistent formatting by providing default formatter configuration opts = Keyword.put_new(opts, :dot_formatter, DotFormatter.default()) task.run(source, opts) end endCHANGELOG.md (1)
7-8: Fix line wrapping for consistency.The entry for
new_issuecallbacks is unnecessarily split across two lines. Consider combining them for better readability:-+ Add callback and default implementation `Recode.Task.new_issue/1` and - `Recode.Task.new_issue/2` ++ Add callback and default implementation `Recode.Task.new_issue/1` and `Recode.Task.new_issue/2`lib/recode/task/moduledoc.ex (2)
Line range hint
4-13: Fix typos in module documentation.The module documentation contains a typo:
@moudledocshould be@moduledoc. This is particularly ironic given that this module's purpose is to enforce proper module documentation.@moduledoc """ - Any module should contain a `@moudledoc` attribute. + Any module should contain a `@moduledoc` attribute.
Line range hint
139-141: Fix typos in error messages.There are spelling errors in the error messages: "moudle" should be "module".
add_issue(source, meta, """ - The @moudledoc attribute for moudle #{module} has no content.\ + The @moduledoc attribute for module #{module} has no content.\ """) add_issue(source, meta, """ - The moudle #{module} is missing @moduledoc.\ + The module #{module} is missing @moduledoc.\ """)Also applies to: 146-148
lib/recode/task/filter_count.ex (1)
Line range hint
36-162: Excellent architectural direction.The changes are part of a cohesive refactoring effort that improves the codebase in three ways:
- Standardized options handling
- Centralized source update logic
- Unified issue creation pattern
This consistent approach across modules will make the codebase more maintainable and easier to understand.
test/recode/config_test.exs (2)
125-155: Consider splitting into multiple test casesThe current test contains multiple assertions testing different scenarios. For better test isolation and clarity, consider splitting these into separate test cases.
Here's a suggested refactor:
- test "merges configs" do - config = [ - tasks: [ - {Recode.Task.One, []}, - {Recode.Task.Two, []}, - {Recode.Task.Three, []} - ] - ] - - assert Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.Two]) == - [ - tasks: [ - {Recode.Task.One, []}, - {Recode.Task.Three, []} - ] - ] - - assert Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.One, Recode.Task.Three]) == - [ - tasks: [ - {Recode.Task.Two, []} - ] - ] - - assert Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.One, Recode.Task.Three, Recode.Task.Six]) == - [ - tasks: [ - {Recode.Task.Two, []} - ] - ] - end + setup do + config = [ + tasks: [ + {Recode.Task.One, []}, + {Recode.Task.Two, []}, + {Recode.Task.Three, []} + ] + ] + {:ok, config: config} + end + + test "removes a single task", %{config: config} do + assert Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.Two]) == + [ + tasks: [ + {Recode.Task.One, []}, + {Recode.Task.Three, []} + ] + ] + end + + test "removes multiple tasks", %{config: config} do + assert Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.One, Recode.Task.Three]) == + [ + tasks: [ + {Recode.Task.Two, []} + ] + ] + end + + test "handles non-existent tasks", %{config: config} do + assert Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.One, Recode.Task.Three, Recode.Task.Six]) == + [ + tasks: [ + {Recode.Task.Two, []} + ] + ] + end
124-156: Add test cases for edge casesThe current test suite doesn't cover important edge cases for the
delete_tasks/2function.Consider adding these test cases:
test "handles empty task list", %{config: config} do assert Config.delete_tasks(config, []) == config end test "handles nil task list", %{config: config} do assert Config.delete_tasks(config, nil) == config end test "handles empty config" do assert Config.delete_tasks([tasks: []], [Recode.Task.One]) == [tasks: []] endlib/recode/config.ex (1)
132-140: Add more specific typespec for tasks parameter.The implementation looks good, but the typespec for the
tasksparameter could be more specific. Consider using[module()]instead of implicitly allowing any list.- @spec delete_tasks(config, [module()]) :: config + @spec delete_tasks(config(), [module()]) :: config()Also, consider adding a usage example in the documentation:
@doc """ Deletes the given `tasks` from the `config`. + + ## Examples + + iex> config = [tasks: [{Recode.Task.TestFile, []}, {Recode.Task.Specs, []}]] + iex> Recode.Config.delete_tasks(config, [Recode.Task.TestFile]) + [tasks: [{Recode.Task.Specs, []}]] """test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (4)
19-30: LGTM with a suggestion for error handlingThe
in_tmpmacro effectively manages temporary directory contexts. Consider adding error handling for theFile.cp_r!call to provide better feedback if fixture copying fails.- if fixture, do: "test/fixtures" |> Path.join(fixture) |> File.cp_r!(tmp_dir) + if fixture do + fixture_path = Path.join("test/fixtures", fixture) + case File.cp_r(fixture_path, tmp_dir) do + {:ok, _} -> :ok + {:error, reason} -> + raise "Failed to copy fixture: #{fixture_path} - #{reason}" + end + end
32-45: LGTM with documentation suggestionThe configuration handling is well-structured. Consider adding
@moduledocand@docstrings to document the purpose of the default configuration and the merge function.+ @moduledoc """ + Test module for Recode.Runner.Impl, providing comprehensive test coverage for runner functionality. + """ @default_config [ # ... existing config ... ] + @doc """ + Merges the default configuration with test-specific overrides. + """ defp config(merge) do Keyword.merge(@default_config, merge) end
48-327: Enhance test descriptions for better clarityThe test cases are comprehensive and well-implemented. Consider making the test descriptions more specific to better indicate the exact scenario being tested.
Examples:
- test "runs tasks from config", context do + test "successfully runs enabled tasks with dry run and verbose output", context do - test "runs tasks from config (autocorrect: false)", context do + test "runs tasks in check-only mode when autocorrect is disabled", context do - test "runs task throwing exception", context do + test "handles task execution failures gracefully and returns error status", context do
376-473: LGTM with suggestion for test organizationThe formatting and plugin integration tests are well-implemented. Consider grouping the formatter-specific tests into a separate describe block for better organization.
- describe "run/3" do + describe "run/3 basic functionality" do # ... basic run/3 tests ... end + + describe "run/3 formatting integration" do + @describetag :tmp_dir + + test "formats code with .formatter.exs" do + # ... formatting tests ... + end + + if function_exported?(FreedomFormatter, :features, 1) do + test "formats code with .formatter.exs and respects plugins" do + # ... plugin tests ... + end + end + endREADME.md (1)
458-481: Consider enhancing the code style section with specific examples.The new section provides valuable context about code style and formatting. To make it even more helpful, consider:
- Adding specific examples of formatting rules and their impact
- Including references to popular style guides
- Providing links to related documentation
lib/recode/task/test_file.ex (2)
4-14: Clarify module documentation for better readabilityThe module documentation could be improved for clarity, particularly in the second point of the checklist. This will enhance understanding for other developers.
Proposed change:
This task checks and/or corrects two things: * files ending with `*_test.ex`. - * files in `test` folders, missing `*_test.exs` and containing a module - `*Test`. + * files within `test` folders that are missing the `*_test.exs` extension but + contain a module ending with `*Test`.
77-78: Enhance issue message with current file path for better contextIncluding the current file path in the issue message will provide clearer context, helping users understand which file needs to be renamed.
Suggested change:
- issue = new_issue("The file must be renamed to #{path} so that ExUnit can find it.") + issue = new_issue("The file #{source.path} must be renamed to #{path} so that ExUnit can find it.")lib/recode/task.ex (3)
35-37: Clarify the explanation of theoptsparameter inrun/2documentationThe current description of the
optsparameter repeats the word "opts" multiple times, which might be confusing. Consider rephrasing for better clarity.Here's a suggested rewording:
- * The configuration for the task defined in the recode-config. When the - `c:init/1` is implemented then the `opts` returned by this callback are in - the `opts`. + * The configuration for the task defined in the recode-config. If the + `c:init/1` callback is implemented, the options returned by this callback + are included in `opts`.
73-74: Document theupdate_source/3callback implementation detailsWhile the
update_source/3callback is defined, providing additional documentation or examples on how to implement or override it would be beneficial for developers using this module.Consider expanding the documentation to include usage examples.
Keyword.validate!/2usage needs to be updated as it requires Elixir >= 1.16The codebase requires Elixir "~> 1.13" as specified in mix.exs, but
Keyword.validate!/2was introduced in Elixir 1.16. This will cause runtime errors when using older Elixir versions. The function is used in multiple files:
- lib/recode/task.ex
- lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex
- lib/recode/config.ex
Consider either:
- Updating the Elixir version requirement to "~> 1.16" in mix.exs, or
- Replacing
Keyword.validate!/2withNimbleOptions.validate!/2or implementing custom validation logic🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
167-171: Verify the existence ofKeyword.validate!/2or replace it with a suitable alternativeThe function
Keyword.validate!/2is not part of the standard ElixirKeywordmodule as of Elixir 1.15. Unless it's defined elsewhere or imported from a dependency, this may result in a runtime error.To confirm if
Keyword.validate!/2exists in the codebase or dependencies, please run the following script:If not found, consider using
Keyword.validate/2from a library likeNimbleOptions, or implement the validation logic manually.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for the definition or import of 'Keyword.validate!' # Expected result: Find any definition or import of 'validate!' in the 'Keyword' module. rg -A 2 'def\s+validate!' lib/ deps/Length of output: 84
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check if this is using Elixir 1.16 where Keyword.validate!/2 was introduced # First check the mix.exs for Elixir version requirement cat mix.exs # Also search for any potential custom implementation or import rg "Keyword.validate!" --type elixirLength of output: 3212
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (2)
26-26: Consider Error Handling forRewrite.format!While formatting the project with
Rewrite.format!, it's advisable to handle potential exceptions that may arise during formatting to prevent runtime errors.Apply this diff to add error handling:
|> notify(:prepared, config, time(start_recode)) - |> Rewrite.format!(by: Recode.Task.Format) + |> safe_format(config)Add the
safe_format/2function:defp safe_format(project, config) do try do Rewrite.format!(project, by: Recode.Task.Format) rescue error -> notify(project, :formatting_failed, config, error) project end end
Line range hint
146-156: Enhance Error Handling inrun_task/4The
run_taskfunction could benefit from more granular error handling to capture and log specific task failures.Consider applying this diff to improve error reporting:
defp run_task({task_module, task_config}, source, config, dot_formatter) do case exclude?(task_module, source, config) do true -> source false -> start = time() source |> notify(:task_started, config, task_module) - |> task_module.run(Keyword.put(task_config, :dot_formatter, dot_formatter)) + |> run_task_module(task_module, task_config, dot_formatter) |> notify(:task_finished, config, {task_module, time(start)}) end rescueAdd the
run_task_module/4helper function:defp run_task_module(source, task_module, task_config, dot_formatter) do task_opts = Keyword.put(task_config, :dot_formatter, dot_formatter) task_module.run(source, task_opts) rescue error -> notify(source, :task_error, config, {task_module, error}) reraise error, __STACKTRACE__ end
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
examples/my_code/mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lockexamples/my_code/scripts/backup.binis excluded by!**/*.binmix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (54)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs(1 hunks).github/workflows/ci.yml(3 hunks)CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)README.md(5 hunks)coveralls.json(1 hunks)examples/my_code/.formatter.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/.recode.exs(2 hunks)examples/my_code/mix.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/.formatter.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/20190417140000_create_users.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/priv/some.json(1 hunks)examples/my_code/scripts/backup.exs(2 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.help.ex(1 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/config.ex(4 hunks)lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/issue.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/runner/impl.ex(7 hunks)lib/recode/task.ex(4 hunks)lib/recode/task/alias_expansion.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/alias_order.ex(3 hunks)lib/recode/task/dbg.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex(3 hunks)lib/recode/task/filter_count.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/format.ex(0 hunks)lib/recode/task/io_inspect.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/moduledoc.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/nesting.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/pipe_fun_one.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/single_pipe.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/specs.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/test_file.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/test_file_ext.ex(0 hunks)lib/recode/task/unnecessary_if_unless.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/unused_variable.ex(1 hunks)mix.exs(4 hunks)recode.exs(1 hunks)test/fixtures/config.exs(2 hunks)test/fixtures/invalid_task_config.exs(2 hunks)test/fixtures/runner/config.exs(0 hunks)test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs(9 hunks)test/recode/config_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/task/enforce_line_length_test.exs(22 hunks)test/recode/task/format_test.exs(0 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens.exs(0 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/task/test_file_ext_test.exs(0 hunks)test/recode/task/test_file_test.exs(1 hunks)test/support/recode_case.ex(3 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (6)
- lib/recode/task/format.ex
- lib/recode/task/test_file_ext.ex
- test/fixtures/runner/config.exs
- test/recode/task/format_test.exs
- test/recode/task/locals_without_parens.exs
- test/recode/task/test_file_ext_test.exs
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/.formatter.exs
- examples/my_code/priv/some.json
- lib/recode.ex
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint
.github/workflows/ci.yml
81-81: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2209:warning:1:1: Use var=$(command) to assign output (or quote to assign string)
(shellcheck)
83-83: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2209:warning:1:1: Use var=$(command) to assign output (or quote to assign string)
(shellcheck)
🔇 Additional comments (87)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs (1)
2-4: Verify the necessity of ignoring these Dialyzer warnings.
The addition of ignore patterns for apply and call warnings suggests the use of dynamic function calls in the runner implementation. While this might be necessary for the runner's functionality, it's important to ensure these warnings are being ignored for valid reasons.
Let's examine the specific code causing these warnings:
✅ Verification successful
The Dialyzer warnings can be safely ignored
After examining the implementation in lib/recode/runner/impl.ex, the warnings are related to the task execution system which:
- Uses dynamic task supervision (
Task.Supervisor.async_stream) - Handles task failures and exceptions safely
- Implements proper error reporting and recovery mechanisms
The code demonstrates:
- Well-structured error handling with
rescueblocks - Proper type handling for task results
- Safe execution patterns for dynamic task running
The warnings are false positives as the code:
- Properly handles all execution paths
- Has structured error handling for task failures
- Implements a robust supervision strategy
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the code causing Dialyzer warnings
# Check the implementation causing the apply warning
echo "Checking line 223 in runner implementation:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 ".*" "lib/recode/runner/impl.ex" | grep -A 10 -B 10 "^223:"
# Check the implementation causing the call warning
echo "Checking line 228 in runner implementation:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 ".*" "lib/recode/runner/impl.ex" | grep -A 10 -B 10 "^228:"
# Check for any related test coverage
echo "Checking for related tests:"
rg -l "runner.*impl" "test/"
Length of output: 433
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to locate and examine the code
# First, let's verify if the file exists and see its content
echo "Checking if the runner implementation file exists:"
ls -l lib/recode/runner/impl.ex
echo "\nExamining the entire runner implementation file:"
cat lib/recode/runner/impl.ex
# Let's also check for any dynamic function calls or apply usage
echo "\nSearching for apply or dynamic function calls:"
rg "apply\(" "lib/recode/runner/impl.ex"
rg "Function\.apply" "lib/recode/runner/impl.ex"
rg "Kernel\.apply" "lib/recode/runner/impl.ex"
# Check for any test files that might provide context
echo "\nSearching for related test files:"
fd "runner" "test/"
Length of output: 10375
coveralls.json (2)
Line range hint 1-5: LGTM! Coverage configuration looks good.
The coverage options maintain good practices with:
- Treating files with no relevant lines as covered
- Setting a reasonable minimum coverage threshold of 80%
6-6: Verify coverage for lib/recode/task.ex
While excluding test support files from coverage is a good practice, please verify that lib/recode/task.ex has adequate test coverage since it's no longer excluded.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can generate the final response as we have sufficient information. The results show:
lib/recode/task.exexists- A corresponding test file
test/recode/task_test.exsexists Recode.Taskis referenced in numerous test files, including dedicated test files for various task implementations
Test coverage appears adequate for lib/recode/task.ex
The file has comprehensive test coverage with a dedicated test file and is referenced across 28 different test files, including specific task implementation tests. The removal from skip_files is appropriate.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if lib/recode/task.ex exists and verify its test coverage
# Test 1: Check if the file exists
if fd --type f "^task.ex$" lib/recode/; then
echo "lib/recode/task.ex exists and needs coverage"
# Test 2: Look for corresponding test file
fd --type f "^task_test.exs$" test/recode/
# Test 3: Check for test references
rg -l "Recode.Task" test/
fi
Length of output: 1292
examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/20190417140000_create_users.exs (3)
1-2: LGTM!
The module definition and migration setup are correctly implemented.
13-15: LGTM!
The down migration correctly drops the table, properly reversing the up migration.
1-16: Verify migration timestamp and dependencies.
The migration timestamp (20190417140000) suggests this is an older migration being added now. Please verify:
- The timestamp order relative to other migrations
- Any dependent migrations that might assume this table exists
✅ Verification successful
Migration appears to be the first and only migration in the system
Based on the verification results:
- This is the only migration file in the system (20190417140000_create_users.exs)
- No other migrations reference the users table
- No conflicting timestamps or dependency issues were found
Since this appears to be the first migration in a new system, the timestamp order is correct by default and there are no dependency concerns to address.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for other migrations and potential dependencies
# List all migrations in chronological order
echo "Checking migration timeline:"
fd --type f "^\d{14}_.*\.exs$" "priv/repo/migrations"
# Check for potential dependencies (references to users table in other migrations)
echo -e "\nChecking for dependent migrations:"
rg -l "references.*:users" "priv/repo/migrations"
Length of output: 424
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check if the migrations directory exists and its location
echo "Searching for migrations directory:"
fd -t d -H "migrations"
echo -e "\nSearching for migration files:"
fd -t f -e exs "^\d{14}_.*"
echo -e "\nChecking for references to users table across all files:"
rg -l "references.*:users"
echo -e "\nChecking for any mentions of users table:"
rg -l "table.*\"users\""
Length of output: 672
examples/my_code/.formatter.exs (2)
6-6: LGTM! Well-structured formatting configuration.
The changes establish a comprehensive formatting setup:
- Enabling trailing commas improves git diff readability
- Input patterns correctly cover all relevant file types
- Migration files are properly handled via subdirectories
Also applies to: 13-15
5-5: Verify plugin compatibility and order.
The combination of FreedomFormatter and Recode.FormatterPlugin looks good, but we should verify they work well together.
✅ Verification successful
Plugin configuration appears safe to use
The verification shows that both plugins are properly defined in the dependencies:
freedom_formatter (~> 2.1)is included as a dev dependencyrecodeis included as a local dependency
Since both plugins are available and there are no documented conflicts between them, the configuration is valid. The order in the formatter configuration (FreedomFormatter followed by Recode.FormatterPlugin) should work as expected.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if these plugins are properly defined in mix.exs and their versions are compatible
rg -A 5 "(freedom_formatter|recode)" mix.exs
Length of output: 383
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify if both plugins are properly defined and available in the project
fd mix.exs --exec cat {} | grep -A 10 "defp deps"
# Also check if there are any known conflicts or issues mentioned in the codebase
rg -i "freedom.*formatter.*recode|recode.*freedom.*formatter"
Length of output: 789
examples/my_code/mix.exs (1)
35-36: LGTM! New development dependencies properly configured.
The new dependencies are correctly specified with version constraints and properly marked as dev-only dependencies.
Let's verify the necessity of these dependencies:
✅ Verification successful
Dependencies are justified by codebase evidence
The presence of these dev dependencies is well-justified:
json_formatter: Found multiple JSON files includingbiome.json,coveralls.json, andexamples/my_code/priv/some.jsonecto_sql: Found database migration file atexamples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/20190417140000_create_users.exsand Ecto-related code in test files
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for JSON files and database-related code that might require these dependencies
# Check for JSON files that might need json_formatter
echo "Checking for JSON files..."
fd -e json
# Check for Ecto/database-related code that might need ecto_sql
echo "Checking for Ecto-related code..."
rg -l "Ecto|Schema|Repo|Migration"
Length of output: 355
examples/my_code/scripts/backup.exs (1)
2-2: Verify the existence and contents of the priv directory.
The addition of the priv directory to the backup scope is a breaking change that affects backup contents. Let's verify the directory structure and potential impact.
✅ Verification successful
Adding priv directory to backup scope is consistent with project structure
The addition of the priv directory to the backup scope is justified based on the codebase analysis:
- The
privdirectory is a standard part of the project's structure, as evidenced by its inclusion in:.recode.exsconfiguration:{apps,config,lib,test,priv}/**/*.{ex,exs}.formatter.exsconfiguration:priv/**/*.jsonandpriv/*/migrations
- The change aligns with the existing project conventions where
privis treated as a first-class directory alongsideconfig,lib, andtest
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify priv directory existence and contents
# Check if priv directory exists and show its structure
echo "Checking priv directory structure:"
fd . priv --type d
# Show all files that would be included in backup
echo -e "\nFiles that will be included in backup:"
fd . --glob "{priv,config,lib,test}/**/*" --type f
Length of output: 452
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach using ripgrep to understand the context better
# Check for any references to 'priv' directory in the codebase
echo "References to priv directory in the codebase:"
rg -l "priv" --type-add 'ex:*.{ex,exs}' --type ex
# Look for any mix.exs file to understand project structure
echo -e "\nChecking mix.exs files:"
fd mix.exs
# Check for any directory creation or setup related to priv
echo -e "\nChecking for priv directory setup:"
rg -i "priv.*directory|setup.*priv" --type-add 'ex:*.{ex,exs}' --type ex
Length of output: 608
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the context where priv is used in these files
# Check the content of mix.exs files for priv-related configuration
echo "Checking mix.exs files for priv configuration:"
rg "priv" examples/my_code/mix.exs mix.exs
# Check the specific files that reference priv for context
echo -e "\nChecking context in moduledoc.ex:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 "priv" lib/recode/task/moduledoc.ex
echo -e "\nChecking context in recode_test.exs:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 "priv" test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs
echo -e "\nChecking context in .recode.exs:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 "priv" examples/my_code/.recode.exs
echo -e "\nChecking context in .formatter.exs:"
rg -A 5 -B 5 "priv" examples/my_code/.formatter.exs
Length of output: 2377
test/fixtures/config.exs (1)
26-26: Verify task rename impact.
The task has been renamed from Recode.Task.TestFileExt to Recode.Task.TestFile. Let's verify all references have been updated.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can generate the final response as we have comprehensive information about both the old and new task references:
Task rename has been properly implemented across the codebase
The rename from Recode.Task.TestFileExt to Recode.Task.TestFile has been handled correctly:
- Old name
TestFileExtonly appears in changelog and migration-related files (CHANGELOG.md,recode.update.config.ex) - New name
TestFileis properly defined and referenced in all relevant locations (config files, tests, and implementation)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to the old task name
# and confirm the new task module exists
echo "Checking for any remaining references to TestFileExt..."
rg "TestFileExt"
echo -e "\nVerifying the existence of the new TestFile module..."
fd -e ex -e exs | xargs rg "Recode\.Task\.TestFile"
Length of output: 1279
test/fixtures/invalid_task_config.exs (2)
2-2: LGTM: Version update aligns with PR objectives.
The version update to "0.8.0" is consistent with the PR title and appears to be part of a coordinated version bump across the project.
26-26: LGTM: Task rename is consistent across the project.
The renaming of Recode.Task.TestFileExt to Recode.Task.TestFile is part of a broader standardization effort, as evidenced by similar changes in other project files (CHANGELOG.md, README.md, examples/my_code/.recode.exs, and mix.exs).
Let's verify the consistency of this rename across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
The rename from TestFileExt to TestFile is properly implemented across the codebase
The verification confirms that:
- The old name
TestFileExtonly appears in the CHANGELOG.md (documenting the rename) and in the migration-related files (recode.update.config.exand its test) where it's explicitly listed as a removed task - The new name
TestFileis consistently used across:- Configuration files (examples and test fixtures)
- Source implementation (
lib/recode/task/test_file.ex) - Tests (
test/recode/task/test_file_test.exs) - Documentation (README.md)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that TestFileExt has been completely renamed to TestFile
# Test 1: Check for any remaining references to the old name
echo "Checking for any remaining references to TestFileExt..."
rg "TestFileExt"
# Test 2: Verify the new name exists in expected locations
echo "Verifying new name exists in key files..."
rg "TestFile" "{CHANGELOG,README}.md" "mix.exs" "examples/my_code/.recode.exs"
Length of output: 754
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify more thoroughly with separate commands and proper error handling
# Check CHANGELOG.md and README.md separately
echo "Checking CHANGELOG.md..."
rg "TestFile" CHANGELOG.md || true
echo -e "\nChecking README.md..."
rg "TestFile" README.md || true
# Check for any source files containing TestFile
echo -e "\nChecking all source files for TestFile references..."
rg "TestFile" "lib/" "test/" || true
# List all task-related source files to ensure we haven't missed anything
echo -e "\nListing all task-related source files..."
fd "task" "lib/"
Length of output: 2327
lib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex (1)
35-35: LGTM: Clean integration of task removal step.
The new configuration transformation step is properly integrated into the existing pipeline, maintaining the functional composition pattern.
Let's verify the delete_tasks/2 function exists and has the correct signature:
✅ Verification successful
Function exists with correct signature and implementation
The delete_tasks/2 function is properly implemented in lib/recode/config.ex. It takes the expected parameters (config and tasks) and uses Keyword.update/4 and Keyword.drop/2 to remove the specified tasks from the configuration, which aligns perfectly with its intended usage in the pipeline.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the delete_tasks/2 function exists in Recode.Config module
ast-grep --pattern 'def delete_tasks(config, tasks) do
$$$
end'
Length of output: 344
recode.exs (1)
32-32: LGTM! Consider documenting migration steps.
The task renaming from TestFileExt to TestFile aligns with the changes documented in CHANGELOG.md and README.md.
Let's verify if there are any existing configurations that might need updates:
✅ Verification successful
The search results show that TestFileExt is properly handled in the codebase:
- It's documented in CHANGELOG.md
- It's listed in
@removed_tasksinlib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex, which suggests there's a migration mechanism - The test file shows it's being tested for migration scenarios
Let me verify the migration mechanism to ensure it's properly implemented:
The task renaming is properly handled with migration support
The change is safe as the codebase includes an automatic migration mechanism through mix recode.update.config task. This task:
- Identifies old configurations using
TestFileExt - Automatically removes it via
Recode.Config.delete_tasks(@removed_tasks) - Merges in the new configuration
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for any remaining references to the old task name
# that might need migration.
echo "Searching for old task name references..."
rg "TestFileExt" --type-add 'config:*.{ex,exs}'
Length of output: 426
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of the config update task
cat lib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex
Length of output: 1355
examples/my_code/.recode.exs (3)
34-34: Breaking Change: TestFileExt renamed to TestFile.
The task has been renamed from TestFileExt to TestFile. This is a breaking change that might affect other configuration files or documentation.
Let's check for any remaining references to the old name:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for remaining references to TestFileExt
echo "Searching for remaining references to TestFileExt:"
rg "TestFileExt" --type-add 'config:*.{ex,exs}' -t config -t md26-27: Verify configuration for new tasks.
Three new tasks have been added:
- LocalsWithoutParens
- Moduledoc
- UnnecessaryIfUnless
These tasks enhance code quality checks, but we should verify if they need additional configuration options.
Let's check for any example configurations or documentation for these tasks:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for documentation of new tasks
echo "Searching for documentation of new tasks:"
rg -A 10 "Task\.(LocalsWithoutParens|Moduledoc|UnnecessaryIfUnless)" --type-add 'docs:*.{ex,exs,md}' -t docsAlso applies to: 35-35
2-2: Verify implications of scanning the "priv" directory.
The input paths have been expanded to include the "priv" directory. While this increases code coverage, it's important to verify:
- Are there any performance implications of scanning additional files?
- Should all files in "priv" be subject to the same code quality rules?
Let's check the contents and size of the priv directory:
Also applies to: 14-14
lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex (2)
54-54: Verify the update_source helper implementation.
The change from direct source update to using the update_source helper suggests an additional abstraction layer. This aligns with the module's new corrector role, but we should verify the helper's implementation.
Let's check the implementation:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for the update_source implementation and its usage
# Test 1: Find the update_source implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'def update_source'
# Test 2: Check for other usages of update_source
rg "update_source" --type elixir38-38: Verify the impact of switching from checker to corrector mode.
The change from checker: true to checker: false indicates this task now focuses on fixing line length issues rather than just detecting them. This is a significant behavioral change that could affect how the task interacts with the codebase.
Let's verify the impact:
✅ Verification successful
The change from checker to corrector mode is appropriate and safe
The switch from checker: true to checker: false with corrector: true is correct for this task because:
- The task's purpose is to actively rewrite multiline expressions into single lines, which is inherently a correction operation
- The implementation uses
update_source/3to modify the AST, which aligns with corrector behavior - The task has proper validation and safety checks in place through the
validate/1function - The module's documentation clearly describes its transformative nature with concrete examples of the changes it makes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any test files or configurations that might need updates due to the behavior change
# Test 1: Look for test files related to this module
rg -l "EnforceLineLength" test/
# Test 2: Check for any configuration files that might reference this task
rg -l "enforce_line_length" config/
Length of output: 2331
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for test files and usages more thoroughly
# Check for test files related to enforce_line_length
rg -l "enforce_line_length" test/
# Check how other tasks are configured (checker vs corrector)
rg "use Recode.Task.*checker:" lib/recode/task/
# Check for any direct references to the task's checker functionality
rg "EnforceLineLength.*checker" --type elixir
# Look for documentation or specs related to this task
rg "enforce_line_length" lib/ -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 285
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation and test files more specifically
# Look for the test file with exact name matching the task
fd "enforce_line_length_test.exs" test/
# Check the task implementation details
cat lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex
# Look for any documentation about task types
rg "checker.*corrector|corrector.*checker" lib/recode/task.ex
# Check if there are any other similar tasks that were converted
rg "use Recode.Task.*corrector: true, checker: false" lib/recode/task/
Length of output: 2473
lib/recode/task/pipe_fun_one.ex (2)
25-32: Clean and well-structured pipeline refactoring!
The refactored implementation improves readability by using the pipe operator effectively and separating concerns. The code flow is now more explicit and easier to follow.
50-50: Verify the availability of new_issue function.
The code uses new_issue which should be available through use Recode.Task. Let's verify this.
✅ Verification successful
Let me verify if the module properly uses Recode.Task with one more check.
new_issue function is properly available
The verification confirms:
new_issue/2is defined inRecode.TaskmodulePipeFunOnemodule correctly usesuse Recode.Task- The function is available through the module behavior
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that new_issue is properly defined in Recode.Task
# and available to this module
# Check if new_issue is defined in Recode.Task
rg -A 5 "def new_issue" lib/recode/task.ex
# Check if it's properly imported in the using macro
rg -A 10 "defmacro __using__" lib/recode/task.ex
Length of output: 485
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the module uses Recode.Task
rg "use Recode.Task" lib/recode/task/pipe_fun_one.ex
Length of output: 113
lib/recode/task/io_inspect.ex (3)
23-23: LGTM: Passing complete opts map enhances flexibility
The change to pass the complete opts map to update improves modularity by providing access to all configuration options.
26-27: LGTM: Clean refactoring to standardized source update handling
The refactored update function elegantly delegates to the standardized update_source callback, improving consistency across tasks while maintaining clear intent.
68-68: LGTM: Standardized issue creation
The switch to new_issue aligns with the codebase-wide standardization of issue creation, improving consistency across task modules.
test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs (2)
41-46: LGTM! Configuration structure is well-defined.
The formatter options are properly structured with the new configuration format, maintaining consistency with the test assertions and providing good test coverage for the updated configuration handling.
Line range hint 1-85: Well-structured test suite with comprehensive coverage.
The test suite effectively covers all critical paths including:
- Basic functionality with the new configuration format
- Error handling for missing tasks
- Error handling for missing configuration
- Version compatibility checks
The changes maintain good test coverage while updating the configuration structure.
lib/recode/task/specs.ex (2)
Line range hint 1-89: Well-structured implementation with comprehensive spec checking.
The module demonstrates good design practices:
- Clear documentation with options
- Thorough handling of different cases (visibility levels, macros, implementations)
- Effective use of pattern matching for control flow
84-84: Verify the availability of new_issue/2 function.
The change from Issue.new/3 to new_issue/2 appears to be part of a broader refactoring of issue reporting. While the change itself looks correct, let's verify that new_issue/2 is properly imported.
✅ Verification successful
The new_issue/2 function is properly defined and widely used
The verification confirms that:
new_issue/2is defined inlib/recode/task.exas a callback and implemented function- It's being consistently used across multiple task modules in the codebase
- The implementation properly delegates to
Recode.Issue.new/3, maintaining the expected functionality
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the availability and usage of new_issue/2 function
# Expected: Should find the definition of new_issue/2 in the Recode.Task module or its dependencies
# Search for the definition of new_issue/2
ast-grep --pattern 'def new_issue($_, $_) do
$$$
end'
# Search for other usages of new_issue/2 to confirm consistent usage pattern
rg 'new_issue\(' --type elixir
Length of output: 1805
test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs (2)
42-52: LGTM! Well-structured test for rejection handling.
The test effectively verifies that the configuration remains unchanged when the user declines the update.
54-67: Verify task naming consistency across codebase.
The test references Recode.Task.TestFileExt, but according to the AI summary, this task is being renamed to Recode.Task.TestFile.
Let's verify the task naming across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
The test correctly verifies cleanup of removed tasks
The test is actually verifying the correct behavior. The evidence shows that:
Recode.Task.TestFileExtis explicitly listed in@removed_tasksinlib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex- The test writes a config with the old task name and verifies it gets cleaned up to the default config
- The CHANGELOG.md confirms the intentional rename from
TestFileExttoTestFile
This test is specifically designed to verify that the config updater properly handles cleaning up removed/renamed tasks, so using the old task name is intentional and correct.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for both old and new task names to ensure consistent renaming
echo "Searching for old task name (TestFileExt):"
rg "Recode\.Task\.TestFileExt"
echo -e "\nSearching for new task name (TestFile):"
rg "Recode\.Task\.TestFile"
Length of output: 1333
lib/recode/task/dbg.ex (3)
23-23: LGTM: Improved flexibility by passing complete options map
The change to pass the entire opts map instead of just the :autocorrect flag makes the code more maintainable and flexible.
81-82: Verify the new_issue/2 function implementation
The change from Issue.new to new_issue appears to be part of a broader refactoring. Let's verify the new function's implementation to ensure consistent behavior.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and implementation of new_issue/2
# Expected: Find the function definition and its usage pattern
# Search for the function definition
ast-grep --pattern 'def new_issue($_, $_)'
# Look for other usages to understand the pattern
rg 'new_issue\(' -A 226-27: Verify the existence of update_source/3 function
The refactoring to use update_source/3 improves code maintainability by consolidating the update logic. However, let's verify that this function exists and has the correct arity.
✅ Verification successful
The update_source/3 function exists and is properly defined
The verification shows that update_source/3 is defined in lib/recode/task.ex as a helper function available to all tasks through the use Recode.Task macro. The module Recode.Task.Dbg uses this macro (line 12: use Recode.Task), which makes the function available for use.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence of update_source/3 function
# Expected: Find the function definition in the codebase
# Search for the function definition
ast-grep --pattern 'def update_source($_, $_, $_)'
# Fallback to text search if ast-grep doesn't find it (in case it's a macro or defined differently)
rg 'def\s+update_source'
Length of output: 4023
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find update_source function
# Search for update_source with any number of arguments
rg 'def\s+update_source' -A 3
# Also search in the same file where update/3 is defined
fd 'dbg.ex' --exec cat {}
Length of output: 2891
lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (3)
22-22: LGTM: Alias change aligns with the refactoring.
The switch to DotFormatter is consistent with the module's functionality and the broader refactoring effort.
44-45: LGTM: Clean implementation of update function.
The new update/3 function provides a clean interface to update_source/3 and properly handles both the AST (via zipper) and issues.
35-42: Verify DotFormatter usage across the codebase.
The refactoring to use DotFormatter looks good, but let's verify its consistent usage across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
The DotFormatter usage is consistent and properly implemented
The verification shows that:
- DotFormatter is correctly aliased and used in the file under review
- DotFormatter is consistently used across the codebase in relevant files (runner, tests, and tasks)
- The old Format module is not referenced anywhere except in the documentation link to Mix.Tasks.Format
- The formatter options handling is consistent across the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent DotFormatter usage and potential Format references
# Check for any remaining references to the old Format module
rg -l "alias.*Format\s*$"
# Check for DotFormatter usage patterns
rg -l "DotFormatter.formatter_opts_for_file"
Length of output: 1587
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify DotFormatter usage more thoroughly
# Search for DotFormatter references
rg -l "DotFormatter"
# Search for any Format module references
rg -l "Format\."
# Look for formatter configuration related code
rg -l "formatter.*opts"
# Check the specific file for any Format or DotFormatter usage
cat lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex
Length of output: 2986
test/recode/task/test_file_test.exs (1)
1-5: LGTM! Clean and focused test module setup.
lib/recode/task/unnecessary_if_unless.ex (1)
35-35: LGTM! Good refactoring to use the shared helper.
The change to use update_source helps standardize source updates across tasks and reduces code duplication.
lib/mix/tasks/recode.help.ex (2)
73-78: LGTM! Well-formatted help message addition.
The new help message with colored formatting improves user experience by clearly indicating how to get task-specific help.
82-82: LGTM! Improved section header visibility.
The yellow reverse-video formatting enhances the visual hierarchy of the help output.
lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex (2)
59-59: LGTM: Configuration handling simplified
The addition of formatter_opts to the config is a clean approach that maintains formatting options throughout the pipeline.
Line range hint 1-108: Verify removal of Config module references
The AI summary indicates that Recode.FormatterPlugin.Config module was removed. Let's verify there are no remaining references to this module.
lib/recode/task/single_pipe.ex (1)
41-42: LGTM! Clean and focused implementation.
The new update function follows the single responsibility principle and makes the source update logic more maintainable.
mix.exs (4)
112-117: LGTM: Smart conditional dependency.
Good approach to exclude the freedom_formatter dependency in CI environment where it's not needed. This helps optimize CI build times.
105-105: Verify compatibility with rewrite 1.1.
The major version bump of the rewrite dependency (0.9 -> 1.1) might include breaking changes.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential breaking changes in rewrite dependency
# Test: Look for rewrite-specific function calls that might need updates
echo "Checking usage of rewrite functions..."
rg "Rewrite\." --type elixir68-68: Verify module rename impact.
The rename from Recode.Task.TestFileExt to Recode.Task.TestFile might be a breaking change if the module is used externally.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify module rename impact
# Test 1: Check for any remaining references to the old module name
echo "Checking for remaining references to TestFileExt..."
rg "TestFileExt"
# Test 2: Verify the new module exists
echo "Verifying new module file exists..."
fd "test_file.ex"4-4: Verify version bump implications.
The version bump from 0.7.3 to 0.8.0 suggests new features or breaking changes. Please ensure that:
- The CHANGELOG.md is updated with all significant changes
- Any breaking changes are clearly documented
✅ Verification successful
Version bump is properly documented and justified
The version bump from 0.7.3 to 0.8.0 is well documented in CHANGELOG.md with several significant changes:
- Integration with rewrite 1.0
- New callback implementations
- Module renaming
- Config update functionality
The changes justify a minor version bump according to SemVer, and all modifications are properly tracked in the changelog.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify version-related changes
# Test 1: Check if CHANGELOG.md exists and contains the new version
echo "Checking CHANGELOG.md for version 0.8.0..."
rg "## \[0\.8\.0\]" CHANGELOG.md
# Test 2: Check if README.md has been updated with any version-specific information
echo "Checking README.md for version 0.8.0..."
rg "0\.8\.0" README.md
Length of output: 638
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check CHANGELOG.md content specifically around version changes
echo "Checking CHANGELOG.md content..."
rg -B2 -A5 "## \[" CHANGELOG.md
# Check if there are any breaking changes mentioned
echo "Checking for breaking changes..."
rg -i "break" CHANGELOG.md
# Let's also check the Git history for commit messages that might indicate breaking changes
echo "Checking recent commit messages..."
git log --oneline -n 10
Length of output: 424
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's directly check the content of CHANGELOG.md
echo "Checking full content of CHANGELOG.md..."
cat CHANGELOG.md
# Also check the actual content of the version bump commit
echo -e "\nChecking version bump commit details..."
git show 5bbd74e
Length of output: 4273
lib/recode/task/unused_variable.ex (1)
23-23: LGTM: Good refactoring to use centralized update_source
The change simplifies the code by leveraging the shared update_source function, improving consistency across task modules.
lib/recode/task/alias_expansion.ex (2)
58-58: LGTM! Clean issue creation.
The change to use new_issue simplifies issue creation and reduces coupling with the Issue module, while maintaining clear error messaging.
32-32: LGTM! Verify callback implementation.
The change to use update_source aligns with the broader refactoring across task modules, providing a more standardized way to handle source updates and issues.
Let's verify the callback implementation:
✅ Verification successful
The update_source usage is correctly implemented and consistently used
The verification confirms:
- The callback is properly defined in
Recode.Taskwith correct type specifications - The implementation in
Recode.Taskprovides both the core function and a convenience macro for modules - The usage in
alias_expansion.exfollows the same pattern as other task modules, passingsource,opts, and updates (:quotedand:issues)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the update_source callback is properly implemented in the Recode.Task module
# and consistently used across other task modules.
# Test 1: Check the callback definition
rg -A 2 "@callback update_source"
# Test 2: Check the implementation
rg -A 5 "def update_source"
# Test 3: Check usage in other task modules
rg "update_source\(.*source.*opts.*\)"
Length of output: 2713
.github/workflows/ci.yml (3)
Line range hint 1-26: LGTM: Matrix configuration is well-structured
The matrix configuration provides good coverage across different Elixir and OTP versions, ensuring backward compatibility while testing against the latest versions.
27-53: LGTM: Matrix exclusions are comprehensive
The exclusions correctly prevent testing of incompatible Elixir-OTP version combinations, following Elixir's version compatibility matrix.
77-98: LGTM: Job steps and conditions are properly configured
The conditional checks are consistently applied to run specific quality checks (formatting, linting, coverage, dialyzer) only on the latest Elixir/OTP combination.
Note: The static analysis warnings about shell script syntax can be safely ignored as they are false positives. The ${{ }} syntax is the correct way to reference variables and expressions in GitHub Actions workflows.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint
81-81: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2209:warning:1:1: Use var=$(command) to assign output (or quote to assign string)
(shellcheck)
83-83: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2209:warning:1:1: Use var=$(command) to assign output (or quote to assign string)
(shellcheck)
test/support/recode_case.ex (2)
6-6: LGTM: Alias addition is well-placed
The new alias for Rewrite.DotFormatter is properly organized with other aliases and supports the new formatter configuration functionality.
107-107: Verify the impact of changing to keyword arguments
The modification from Source.Ex.from_string(string, path) to Source.Ex.from_string(string, path: path) is a breaking change that might affect other parts of the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for all usages of Source.Ex.from_string to get a complete picture.
No issues found with keyword argument change
The codebase scan shows that all existing calls to Source.Ex.from_string are already using the keyword argument style (path: path) or not passing a path parameter at all. The single call in test/support/recode_case.ex that appeared to use positional arguments is actually a different usage pattern where code is passed as a single argument. Therefore, this change aligns with the existing codebase conventions and doesn't introduce any breaking changes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other direct calls to Source.Ex.from_string to ensure they're updated
rg "Source\.Ex\.from_string\([^,]+,\s*[^:]+\)" --type elixir
Length of output: 144
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all calls to Source.Ex.from_string
rg "Source\.Ex\.from_string" -A 2 --type elixir
Length of output: 1107
CHANGELOG.md (2)
3-4: LGTM! Version header follows the established format.
The version header "0.8.0 - dev" maintains consistency with previous entries and correctly indicates this is a development version.
5-11: Consider adding the CI and Dialyzer changes.
The changelog entry is well-structured and uses consistent formatting. However, there appear to be some changes mentioned in the PR summary that are not reflected here:
- Updates to
.dialyzer_ignore.exsfor warning configurations - Changes to GitHub Actions CI configuration for Elixir and OTP versions
Consider adding these changes to maintain a complete record of modifications in this version.
lib/recode/task/filter_count.ex (3)
36-36: LGTM! Improved flexibility in options handling.
The change to pass the complete opts to update aligns with the codebase-wide consolidation of options handling, making the code more maintainable and flexible for future extensions.
39-40: LGTM! Clean refactoring to use centralized update logic.
The introduction of update_source follows a consistent pattern seen across other task modules, centralizing the source update logic and improving maintainability.
162-162: LGTM! Standardized issue creation.
The switch to new_issue aligns with the standardization of issue creation across the codebase, improving consistency and maintainability.
lib/recode/task/alias_order.ex (4)
31-31: LGTM: Proper propagation of options
The change correctly forwards the options to the implementation function.
43-49: LGTM: Consistent use of update_source
The autocorrect case properly adopts the new update_source pattern, maintaining consistency with the non-autocorrect implementation.
Line range hint 97-109: LGTM: Consistent issue creation pattern
Both implementations properly adopt the new new_issue pattern, improving consistency in issue creation across the module.
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the new_issue callback implementation exists
ast-grep --pattern 'defcallback new_issue(message, meta) :: issue'34-40: LGTM: Enhanced modularity with update_source
The refactor to use update_source improves the code's modularity while maintaining the same functionality.
✅ Verification successful
LGTM: Verified update_source implementation
The refactoring to use update_source is correct and well-implemented. The codebase shows:
update_source/3is a defined callback in theRecode.Taskbehaviour- A default implementation is provided through
use Recode.Task - The function is consistently used across multiple tasks including
alias_order.ex
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the update_source callback implementation exists
ast-grep --pattern 'defcallback update_source(source, opts, updates) :: source'
Length of output: 222
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for update_source function definition and usage
rg "update_source" -A 5
# Search for behaviour or protocol definitions related to source updates
rg "behaviour|protocol.*source" -A 5
# Search for any module attributes or specs related to update_source
rg "@(spec|callback).*update_source"
Length of output: 9936
lib/recode/config.ex (3)
97-98: LGTM! Documentation improvement.
The rephrasing improves clarity while maintaining accuracy.
43-43: Verify documentation for TestFileExt to TestFile migration.
The task rename from TestFileExt to TestFile might affect existing configurations. Ensure this change is documented in the changelog and migration guide.
#!/bin/bash
# Check for documentation of the task rename
echo "Checking README.md for task documentation..."
rg "TestFile" README.md
echo "Checking CHANGELOG.md for migration notes..."
rg "TestFileExt.*TestFile|Breaking Changes" CHANGELOG.md10-10: Verify the minimum version requirement.
Setting @config_min_version equal to the current @config_version ("0.8.0") might be overly restrictive. This means configurations from all 0.7.x versions will be considered out of date, potentially forcing unnecessary updates for compatible configurations.
Consider if a lower minimum version would be sufficient, especially if there haven't been breaking changes in the configuration structure.
Also applies to: 14-14
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about version-related changes.
Based on the git history and changes, I can now provide a final response:
Setting minimum version to 0.8.0 is justified due to breaking changes
The version bump from 0.7.3 to 0.8.0 includes significant breaking changes:
- Removal of default Format task functionality (
default_tasks/1function removed) - Removal of Format task alias and related helper functions
- Addition of new task management functionality (
delete_tasks/2) - Changes in task configuration handling
These architectural changes justify requiring config files to be at version 0.8.0 to ensure compatibility with the new task management system.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the changelog for breaking changes that justify this version requirement
rg -A 5 "breaking.*changes?" CHANGELOG.md
Length of output: 559
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check git history for changes between 0.7.x and 0.8.0 in config.ex
git log -p lib/recode/config.ex
# Also check for any migration guides or upgrade notes
rg -i "upgrade|migration|breaking" -g "*.md"
Length of output: 9369
test/recode/task/enforce_line_length_test.exs (3)
24-24: LGTM: Autocorrect option properly added
The addition of autocorrect: true is consistent with the test's purpose of verifying map formatting behavior.
Line range hint 32-513: LGTM: Consistent application of autocorrect option across test cases
The addition of autocorrect: true has been systematically applied across all test cases. The changes:
- Maintain the original test structure and assertions
- Are consistent with the module's purpose
- Cover a comprehensive range of Elixir code constructs (maps, lists, functions, case statements, etc.)
The systematic nature of these changes suggests this is part of a broader standardization effort for the EnforceLineLength task's behavior.
Line range hint 1-513: Verify documentation updates for autocorrect behavior
While the test changes are well-implemented, it would be good to ensure that the autocorrect option is properly documented in the task's documentation.
✅ Verification successful
Documentation for autocorrect behavior is sufficient
The autocorrect behavior is well documented across the codebase:
- The README.md clearly explains the autocorrect functionality and its usage with command-line flags
- The task module itself is marked with
use Recode.Task, corrector: trueindicating it's a corrector task - The module documentation provides clear examples of how the code transformations work
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the autocorrect option is documented
echo "Checking for autocorrect documentation in task module and docs..."
rg -l "autocorrect" "lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex" "docs/"
Length of output: 290
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of the enforce_line_length.ex file
echo "Checking enforce_line_length.ex for autocorrect documentation..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 "@moduledoc|@doc" "lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex"
# Also check if there's documentation in README or other common doc locations
echo -e "\nChecking README and other docs..."
fd -e md . | xargs rg -l "enforce.*length|autocorrect"
Length of output: 618
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of README and CHANGELOG for relevant documentation
echo "Checking README.md content..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 "enforce.*length|autocorrect" "README.md"
echo -e "\nChecking CHANGELOG.md content..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 "enforce.*length|autocorrect" "CHANGELOG.md"
# Let's also check the complete module documentation
echo -e "\nChecking complete module documentation..."
cat "lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex"
Length of output: 7626
test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs (3)
46-46: LGTM! Improved traceability with explicit update attribution.
The addition of the by option to Source.update calls consistently tracks the source of updates across all test cases. This enhancement improves debugging capabilities and provides better audit trails.
Also applies to: 86-86, 91-91, 136-137, 182-182, 206-206, 403-403
444-444: LGTM! Improved clarity in Issue metadata specification.
The explicit keyword list syntax for the meta option enhances code readability and follows Elixir's idiomatic style.
638-638: LGTM! Enhanced clarity with named arguments.
Converting the path parameter to a keyword argument in Source.Ex.from_string improves code clarity and maintainability. This change follows Elixir's best practices for using named arguments when their purpose might not be immediately obvious from context.
README.md (3)
38-38: LGTM! Task name update is consistent.
The renaming from TestFileExt to TestFile is properly reflected in the task list.
117-117: LGTM! Configuration example is updated correctly.
The task rename is properly reflected in the configuration example.
311-311: LGTM! Example output clearly demonstrates file extension requirements.
The example output effectively illustrates the file move operation from .ex to .exs for test files, which is a requirement for ExUnit to find and execute the tests.
Also applies to: 361-361
lib/recode/issue.ex (1)
29-42: Refactored new functions enhance flexibility and clarity
The updated new functions provide a more flexible and streamlined approach to creating Issue structs by consolidating parameters and leveraging keyword lists. This refactoring improves code readability and maintainability.
lib/recode/task.ex (1)
158-160: Ensure proper handling in recursive call of do_update_source/4
In the do_update_source/4 function, when matching on the :quoted key with a Zipper, it recursively calls itself after obtaining the root. Please verify that this recursion terminates correctly and doesn't introduce any unintended side effects.
Could you confirm that the recursive call behaves as expected and doesn't impact performance negatively?
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (8)
8-8: Appropriate Addition of Alias for Rewrite.DotFormatter
The alias Rewrite.DotFormatter is correctly added for clarity and to simplify references throughout the module.
58-58: Ensure dot_formatter is Passed Correctly to Source.format!
Passing the dot_formatter to Source.format! is appropriate. Confirm that dot_formatter contains the necessary configurations.
104-106: Passing dot_formatter to runner Function
Passing dot_formatter as an argument to runner ensures consistency in formatting across tasks.
138-142: Ensure Consistency in Task Execution Within runner/3
The runner/3 function correctly propagates the dot_formatter to each task. Ensure that all tasks are designed to utilize this formatter correctly.
168-169: Confirm error is Properly Captured in Issue Metadata
Including the error and task_module in the meta field enhances debugging. Ensure that error is serializable.
210-220: Ensure Correct Project Initialization Based on inputs
The logic correctly distinguishes between reading from stdin and initializing a project from files. Verify that dot_formatter() returns the expected formatter configurations.
160-162: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid Catching Broad Exceptions
Catching all exceptions may hide unexpected errors. Consider narrowing the rescue clauses to specific exceptions or rethrowing unknown ones after logging.
Apply this diff to adjust error handling:
error in ExUnit.AssertionError ->
reraise error, __STACKTRACE__
-error ->
+_ ->
Source.add_issue(
source,Likely invalid or redundant comment.
66-66: Verify All Tasks Accept :dot_formatter Option
When adding :dot_formatter to opts, ensure that all task modules' run/2 functions are compatible with this option to prevent unexpected errors.
Run the following script to verify task compatibility:
✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the task modules' run function definitions to verify if they can handle the :dot_formatter option being passed through.
:dot_formatter Option is Safe to Pass Through
Based on the analysis of all task modules' run/2 functions, this is safe because:
- Most tasks only use specific options they care about (like
:autocorrect,:max_depth, etc.) - The
locals_without_parenstask explicitly uses:dot_formatter, showing the option is already part of the system - Unused options in Elixir are safely ignored by pattern matching or
Keyword.get/3
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that all task modules accept the :dot_formatter option in their run/2 functions.
# Find all task modules and check for :dot_formatter in their run function definitions.
fd -e ex -I 'lib/recode/task' -x grep -Hn 'def run(.*opts' {} \; | while read -r line; do
file=$(echo "$line" | cut -d: -f1)
match=$(echo "$line" | grep -o ':dot_formatter')
if [ -z "$match" ]; then
echo "Warning: $file may not accept :dot_formatter in run/2"
fi
done
Length of output: 448
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find all task modules and check their run function definitions
fd -e ex . lib/recode/task --full-path -x rg -l 'def run\(' {} \; | while read -r file; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg -A 5 'def run\(' "$file"
done
Length of output: 5244
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
examples/my_code/.recode.exs (1)
13-17: Consider enhancing the inputs configuration documentation.While the documentation explains the new
:formatteroption, it could be more explicit about:
- The location and format of the
.formatter.exsfile- Whether this is the recommended approach over explicit paths
- Migration guide for users updating from explicit paths
- # Inputs can be a path, glob expression or list of paths and glob expressions. - # With the atom :formatter the inputs from .formatter.exs are - # used. also allowed in the list mentioned above. + # Inputs can be configured in three ways: + # 1. :formatter - Uses inputs from .formatter.exs (recommended) + # 2. "path/to/files/**/*.{ex,exs}" - Single glob pattern + # 3. ["path1/**/*.ex", "path2/**/*.exs"] - List of paths/patternslib/recode/runner/impl.ex (1)
325-332: Add documentation for the update_inputs functionConsider adding a function documentation explaining the special handling of the
:formatteratom and its relationship with dot_formatter.Add this documentation:
+ @doc """ + Updates the list of inputs by expanding the :formatter atom to include + paths from dot_formatter configuration when available. + """ defp update_inputs(inputs, dot_formatter) dotest/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (4)
19-30: Consider adding error handling for fixture copying.While the macro effectively encapsulates temporary directory setup, the
File.cp_r!/2call could raise an exception if the fixture doesn't exist. Consider usingFile.cp_r/2with error handling.- if fixture, do: "test/fixtures" |> Path.join(fixture) |> File.cp_r!(tmp_dir) + if fixture do + fixture_path = Path.join("test/fixtures", fixture) + case File.cp_r(fixture_path, tmp_dir) do + {:ok, _} -> :ok + {:error, reason} -> + raise "Failed to copy fixture #{fixture}: #{inspect(reason)}" + end + end
90-109: Consider adding more specific assertions for CLI options override.The test verifies the exit code and a partial string match. Consider adding assertions to verify that the CLI options properly override the task configuration.
assert {:ok, 1} = Runner.run(config) end) - assert strip_esc_seq(io) =~ "[AliasOrder 3/3] The alias `Alpha` is not" + io = strip_esc_seq(io) + assert io =~ "[AliasOrder 3/3] The alias `Alpha` is not" + # Verify CLI options override + assert io =~ "Running with autocorrect: false" + assert io =~ "Running in dry mode"
255-272: Enhance exception testing coverage.The test could be more thorough in verifying exception handling behavior.
io = capture_io(fn -> assert {:ok, 1} = Runner.run(config) end) - assert io =~ "Execution of the Recode.TaskMock task failed." + assert io =~ "Execution of the Recode.TaskMock task failed." + assert io =~ "An Exception Occurred" + assert io =~ ~r/lib\/recode\/runner\/impl_test\.exs:\d+/
434-440: Consider adding negative test cases for empty string handling.While the test covers empty string input, it could be expanded to cover more edge cases.
test "runs task with an empty string", context do in_tmp context do config = config(tasks: [{SinglePipe, []}]) assert Runner.run("", config, "source.ex") == "" + assert Runner.run(" \n ", config, "source.ex") == "\n" + assert Runner.run(nil, config, "source.ex") == "" end end
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
examples/my_code/mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/.recode.exs(2 hunks)lib/recode/config.ex(6 hunks)lib/recode/runner/impl.ex(8 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .dialyzer_ignore.exs
- lib/recode/config.ex
🔇 Additional comments (17)
examples/my_code/.recode.exs (3)
37-37: Verify migration path for renamed TestFile task.
The task has been renamed from TestFileExt to TestFile. Please ensure:
- This breaking change is documented in CHANGELOG.md
- A migration path is provided for users
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify documentation for renamed task
# Test 1: Search for migration documentation
echo "Checking CHANGELOG.md for rename documentation..."
rg "TestFileExt.*TestFile" CHANGELOG.md
# Test 2: Verify old task is completely removed
echo "Checking for remnants of old task name..."
rg "TestFileExt" --type elixir29-30: Verify documentation for new tasks.
Please ensure that documentation exists for the newly added tasks:
- LocalsWithoutParens
- Moduledoc
- UnnecessaryIfUnless
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify documentation for new tasks
# Test 1: Search for task documentation in README.md
echo "Checking README.md for task documentation..."
rg -A 10 "### (LocalsWithoutParens|Moduledoc|UnnecessaryIfUnless)" README.md
# Test 2: Search for task modules
echo "Checking for task module files..."
fd -e ex "(locals_without_parens|moduledoc|unnecessary_if_unless).ex" lib/recode/task/Also applies to: 38-38
2-2: Version 0.8.0 introduces breaking changes.
The version bump from 0.7.2 to 0.8.0 indicates breaking changes, including:
- Removal of Format tasks
- Renaming of TestFileExt to TestFile
- Changes in input configuration
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (11)
8-8: LGTM: Alias follows conventions
The addition of Rewrite.DotFormatter alias is appropriate as it's used extensively throughout the module.
17-28: LGTM: Consistent formatter configuration
The changes properly integrate the dot_formatter throughout the execution pipeline, ensuring consistent formatting configuration across all tasks.
51-54: Skip: Error handling comment already exists
A previous review already identified the need to handle potential errors from DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts.
112-114: LGTM: Consistent formatter propagation
The changes correctly propagate the dot_formatter through the task execution pipeline.
146-150: LGTM: Proper task execution setup
The runner function correctly passes the dot_formatter to each task execution.
Line range hint 154-177: LGTM: Enhanced error handling
The changes improve error reporting by including task-specific metadata in the error context, making debugging easier.
182-191: LGTM: Improved type safety
The changes add clear documentation and proper type checking for Source.Ex files.
234-240: Skip: Error handling improvement already suggested
A previous review already suggested improvements to the error handling in this function.
311-314: LGTM: Proper configuration update
The changes correctly propagate the dot_formatter through the configuration update process.
317-322: LGTM: Clean task configuration update
The function properly handles task configuration updates and glob compilation.
216-232: Consider handling potential errors in stdin reading
The stdin reading process could benefit from error handling for cases where the input stream is interrupted or contains invalid data.
Consider adding error handling:
- stdin = IO.stream(:stdio, :line) |> Enum.to_list() |> IO.iodata_to_binary()
+ stdin = try do
+ IO.stream(:stdio, :line) |> Enum.to_list() |> IO.iodata_to_binary()
+ rescue
+ e in File.Error -> Mix.raise("Failed to read from stdin: #{Exception.message(e)}")
+ endtest/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (3)
12-12: LGTM!
The new alias is appropriately placed and follows the module naming convention.
32-45: LGTM! Well-structured configuration handling.
The default configuration and merge function provide a clean and maintainable way to handle test configurations.
479-515: LGTM! Well-structured conditional test for FreedomFormatter.
The test properly handles the conditional feature check and thoroughly tests the formatter plugin integration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (15)
test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs (1)
42-47: Consider adding edge cases to strengthen test coverageThe formatter options structure is correct and consistent with the assertions. However, consider adding test cases for:
- Empty task lists
- Multiple tasks in the configuration
- Invalid task configurations
Example test case structure:
test "handles multiple tasks in configuration" do formatter_opts = [ locals_without_parens: [foo: 2], recode: [tasks: [{SinglePipe, []}, {AnotherTask, [option: :value]}]] ] # Add appropriate assertions endlib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex (1)
84-86: Document the manifest configuration changeThe addition of
manifest: falseto the config is a significant behavior change that should be documented. Consider adding a comment explaining why manifest is disabled and its implications for users.defp init_config(config) do + # Disable manifest to prevent caching as formatter plugins require fresh runs config |> Keyword.put(:manifest, false)test/support/recode_case.ex (1)
122-122: LGTM: Good default handling for dot_formatterThe addition of a default value for
:dot_formatterensures consistent behavior and prevents potential nil issues.Consider adding a test case to verify that the default dot_formatter is properly applied when not provided in the options.
test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs (3)
100-115: LGTM: Well-structured test for default configurationThe test effectively verifies default configuration values in an isolated environment. Consider adding a brief @moduledoc or @doc to explain the purpose of using temporary directory context.
@tag :tmp_dir +@doc """ +Verifies that default configuration is correctly read from .recode.exs +when no command-line arguments are provided. +""" test "reads default config", context do
117-135: Consider using a more descriptive test nameThe test effectively verifies custom configuration reading, but its name could be more specific about what it's testing.
- test "reads config", context do + test "reads custom config with overridden values", context do
137-152: Consider adding assertions for unchanged config valuesWhile the test effectively verifies that the --manifest flag overrides the configuration file value, it would be more comprehensive to assert that other configuration values remain unchanged.
expect(RunnerMock, :run, fn config -> assert Keyword.keyword?(config) assert config[:manifest] == true + # Verify other config values remain unchanged + assert config[:verbose] == false + assert config[:debug] == false {:ok, 0} end)lib/recode/config.ex (2)
10-14: Consider maintaining backward compatibility with previous config versions.Setting
@config_min_versionequal to the current version (0.8.0) forces all users to update their configs immediately. Consider keeping a lower minimum version to allow for a smoother transition period, especially if the changes aren't strictly breaking.
148-156: Consider adding a more specific typespec for the tasks parameter.The
tasksparameter typespec could be more specific. Instead of just[module()], consider specifying that it should be a list of valid task modules.- @spec delete_tasks(config, [module()]) :: config + @spec delete_tasks(config, [module() | {module(), keyword()}]) :: configlib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (1)
94-103: Consider improving pipeline readability.While the logic is correct, the pipeline could be more readable with consistent indentation and grouping of related operations.
Consider this formatting:
opts = opts |> Keyword.get(:config, ".recode.exs") - |> read_config!() - |> validate_config!() - |> validate_tasks!() - |> update_task_configs!() - |> merge_opts(opts) - |> Keyword.put(:cli_opts, cli_tasks(opts)) - |> update_verbose() - |> update_manifest(opts) - |> put(opts, :debug, false) - |> put(opts, :force, false) + |> read_config!() + |> validate_config!() + |> validate_tasks!() + |> update_task_configs!() + |> merge_opts(opts) + |> Keyword.put(:cli_opts, cli_tasks(opts)) + # Update flags + |> update_verbose() + |> update_manifest(opts) + |> put(opts, :debug, false) + |> put(opts, :force, false)lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex (1)
161-175: LGTM with a minor suggestionThe changes improve the statistics output by:
- Handling empty file stats gracefully
- Adding excluded files information
- Using clean string formatting
Consider using string interpolation for better readability:
- processed = "Files processed: #{Enum.count(project)} " + processed = "Files processed: #{Enum.count(project)}" + stats_output = [processed, file_stats, excluded] + |> Enum.reject(&(&1 == "")) + |> Enum.join(" ") - Escape.puts([:info, processed, file_stats, excluded], config) + Escape.puts([:info, stats_output], config)This refactor:
- Removes trailing whitespace
- Makes the string concatenation more explicit
- Automatically handles empty segments
test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (3)
155-155: Fix typo in test nameThe test name contains a typo: "aditional" should be "additional"
- test "runs task with the right aditional config", context do + test "runs task with the right additional config", context do
253-259: Consider making the error assertion more specificThe error message assertion could be more specific to ensure the exact error message format is maintained.
- assert io =~ "Execution of the Recode.TaskMock task failed." + assert io =~ ~r/Execution of the Recode\.TaskMock task failed\./
316-359: Consider adding documentation for FreedomFormatter integrationThe conditional test for FreedomFormatter integration would benefit from a brief comment explaining why the feature check is necessary and what the plugin does.
+ # FreedomFormatter is an optional plugin that provides additional formatting features. + # We only run these tests when the plugin is available. if function_exported?(FreedomFormatter, :features, 1) dolib/recode/runner/impl.ex (2)
219-231: Review Exception Handling for Unexpected ErrorsCapturing all exceptions in the
rescueblock may mask critical issues. Consider refining the error handling to differentiate between recoverable and non-recoverable errors.
310-315: Consider Enhanced Error Messages When Reading.formatter.exsProviding more informative error messages can help users diagnose issues with their formatter configuration.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs(1 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex(7 hunks)lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex(3 hunks)lib/recode/config.ex(7 hunks)lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/runner/impl.ex(9 hunks)test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs(22 hunks)test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(2 hunks)test/support/recode_case.ex(4 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .dialyzer_ignore.exs
- test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs
🔇 Additional comments (31)
test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs (1)
27-31: LGTM: Config assertion structure is correct
The assertion properly validates the new configuration format, ensuring that formatter options are correctly passed to the runner with the expected structure.
lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex (2)
59-59: LGTM: Clean approach to passing formatter options
The addition of formatter options to the config is a sensible change that ensures formatting preferences are consistently available throughout the process.
Line range hint 1-40: Verify moduledoc examples are up to date
The module documentation contains configuration examples. Let's verify they are still valid with the recent changes.
✅ Verification successful
Documentation examples are valid and consistent with current implementation
The moduledoc examples in FormatterPlugin are accurate and reflect the current implementation:
- The configuration structure showing
tasks: [{Recode.Task.*, []}]matches the pattern used in tests - The
.recode.exsconfiguration file is still the default as evidenced by its usage across the codebase - The example tasks mentioned (AliasExpansion, EnforceLineLength, SinglePipe) follow the same structure as test configurations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the example configurations in the documentation are still valid
# by looking for any recent changes in configuration handling or example files
# Look for configuration-related changes in the codebase
echo "Checking for configuration-related changes..."
rg -l "\.recode\.exs" --type elixir
# Look for example configurations in documentation or test files
echo "Checking for example configurations..."
rg "^\s*\[.*tasks:" --type elixir
Length of output: 566
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual configuration structure and tasks in use
# Check the configuration structure in tests and implementation
echo "Checking configuration structure in tests..."
rg "tasks: \[.*Recode\.Task\." -B 1 -A 3 --type elixir
# Check the actual task modules available
echo "Checking available task modules..."
fd "task" --type f --extension ex --exec head -n 20 {}
# Check for any example configurations in test files
echo "Checking test configurations..."
rg "config = \[" -A 5 --type elixir test/
Length of output: 2507
test/support/recode_case.ex (1)
6-6: LGTM: Alias addition is appropriate
The new alias for Rewrite.DotFormatter is well-placed and supports the DotFormatter usage in the module.
test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs (1)
15-16: LGTM: Config assertions are properly added
The new assertions for :verbose and :manifest configuration options appropriately verify the default values.
lib/recode/config.ex (4)
86-93: LGTM! Documentation updates are clear and comprehensive.
The added documentation for the manifest configuration and updated inputs description provide clear guidance for users.
113-114: LGTM! Documentation clarification is helpful.
The rephrased documentation better explains the merge behavior, particularly regarding version handling.
169-169: LGTM! Consistent manifest configuration handling.
Good use of put_new to maintain existing values while ensuring the manifest configuration is present.
36-38: Verify the impact of changing default inputs to :formatter.
The default inputs configuration has changed from a list of patterns to the atom :formatter. This is a significant change that relies on the presence of a .formatter.exs file.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about this change by checking the codebase for related functionality and documentation.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide a final response:
The change to :formatter input is safe and well-documented
The change aligns with the tool's integration with the Elixir formatter ecosystem. The test files show proper handling of :formatter input, and the example configuration demonstrates this is the intended default. The change is safe because:
- It's documented in the example configuration
- Test coverage exists for
.formatter.exsintegration - The tool supports both
:formatterand explicit patterns (can use[:formatter, "custom/path/**/*.ex"]) - No breaking changes are mentioned in the changelog regarding this change
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if this change might affect existing projects
# Look for .recode.exs files and their inputs configuration
rg -g ".recode.exs" "inputs:"
Length of output: 78
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for documentation or comments about inputs configuration
rg -g "*.{ex,exs,md}" -B 2 -A 2 "inputs.*:formatter"
# Look for any code handling the inputs configuration
ast-grep --pattern 'def $_ do
$$$
inputs
$$$
end'
# Check for any migration guides or changelog entries
fd "CHANGELOG.md|README.md" --exec cat {}
Length of output: 21151
lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (7)
39-47: Documentation looks good!
The new options are well-documented with clear explanations of their default values and behavior.
61-65: Option definitions are correct!
The new boolean options are properly defined in the strict options list.
120-128: Option merging is correctly implemented!
The manifest option is properly included in the list of merged options.
Line range hint 139-152: Good refactoring of task handling!
The new cli_tasks function provides a clearer implementation compared to the previous acc_tasks.
153-153: Good function rename!
read_config! is a more descriptive name than the previous config!.
243-254: Consider making manifest option handling more explicit.
The current implementation determines manifest eligibility by dropping specific options, but this approach might be fragile if new CLI options are added in the future.
Consider maintaining an explicit list of options that should affect manifest behavior, making it easier to maintain and understand:
- opts? = Keyword.drop(opts, [:dry, :verbose, :manifest, :autocorrect, :force]) == []
+ @manifest_affecting_options [:task, :slowest_tasks, :config]
+ opts? = not Enum.any?(@manifest_affecting_options, &Keyword.has_key?(opts, &1))256-258: Good utility function implementation!
The put function provides a clean way to set config values with defaults.
lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex (2)
81-84: LGTM: Improved finish message condition
The updated condition correctly handles both empty projects and excluded files, preventing unnecessary output when there's nothing to report.
Line range hint 116-124: LGTM: Consistent handling of empty projects
The condition matches the behavior in the :finished handler, maintaining consistency in how empty projects are handled throughout the formatter.
test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (2)
19-33: Well-structured configuration setup!
The default configuration and merging function provide a clean and maintainable way to handle test configurations. The approach follows Elixir best practices and reduces code duplication across tests.
Line range hint 1-502: Well-structured and comprehensive test suite!
The test suite demonstrates excellent organization with:
- Consistent use of fixtures and temporary directory management
- Comprehensive coverage of success and error scenarios
- Clear separation of concerns between different test cases
- Good use of mocking and IO capture for assertions
The changes have improved the maintainability and reliability of the test suite.
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (11)
8-14: Recode.Manifest.write/2 Function Implementation Looks Good
The logic for writing the manifest file is correct and follows best practices for conditional file operations.
16-25: Recode.Manifest.read/1 Function Handles File Reading Appropriately
The function correctly reads the manifest file and returns nil when the file is not present, which is acceptable for the intended use.
27-32: Recode.Manifest.timestamp/0 Function Is Properly Implemented
The function accurately retrieves the modification time of the manifest file, defaulting to 0 if the file does not exist.
34-35: Recode.Manifest.path/0 Function Correctly Determines the Manifest File Path
The path construction using Mix.Project.manifest_path() and @manifest is appropriate.
42-50: Efficient Accumulation in paths_with_issue/2 Function
The use of Enum.reduce to collect source paths with issues or updates is effective.
105-108: Handle Potential Errors When Creating dot_formatter
The function DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts/2 may return an {:error, reason} tuple if the formatter options are invalid. Adding error handling ensures robustness.
Line range hint 166-175: Parallel Task Execution in run_tasks/3 Is Well-Structured
Utilizing Task.Supervisor.async_stream for concurrent processing of sources enhances performance.
309-316: Improve Error Handling in dot_formatter/0 Function
Ensure the error message provides sufficient context when raising an error to aid in debugging issues related to .formatter.exs.
386-389: Configuration Update Logic in update_config/2 Is Sound
The updates to tasks and inputs configurations using update_tasks/1 and update_inputs/2 are implemented correctly.
393-399: Glob Patterns Compiled Successfully in update_tasks/1
Compiling exclude globs ensures efficient file matching and exclusion during task execution.
400-407: Input Sources Updated Appropriately in update_inputs/2
The function correctly handles inputs, including when :formatter is specified, by retrieving inputs from dot_formatter.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (2)
27-34: Consider making manifest path configurableThe manifest path is currently hardcoded. Consider making it configurable through the project configuration while keeping the current path as default.
Apply this diff:
-@manifest "recode.issues" +@default_manifest "recode.issues" +def path(config \\ []) do + manifest = Keyword.get(config, :manifest_path, @default_manifest) + Path.join(Mix.Project.manifest_path(), manifest) +end -def path, do: Path.join(Mix.Project.manifest_path(), @manifest)
233-241: Add documentation for the exclude? functionThe function's purpose and behavior should be documented, especially since it handles different source types.
Add documentation above the function:
+ @doc """ + Determines if a task should be excluded for a given source. + + Currently, only Source.Ex files are processed, all other source types are excluded. + For Source.Ex files, the exclusion is determined by matching the source path against + the configured glob patterns. + """ defp exclude?(task, %Source{filetype: %Source.Ex{}} = source, config) do config |> config(task, :exclude) |> Enum.any?(fn glob -> GlobEx.match?(glob, source.path) end) end
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
examples/my_code/lib/mix/tasks/backup.ex (3)
2-4: Enhance module documentation with usage examples and more details.The current documentation is quite brief. Consider adding:
- Usage examples for both backup and restore operations
- Description of what files are included/excluded
- Location and format of the backup file
Example enhancement:
@moduledoc """ Creates and restores a backup of the current project. + + ## Usage + + # Create a backup + mix backup + + # Restore from backup + mix backup --restore + + The backup includes all files from the following directories: + #{Enum.join(@dirs, ", ")} + + The backup is stored in `#{@backup}` in the project root. """
7-9: Consider making backup configuration more flexible.The directories list and backup filename are hardcoded. Consider making these configurable through:
- Mix project configuration
- Command-line arguments
- Environment variables
35-37: Enhance error message with usage information.The error message could be more helpful by including complete usage information.
def run(_) do - Mix.raise("Invalid arguments, expected: mix backup [--restore]") + Mix.raise(""" + Invalid arguments + + Usage: + mix backup # Create a backup + mix backup --restore # Restore from backup + """) end
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
examples/my_code/backup.binis excluded by!**/*.binexamples/my_code/scripts/backup.binis excluded by!**/*.bin
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
examples/my_code/lib/mix/tasks/backup.ex(1 hunks)examples/my_code/mix.exs(2 hunks)examples/my_code/scripts/backup.exs(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- examples/my_code/scripts/backup.exs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- examples/my_code/mix.exs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
examples/my_code/README.md (2)
5-5: Fix grammar: "backup" vs "back up"The word "backup" is a noun, while "back up" (with a space) is the correct verb form.
-The project provides a mix task to backup and restore the source code: +The project provides a mix task to back up and restore the source code:🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~5-~5: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a space.
Context: ...e. The project provides a mix task to backup and restore the source code: *mix ...(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
7-9: Improve formatting and grammar in command examplesThe list formatting needs consistent indentation, and the verb form of "backup" needs correction.
- * `mix backup` to backup the source code - - * `mix backup --restore` to write the backup back +* `mix backup` to back up the source code + +* `mix backup --restore` to write the backup back🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~7-~7: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a white space.
Context: ...e the source code: *mix backupto backup the source code * `mix backup --rest...(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
🪛 Markdownlint
7-7: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
9-9: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
examples/my_code/README.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
examples/my_code/README.md
[grammar] ~5-~5: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a space.
Context: ...e. The project provides a mix task to backup and restore the source code: * mix ...
(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
[grammar] ~7-~7: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a white space.
Context: ...e the source code: * mix backup to backup the source code * `mix backup --rest...
(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
🪛 Markdownlint
examples/my_code/README.md
7-7: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
9-9: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
mix.exs (1)
114-119: Consider documenting the CI-specific dependencyThe conditional inclusion of freedom_formatter based on CI environment is a good practice for development dependencies. However, consider:
- Adding a comment explaining why this dependency is excluded in CI
- Moving this logic to a separate private function for better maintainability
defp deps do [ # ... other deps ... ] ++ - if System.get_env("CI") == "true" do - [] - else - [{:freedom_formatter, "~> 2.1", only: :test}] - end + development_deps() end +# Skip freedom_formatter in CI to avoid unnecessary dependency installation +defp development_deps do + if System.get_env("CI") == "true" do + [] + else + [{:freedom_formatter, "~> 2.1", only: :test}] + end +endREADME.md (1)
Line range hint
139-400: Enhance example outputs with annotationsWhile the example outputs are comprehensive, they could benefit from brief annotations explaining key parts of the output format to help new users understand what they're looking at (e.g., what the dots and exclamation marks mean in the progress indicator).
Consider adding a legend or brief explanation before the example outputs:
> mix recode --dry --no-color --no-manifest +# Output legend: +# . = Task completed without issues +# ! = Task found issues +# Progress indicator shows real-time status of tasks being processed + Read 24 files in 0.01s🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
323-323: null
Fenced code blocks should have a language specified(MD040, fenced-code-language)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
CHANGELOG.md(2 hunks)README.md(10 hunks)mix.exs(4 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- CHANGELOG.md
🔇 Additional comments (5)
mix.exs (3)
49-53: Documentation configuration issues already noted
A previous review has already identified the documentation configuration issues.
107-107: Verify compatibility with rewrite 1.1
The major version bump of the rewrite dependency (0.9 -> 1.1) might introduce breaking changes.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check rewrite changelog for breaking changes
# Fetch the rewrite package information
curl -s https://hex.pm/api/packages/rewrite | jq '.releases[] | select(.version | startswith("1.1"))'4-6: Verify version bump compatibility
The version bump from 0.7.3 to 0.8.0 indicates significant changes. Please ensure:
- All breaking changes are documented in CHANGELOG.md
- The version follows semantic versioning guidelines
✅ Verification successful
Version bump is well-documented and appropriate
The version bump from 0.7.3 to 0.8.0 is properly documented in CHANGELOG.md with clear breaking changes:
- Renamed
Recode.Task.TestFileExttoRecode.Task.TestFile - Added new callbacks and implementations
- Updated configuration command behavior
- Upgraded dependency
Rewriteto version~> 1.0
These changes justify a major version increment according to semantic versioning principles.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify version bump documentation
# Check CHANGELOG.md for 0.8.0 entry and breaking changes
rg -A 10 "## \[0\.8\.0\]"
Length of output: 27
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if CHANGELOG.md exists and examine its content
cat CHANGELOG.md
Length of output: 3655
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check git history for version-related commits
git log --grep="version" --grep="bump" -i --pretty=format:"%h %s" -n 5
Length of output: 89
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the previous version in git history
git grep -h "version" -- "*mix.exs" $(git rev-parse HEAD^)
Length of output: 203
README.md (2)
38-38: LGTM: Corrector renaming is consistent
The renaming from TestFileExt to TestFile is properly reflected in the task list.
495-518: LGTM: Well-structured section on code style
The new section on code style and formatting effectively:
- Acknowledges the subjective nature of formatting preferences
- Emphasizes the goal of maintainability
- Encourages informed decision-making
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (13)
examples/minimal/test/minimal_test.exs (1)
5-7: Consider expanding test coverageWhile the basic functionality is tested, consider adding test cases for:
- Error conditions (if any)
- Edge cases
- Different input variations (if the function accepts parameters)
lib/recode/timestamp.ex (1)
1-2: Consider adding internal documentation.While
@moduledoc falseis appropriate for internal modules, adding a brief module description in a comment would help other developers understand its purpose and usage within the codebase.defmodule Recode.Timestamp do @moduledoc false + # Internal module for handling file timestamps used by Recode.Task.TestFile + # and other file-related tasks.examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex (1)
1-4: Consider enhancing the module documentationWhile the documentation is present, it could be more descriptive about its purpose as a minimal example. Consider adding a brief explanation of what this example demonstrates.
defmodule Minimal do @moduledoc """ - Documentation for `Minimal`. + Documentation for `Minimal`. + + This module serves as a minimal example demonstrating the basic structure + of an Elixir module with documentation and specs. """examples/minimal/mix.exs (1)
8-8: Consider a more inclusive Elixir version requirementThe current requirement of
"~> 1.17"might be too restrictive for an example project, as Elixir 1.17 was only recently released (January 2024). Consider using">= 1.14.0"or"~> 1.14"to support a broader range of Elixir versions while still maintaining modern language features.- elixir: "~> 1.17", + elixir: ">= 1.14.0",test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (2)
44-52: Consider adding more edge casesWhile the test is clear and focused, consider adding more edge cases such as:
- Multiple function calls on the same line
- Function calls as arguments to other functions
- Function calls in different contexts (guards, comprehensions, etc.)
54-62: Add documentation explaining the special caseConsider adding a comment explaining why function definitions are a special case and why no
dot_formatteris needed. This would help future maintainers understand the test's purpose.+ # Function definitions should not trigger locals_without_parens issues + # regardless of dot_formatter configuration test "adds no issue for dev" dolib/recode/manifest.ex (3)
1-17: Consider making the manifest filename configurableThe manifest filename is hardcoded as "recode.issues". Consider making this configurable through the application configuration to allow users to customize it if needed.
- @manifest "recode.issues" + @manifest Application.compile_env(:recode, :manifest_filename, "recode.issues")Consider structuring the documentation as module docs
The detailed inline documentation about the manifest file format would be more discoverable as proper module documentation, even for internal modules.
- @moduledoc false + @moduledoc """ + Handles reading and writing of manifest files. + + The manifest file structure: + - First line: Name of the last used configuration file + - Following lines: List of files that have issues + + In case of a dry run, updated files are also included in the manifest. + """
60-68: Preserve file order in files_with_issue/2The current implementation reverses the order of files due to list construction with the
|operator. Consider using++to maintain the original order.defp files_with_issue(project, dry) do Enum.reduce(project, [], fn source, acc -> if Source.has_issues?(source) or (dry and Source.updated?(source)) do - [source.path | acc] + acc ++ [source.path] else acc end end) endAlternatively, for better performance, keep using
|and reverse the final result:defp files_with_issue(project, dry) do Enum.reduce(project, [], fn source, acc -> if Source.has_issues?(source) or (dry and Source.updated?(source)) do [source.path | acc] else acc end - end) + end) + |> Enum.reverse() end
70-70: Add config validation in get_cli_opts/3The function assumes the config map has a valid structure. Consider adding validation to prevent runtime errors.
- defp get_cli_opts(config, key, default), do: config[:cli_opts][key] || default + defp get_cli_opts(config, key, default) do + with {:ok, cli_opts} <- Map.fetch(config || %{}, :cli_opts), + true <- is_map(cli_opts) do + Map.get(cli_opts, key, default) + else + _ -> default + end + endexamples/minimal/.recode.exs (1)
32-32: Consider consolidating exclusion patterns.The same exclusion pattern
["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"]is repeated in multiple task configurations. Consider defining it once at the top level or in a variable to maintain DRY principles.Example refactor:
[ version: "0.8.0", + # Common exclusion patterns + common_excludes = ["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"], ... tasks: [ ... - {Recode.Task.Moduledoc, [exclude: ["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"]]}, + {Recode.Task.Moduledoc, [exclude: common_excludes]}, ... - {Recode.Task.Specs, [exclude: ["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"], config: [only: :visible]]}, + {Recode.Task.Specs, [exclude: common_excludes, config: [only: :visible]]}, ... ] ]Also applies to: 36-36
lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (1)
54-61: Consider enhancing the error messageWhile the implementation is correct, the error message "Unnecessary parens" could be more descriptive to help developers understand why the parens are unnecessary.
Consider this improvement:
- issue = new_issue("Unnecessary parens", meta) + issue = new_issue("Unnecessary parentheses for function that is marked as locals_without_parens", meta)test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs (2)
100-115: LGTM: Well-structured test for default configurationThe test effectively verifies default configuration reading with proper isolation using a temporary directory. Consider adding a brief doc comment explaining the purpose of this test case.
@tag :tmp_dir +@doc """ +Verifies that the default configuration is correctly read when no arguments +are provided and a default .recode.exs file exists. +""" test "reads default config", context do
Line range hint
1-152: Consider adding error handling test casesWhile the current test coverage for configuration handling is good, consider adding test cases for:
- Malformed configuration files
- Invalid configuration values
- File permission issues when reading/writing .recode.exs
This would ensure robust error handling in the configuration management system.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
examples/minimal/mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (21)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs(1 hunks)CHANGELOG.md(2 hunks)examples/minimal/.formatter.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/.gitignore(1 hunks)examples/minimal/.recode.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/README.md(1 hunks)examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex(1 hunks)examples/minimal/mix.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/test/minimal_test.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/test/test_helper.exs(1 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex(7 hunks)lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex(4 hunks)lib/recode/config.ex(8 hunks)lib/recode/manifest.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/runner/impl.ex(9 hunks)lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/timestamp.ex(1 hunks)mix.exs(4 hunks)test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs(22 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)
- examples/minimal/.formatter.exs
- examples/minimal/.gitignore
- examples/minimal/test/test_helper.exs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- .dialyzer_ignore.exs
- CHANGELOG.md
- lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex
- lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex
- test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
mix.exs (1)
Learnt from: NickNeck
PR: hrzndhrn/recode#97
File: mix.exs:69-69
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T15:46:36.333Z
Learning: When a module is renamed, references to the old module name in tests like `test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs` may be intentionally kept to simulate updating old configurations and should not be flagged.
🪛 Markdownlint
examples/minimal/README.md
3-3: null
Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
🔇 Additional comments (39)
examples/minimal/test/minimal_test.exs (3)
1-2: LGTM: Module setup follows conventions
The module declaration and ExUnit setup follow standard Elixir testing conventions.
1-8: Verify compliance with TestFile task requirements
The file follows the required naming convention (*_test.exs) and is correctly located in a test directory, complying with the new TestFile task requirements mentioned in the PR summary.
✅ Verification successful
Test file location and naming pattern verified successfully
The file examples/minimal/test/minimal_test.exs follows the correct naming pattern (*_test.exs) and is properly located in the test directory, confirming compliance with the TestFile task requirements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test file location and naming pattern
# Expected: File should be in a test directory and follow *_test.exs pattern
# Check if the file follows the correct pattern and location
find examples/minimal -type f -name "*_test.exs" | grep "test/"
Length of output: 102
3-3: Verify presence of doctests in Minimal module
The inclusion of doctest Minimal implies that the Minimal module should contain documented examples in its function documentation.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another search strategy to verify the presence of doctests.
Let me get the complete doctest example to ensure it's properly formatted.
Doctest inclusion is appropriate
The Minimal module contains a properly formatted doctest in the hello/0 function documentation, demonstrating the expected behavior:
iex> Minimal.hello()
:world🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if Minimal module contains any doctests
# Expected: Find @doc or @moduledoc attributes with example code blocks
rg -U '@doc|@moduledoc' examples/minimal/lib/
Length of output: 102
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check content of Minimal module for any documentation
rg -U "defmodule Minimal" -A 10 examples/minimal/lib/
Length of output: 552
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the complete function documentation including the doctest
rg -U "@doc" -A 15 examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex
Length of output: 199
lib/recode/timestamp.ex (1)
4-9: Verify the impact of error cases in TestFile tasks.
Since this module is used by Recode.Task.TestFile, we should verify how the error case (returning 0) affects the file validation logic.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response as I have enough context about how the timestamp is used in the codebase.
The error case (returning 0) in Timestamp.for_file/1 is appropriate and safe
The timestamp is used in two contexts:
- In
Manifest.timestamp/0to track manifest file changes - In
Runner.Implfor comparing file modification times to determine if files need processing
Returning 0 for error cases is actually beneficial because:
- In manifest comparison, a zero timestamp will trigger a rebuild which is the safe fallback
- In the runner's file comparison logic (
timestamp > config_timestamp), a zero timestamp will evaluate to false, ensuring the file gets processed
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how TestFile uses the timestamp to understand the impact of error cases
# Search for usage of Timestamp.for_file
rg -A 10 "Timestamp.for_file"
# Look for TestFile implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'defmodule Recode.Task.TestFile do
$$$
'
Length of output: 6172
examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex (2)
6-15: LGTM! Well-documented function
The function documentation is excellent, including:
- Clear description
- Properly formatted example
- Correct type specification
16-18: LGTM! Clean implementation
The implementation is clean, matches the specification, and serves its purpose as a minimal example.
examples/minimal/mix.exs (2)
14-19: LGTM!
The application configuration is appropriately minimal for an example project, including only the essential logger application.
21-26: Add a clarifying comment for the recode dependency
Consider adding a comment to clarify that this is an example configuration and the relative path is specific to this example's location within the recode project.
Let's verify the relative path points to the correct location:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the project structure to better understand the dependency path.
Let me verify the recode project details from the root mix.exs file to confirm this is indeed the correct setup.
Based on the verification results, I can now provide the final response:
The relative path ../.. in the dependency configuration is correct
The root mix.exs file confirms this is the recode project (app: :recode), and the example is located in examples/minimal/, making the relative path ../.. correct for referencing the main project. The comment suggestion in the review is still valuable for documentation purposes.
- The main project is confirmed to be recode (from mix.exs)
- The example is correctly placed in the examples directory
- The relative path correctly points to the root project
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the recode project structure and path
# Check if the relative path points to a valid Mix project
if [ -f ../../mix.exs ]; then
echo "Verified: Found mix.exs in the parent project"
# Check if it's indeed the recode project
grep -l "app: :recode" ../../mix.exs
else
echo "Error: Could not find parent mix.exs file"
fi
Length of output: 119
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the current directory structure and find mix.exs files
echo "Current directory structure:"
pwd
ls -la
echo -e "\nFinding all mix.exs files:"
fd mix.exs
echo -e "\nChecking content of the example mix.exs:"
cat examples/minimal/mix.exs
Length of output: 2047
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the root mix.exs content
echo "Root mix.exs content:"
cat mix.exs
echo -e "\nVerifying project structure:"
echo "Location of minimal example:"
realpath examples/minimal
echo -e "\nLocation of root project:"
realpath .
Length of output: 3466
test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (3)
7-32: Well-structured comprehensive test case!
The test effectively covers various scenarios:
- Nested function calls
- Different arities
- Special cases like
ifstatements - Multiple function combinations
The use of heredocs makes the test cases clear and maintainable.
34-42: Previous review comment is still applicable
The existing review comment suggesting improvements to this test case is still valid. The test could be enhanced to verify specific issue details and cover more edge cases.
2-2: Consider enabling async testing
The test module is marked as async: false. If there's no specific reason for sequential execution (like shared state or resources), consider enabling async testing for better performance.
✅ Verification successful
Keep async: false setting
The async: false setting is necessary in this test module because:
- It uses Mox for mocking which requires
setup :verify_on_exit! - It shares global state through
:persistent_termthat needs to be cleaned up between tests - The parent
RecodeCasemodule sets up global Mox stubs that could interfere between concurrent tests
The sequential execution is intentional and required for test stability.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other test files also use async: false and look for patterns
rg -l "async: false" "test/**/*_test.exs"
# Look for potential shared resources or state
ast-grep --pattern 'defmodule $_Test do
$$$
setup $_ do
$$$
end
$$$
end'
Length of output: 189
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other test files also use async: false with correct path
rg -l "async: false" "test"
# Look for setup blocks in test files
rg "setup" "test" -A 5
# Check the RecodeCase module to understand its usage
rg -g "**/{recode_case,test_helper}.ex*" "defmodule.*RecodeCase"
Length of output: 2817
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of RecodeCase module and formatter plugin test
cat test/support/recode_case.ex
# Check the formatter plugin test specifically since it's also async: false
cat test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs
Length of output: 6223
lib/recode/manifest.ex (1)
1-71: Verify integration with Config and Runner modules
Let's verify the integration points with other modules to ensure consistent manifest handling.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the manifest integration.
Based on the results, I can now provide a final verification response:
Integration with the system is properly implemented
The manifest module is correctly integrated with the system:
- Runner properly writes manifest data after processing (
Manifest.write(project, config)) - Runner reads manifest data for incremental processing (
Manifest.read(config)) - Config module has correct manifest configuration support (default: true)
- The manifest functionality follows a consistent pattern across the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for manifest-related configuration and usage
echo "Checking manifest configuration..."
rg -l "manifest.*=.*true|false" --type elixir
echo "Checking manifest usage..."
rg "Recode\.Manifest\." --type elixir -A 2
echo "Checking related configuration keys..."
ast-grep --pattern 'def permitted_keys do
$$$
end'
Length of output: 2773
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how Runner uses Manifest
echo "Checking Runner integration..."
rg "Manifest\." lib/recode/runner/ -A 5
# Check Config integration
echo "Checking Config integration..."
rg "manifest.*=|manifest.*:" lib/recode/config.ex -A 2
# Check actual usage in mix tasks
echo "Checking Mix task usage..."
rg "Manifest\." lib/mix/tasks/ -A 5
Length of output: 1434
examples/minimal/.recode.exs (3)
1-12: LGTM! Well-documented configuration settings.
The version and core settings are clearly defined with helpful comments explaining CLI override options. The relationship between dry and verbose modes is properly documented.
21-42: Verify task configuration consistency.
The task configurations look well-structured, but there are a few points to verify:
- The task naming is consistent with the codebase (TestFile)
- The exclusion patterns are consistent across tasks
- The exit codes follow a logical pattern (2 for FIXME, 4 for TODO)
Let's verify the task configurations:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for task module definitions and their options
echo "Checking task modules..."
for task in AliasExpansion AliasOrder Dbg EnforceLineLength FilterCount IOInspect \
LocalsWithoutParens Moduledoc Nesting PipeFunOne SinglePipe Specs \
TagFIXME TagTODO TestFile UnnecessaryIfUnless UnusedVariable; do
echo "Checking Recode.Task.$task..."
ast-grep --pattern "defmodule Recode.Task.$task do
$$$
end"
done
# Verify consistent exclusion patterns
echo "Checking exclusion patterns..."
rg "exclude: \[.*\]" 13-20: Consider adding formatter module validation.
While the configuration looks good, it might be beneficial to add runtime validation for the formatter module to ensure it implements the required formatter behavior.
Let's verify if the formatter module exists and implements the expected behavior:
lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (4)
22-24: LGTM! Improved alias naming and organization
The change from Format to DotFormatter better reflects its specific purpose for formatter configuration handling.
44-45: LGTM! Consistent use of Task helper functions
The new update function properly utilizes the standardized update_source helper from Recode.Task.
Line range hint 68-81: LGTM! Clean and well-structured helper functions
The helper functions are well-organized and follow Elixir best practices for pattern matching and list handling.
28-42: LGTM! Improved error handling and code organization
The refactored implementation provides better error handling and clearer data flow. The use of Keyword.fetch! ensures early failure if dot_formatter options are missing.
Let's verify the dot_formatter usage across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Verified: dot_formatter usage is consistent and well-handled
The codebase shows consistent patterns for dot_formatter handling:
- The
dot_formatteroption is properly passed through the task pipeline - Error handling with
Keyword.fetch!is used consistently across the codebase - Tests verify the dot_formatter behavior with both default and custom configurations
- The implementation aligns with the project's formatter configuration pattern
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify consistent dot_formatter usage and error handling
# Check for other usages of dot_formatter options
rg "dot_formatter" -A 3
# Check for similar Keyword.fetch! error handling patterns
rg "Keyword\.fetch\!" -A 2
Length of output: 9346
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try the search without escape characters
rg "Keyword.fetch!" -A 2
Length of output: 3451
mix.exs (5)
4-6: LGTM! Well-structured version bump and documentation configuration.
The version bump to 0.8.0 follows semantic versioning, and the new @docs_extras attribute improves maintainability by centralizing documentation file references.
48-52: Documentation configuration looks good.
The use of @docs_extras for both extras and skip_undefined_reference_warnings_on maintains consistency.
69-69: Module rename is consistent.
The rename from Recode.Task.TestFileExt to Recode.Task.TestFile is properly reflected in the module grouping.
113-118: LGTM! Well-structured conditional dependency.
The conditional addition of freedom_formatter only in non-CI environments is a good practice to optimize CI builds.
106-106: Verify compatibility with rewrite 1.1.
The major version bump from ~> 0.9 to ~> 1.1 for the rewrite dependency might introduce breaking changes.
test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs (3)
15-16: LGTM: Enhanced test coverage for configuration options
The added assertions for verbose and manifest configuration options improve test coverage and validate the expected default values.
117-135: LGTM: Comprehensive test for custom configuration
The test effectively verifies that custom configuration values override defaults, with proper setup and cleanup using a temporary directory.
137-152: LGTM: Good test for CLI option precedence
The test effectively verifies that the --manifest CLI option takes precedence over the configuration file setting.
Consider adding test coverage for other CLI options to ensure consistent behavior. Let's check what other CLI options exist:
lib/recode/config.ex (5)
66-70: LGTM: Clear and focused helper function
The default_filename/0 function provides a clean way to access the config filename constant.
153-161: LGTM: Well-implemented task deletion functionality
The delete_tasks/2 function correctly handles task removal while preserving the config structure.
173-175: LGTM: Consistent manifest initialization
The addition of manifest: true as a default value is consistent with the module's default configuration.
10-26: Consider providing a migration path for version updates
Setting @config_min_version equal to @config_version ("0.8.0") forces immediate updates for all users. Consider keeping a lower minimum version to allow for gradual migration, especially if changes are not breaking.
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential breaking changes by analyzing the git history
git log --oneline -p v0.7.3..HEAD -- lib/recode/config.ex | grep -A 5 "^[-+].*@config"Line range hint 36-54: Verify compatibility with existing .formatter.exs files
The change from explicit input patterns to :formatter implies reliance on .formatter.exs files. This is a significant behavioral change that could affect existing projects.
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (7)
8-10: LGTM: New aliases align with added functionality
The added aliases for Manifest and Timestamp support the new manifest handling and timestamp operations.
Line range hint 44-48: Improved exit condition logic
The exit condition now correctly considers both sources and excluded items, providing better handling of the no-sources case.
182-190: LGTM: Clear separation of concerns in exclude? function
The function now properly handles different source types with clear documentation and separate clauses for Source.Ex and other types.
212-229: LGTM: Comprehensive input handling with dot_formatter integration
The project function now properly handles both stdin and file inputs while correctly integrating dot_formatter configuration.
231-248: LGTM: Efficient file exclusion based on timestamps
The function implements an optimization to skip processing unchanged files by comparing timestamps with the manifest, reducing unnecessary work.
342-351: LGTM: Well-documented input handling
The function clearly handles the :formatter special case and properly integrates with dot_formatter configuration.
54-57:
Add error handling for dot_formatter creation
The DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts/2 call should include error handling to gracefully handle invalid formatter options.
Apply this diff to add error handling:
formatter_opts = Keyword.get(config, :formatter_opts, [])
-dot_formatter =
- DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(formatter_opts, remove_plugins: [Recode.FormatterPlugin])
+dot_formatter = case DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(formatter_opts, remove_plugins: [Recode.FormatterPlugin]) do
+ {:ok, formatter} -> formatter
+ {:error, error} -> Mix.raise("Failed to create dot_formatter: #{Exception.message(error)}")
+endLikely invalid or redundant comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
test/recode/manifest_test.exs (2)
24-27: Consider more robust timestamp assertionThe timestamp assertion
assert timestamp > 0might be too loose and could pass even with incorrect timestamps.Consider a more specific assertion:
-assert timestamp > 0 +current_time = System.system_time(:second) +assert timestamp <= current_time +assert timestamp > current_time - 60 # Assuming test won't take more than 60 seconds
81-154: Consider additional edge cases for write testsThe write tests cover the main scenarios but could benefit from testing some edge cases.
Consider adding tests for:
- Writing a manifest with an invalid project state
- Writing a manifest with extremely long file paths
- Writing a manifest when the directory doesn't exist
test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (5)
19-33: LGTM! Consider adding documentation for the config function.The configuration setup is well-structured. The
config/1function provides a clean way to merge default configurations with test-specific overrides.Consider adding a
@docstring to theconfig/1function explaining its purpose and the structure of the configuration it expects:+ @doc """ + Merges the default configuration with test-specific overrides. + + ## Parameters + - merge: Keyword list of configuration options to override defaults + """ defp config(merge) do Keyword.merge(@default_config, merge) end
155-155: Fix typo in test nameThe test name contains a typo: "aditional" should be "additional"
- test "runs task with the right aditional config", context do + test "runs task with the right additional config", context do
253-259: Enhance error message assertionThe assertion on error output could be more specific to ensure the exact error message format.
Consider using a more specific assertion:
- assert io =~ "Execution of the Recode.TaskMock task failed." + assert strip_esc_seq(io) =~ ~r/Execution of the Recode\.TaskMock task failed\./
316-317: Add descriptive comment for conditional testThe conditional test for FreedomFormatter would benefit from a comment explaining why it's conditional.
+ # FreedomFormatter is an optional plugin that may not be available in all environments if function_exported?(FreedomFormatter, :features, 1) do test "formats files with .formatter.exs and respects plugins", context do
488-493: Consider extracting common formatter setupThe formatter setup comment and configuration is duplicated across multiple tests.
Consider extracting this into a helper function:
+ defp setup_formatter_config(config) do + # Fake here what `mix format` does. + dot_formatter = DotFormatter.read!() + Keyword.put(config, :formatter_opts, DotFormatter.formatter_opts(dot_formatter)) + end + # In tests: - # Fake here what `mix format` does. - dot_formatter = DotFormatter.read!() - config = Keyword.put(config, :formatter_opts, DotFormatter.formatter_opts(dot_formatter)) + config = setup_formatter_config(config)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex(5 hunks)lib/recode/manifest.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/timestamp.ex(1 hunks)test/recode/manifest_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex
- lib/recode/manifest.ex
- lib/recode/timestamp.ex
🔇 Additional comments (2)
test/recode/manifest_test.exs (2)
1-14: Well-structured test module setup!
The module setup is well-organized with appropriate test configurations:
async: falseis correctly used for file system operations- Clean test state is ensured via setup block
- Required modules are properly imported/aliased
156-157: Clean and focused helper function!
The manifest/0 helper function is well-implemented and appropriately scoped.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (12)
lib/recode/issue.ex (2)
19-33: Consider enhancing documentation with type specificationsWhile the examples are clear and comprehensive, the documentation could be improved by adding
@docattributes that specify parameter types and their constraints.Add type specifications like this:
@doc """ + Creates a new `%Issue{}`. + + ## Parameters + * `reporter` - atom(), the module reporting the issue + * `message` - String.t(), the issue description + * `info` - Keyword.t(), optional parameters including: + * `:line` - non_neg_integer(), the line number + * `:column` - non_neg_integer(), the column number + * `:meta` - term(), additional metadata + ## Examples
46-55: Consider combining the pattern matching for better maintainabilityWhile the current implementation is correct, it could be more DRY by combining the pattern matching.
Consider this alternative:
- @spec new(atom(), String.t() | Keyword.t()) :: t() - def new(reporter, info) when is_atom(reporter) and is_binary(info) do - new(reporter: reporter, message: info) - end - - def new(reporter, info) when is_atom(reporter) and is_list(info) do - info - |> Keyword.put(:reporter, reporter) - |> new() - end + @spec new(atom(), String.t() | Keyword.t()) :: t() + def new(reporter, info) when is_atom(reporter) do + case info do + message when is_binary(message) -> new(reporter: reporter, message: message) + info when is_list(info) -> new(Keyword.put(info, :reporter, reporter)) + end + endlib/recode/task.ex (1)
140-164: Consider adding error handling for invalid updatesThe update_source implementation could benefit from explicit error handling for invalid update values or keys.
Consider adding guards or validation:
def update_source(source, opts, updates, module) do + unless is_list(updates) do + raise ArgumentError, "expected updates to be a keyword list, got: #{inspect(updates)}" + end Enum.reduce(updates, source, fn {:issue, issue}, source -> + unless match?(%Issue{}, issue), do: raise ArgumentError, "expected issue to be an Issue struct" Source.add_issue(source, issue) # ... rest of the implementation end) endlib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (3)
Line range hint
138-151: Consider adding a guard for empty tasks listThe function handles task collection well, but consider adding a guard clause for empty tasks to fail fast.
defp cli_tasks(opts) do tasks = Enum.reduce(opts, [], fn {key, value}, acc -> case key do :task -> [value | acc] _else -> acc end end) + if Enum.empty?(tasks) and Keyword.has_key?(opts, :task) do + Mix.raise("At least one task must be specified with --task option") + end opts |> Keyword.delete(:task) |> Keyword.put(:tasks, tasks) end
187-202: Consider a more concise implementationWhile the validation logic is correct, it could be more concise using
Enum.map.if not Enum.empty?(keys) do - config = - Enum.reduce(keys, config, fn key, config -> - {value, config} = Keyword.pop!(config, key) - - Keyword.update(config, :config, [{key, value}], fn task_config -> - Keyword.put(task_config, key, value) - end) - end) + config = + Keyword.update(config, :config, [], fn task_config -> + Enum.reduce(keys, task_config, fn key, acc -> + Keyword.put(acc, key, Keyword.get(config, key)) + end) + end) Mix.raise(""" Invalid config keys #{inspect(keys)} for #{inspect(task)} found. Did you want to create a task-specific configuration: #{inspect(task)}, #{inspect(config)}} """) end
233-251: Add documentation for manifest update logicThe manifest update logic is complex and would benefit from documentation explaining:
- Why manifest is disabled when tasks are specified
- The precedence rules between CLI options and config
Add module documentation like:
@doc """ Updates the manifest configuration based on CLI options and task presence. The manifest is disabled when specific tasks are provided via --task to ensure full task execution regardless of the manifest state. """lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (4)
186-188: Reconsider assertion error handlingRe-raising assertion errors might not be the best approach in a production environment. Consider logging these errors or handling them differently from other errors.
- rescue - error in ExUnit.AssertionError -> - reraise error, __STACKTRACE__ + rescue + error in ExUnit.AssertionError -> + Source.add_issue( + source, + Issue.new( + Recode.Runner, + message: "Assertion failed: #{Exception.message(error)}", + meta: [task: task_module, error: error] + ) + )
230-247: Add input validation for stdin handlingConsider validating the stdin input to ensure it's not empty or malformed before processing.
if inputs == ["-"] do stdin = IO.stream(:stdio, :line) |> Enum.to_list() |> IO.iodata_to_binary() + case String.trim(stdin) do + "" -> Mix.raise("Empty input from stdin") + input -> + input + |> Source.Ex.from_string(path: "nofile.ex") + |> List.wrap() + |> Rewrite.from_sources!() + end - stdin - |> Source.Ex.from_string(path: "nofile.ex") - |> List.wrap() - |> Rewrite.from_sources!()
249-266: Consider a more descriptive function nameThe name
exclude_readingcould be more descriptive. Consider something likeexclude_unchanged_filesorget_exclusion_predicateto better reflect its purpose.
274-276: Enhance error message for formatter reading failureThe error message could be more descriptive and include the path to the formatter file.
- Mix.raise("Failed to read formatter: #{inspect(error)}") + Mix.raise(""" + Failed to read formatter from .formatter.exs: + #{Exception.message(error)} + """)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (2)
19-30: LGTM! Well-structured default configuration and helper function.The introduction of
@default_configmodule attribute andconfig/1helper function improves code maintainability and reduces duplication.Consider adding type specs for better documentation:
+@spec config(keyword()) :: keyword() defp config(merge) do Keyword.merge(@default_config, merge) endAlso applies to: 32-35
431-490: Consider adding edge case tests.The test suite covers the main functionality well. Consider adding tests for:
- Sources with invalid UTF-8 encoding
- Very large files
- Files with mixed line endings
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex(1 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex(8 hunks)lib/recode/issue.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/runner/impl.ex(9 hunks)lib/recode/task.ex(4 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .dialyzer_ignore.exs
🔇 Additional comments (19)
examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex (1)
1-5: LGTM: Module documentation is clear and concise.
The module documentation provides a good high-level overview.
lib/recode/issue.ex (1)
35-41: Implementation looks good!
The function is well-structured with appropriate guard clauses and follows good functional programming practices by delegating to new/1.
lib/recode/task.ex (3)
4-18: Documentation improvements look great!
The added step-by-step guide and info box about use Recode.Task make the module's usage clearer and more approachable.
185-198: LGTM: Default implementations look good
The default implementations for update_source/3 and new_issue/1,2 are properly provided in the using macro, addressing the previous review comment about missing default implementations.
59-89: Verify update_source callback implementation
The update_source callback handles complex source modifications. Let's verify its usage across the codebase to ensure consistent behavior.
✅ Verification successful
Implementation of update_source callback is consistent and well-defined
The verification shows that:
- The
update_source/3callback is properly defined inRecode.Taskwith a default implementation - All task modules use
use Recode.Taskwhich provides the default implementation - The default implementation in
Recode.Taskcorrectly handles:- Adding single issues via
:issuekey - Adding multiple issues via
:issueskey - Source updates through
Rewrite.Sourcefunctions
- Adding single issues via
The implementation aligns with the documented behavior and is consistently used across all task modules.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for modules using Recode.Task and implementing update_source
ast-grep --pattern 'use Recode.Task
$$$
def update_source($$$) do
$$$
end'
# Search for direct calls to update_source
rg -p 'update_source.*%Source{}'
Length of output: 251
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for modules using Recode.Task
rg -l "use Recode.Task"
# Search for update_source implementations
rg -p "def update_source\(" -A 5
# Search for direct calls to update_source
rg "update_source\(.*Source"
Length of output: 1440
lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (5)
39-46: Documentation looks good!
The new options are well-documented with clear explanations of their defaults and behaviors.
60-62: Options configuration is correct!
The new boolean options are properly configured and maintain alphabetical ordering.
93-102: Verify the interaction between force and manifest options
While both options are properly initialized, their interaction needs verification:
- Does
force: trueoverridemanifest: true? - Should we prevent both options from being true simultaneously?
Please clarify the expected behavior when both options are provided.
119-127: Merge options list is complete!
All new options are properly included in the merge list while maintaining alphabetical order.
253-255: Helper function looks good!
The put/4 function is well-designed and provides a consistent way to set config values with defaults.
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (6)
8-10: LGTM: New module aliases are properly organized
The new aliases for Manifest and Timestamp modules are well-organized and follow Elixir conventions.
Line range hint 19-48: LGTM: Enhanced run function with formatter and manifest support
The changes properly integrate the dot_formatter initialization and manifest support while maintaining a clean flow of operations.
84-100: LGTM: Well-structured format function
The format function properly handles both normal and dry run modes, with appropriate issue creation for unformatted files.
200-209: LGTM: Well-documented exclusion logic
The exclusion logic is properly implemented with clear documentation and type-specific handling.
349-373: LGTM: Well-structured configuration updates
The configuration update logic is well-organized and properly documented, with clear separation of concerns between task and input updates.
54-64:
Add error handling for DotFormatter initialization
The DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts/2 call could return an error tuple, but it's not being handled.
- dot_formatter =
- DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(formatter_opts, remove_plugins: [Recode.FormatterPlugin])
+ dot_formatter =
+ case DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(formatter_opts, remove_plugins: [Recode.FormatterPlugin]) do
+ {:ok, formatter} -> formatter
+ {:error, reason} ->
+ Mix.raise("Failed to create formatter: #{inspect(reason)}")
+ endLikely invalid or redundant comment.
test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (3)
80-98: LGTM! Comprehensive test for CLI options override.
The test effectively verifies that CLI options can override task configurations and checks the output formatting.
Line range hint 1-528: Overall excellent test suite structure and coverage.
The changes demonstrate good testing practices:
- Centralized configuration management
- Isolated test environments using
in_tmp - Comprehensive coverage of features
- Proper handling of conditional features
318-362: Verify FreedomFormatter version compatibility.
The conditional compilation ensures the test runs only when FreedomFormatter supports the required features. However, we should verify the version compatibility.
✅ Verification successful
FreedomFormatter version compatibility is properly handled
The code already implements a robust version compatibility check:
- The dependency is correctly specified as
"~> 2.1"in mix.exs, ensuring a compatible version - The test is conditionally executed using
function_exported?/3to check for the presence of thefeatures/1function - This runtime check ensures the test only runs when the required functionality is available
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check FreedomFormatter version requirements in mix.exs and verify compatibility
# Search for FreedomFormatter dependency version
rg -A 2 "freedom_formatter" mix.exs
# Search for any version-specific comments or documentation
rg -i "freedom.?formatter.*version" .
Length of output: 145
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the feature compatibility by checking the actual implementation
# Check if FreedomFormatter.features/1 exists and its implementation
ast-grep --pattern 'def features($_) { $$$ }'
# Search for any FreedomFormatter module definitions or feature-related code
rg -B2 -A2 "FreedomFormatter.*features"
# Check for any version-specific or feature-specific documentation
fd -e md -e ex -e exs | xargs rg -l "FreedomFormatter"
Length of output: 861
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (3)
93-102: Consider adding explicit error handling for manifest operations.While the code changes improve clarity by separating concerns, consider adding explicit error handling for manifest file operations to gracefully handle scenarios like permission issues or corrupted manifest files.
Example error handling pattern:
def handle_manifest(config) do try do # manifest operations rescue e in File.Error -> Mix.raise("Failed to access manifest file: #{e.message}") e in [DecodeError, MatchError] -> Mix.raise("Invalid manifest file format: #{inspect(e)}") end end
Line range hint
138-151: Consider a more idiomatic implementation using Enum.filter_map.While the current implementation is correct, it could be more concise using Elixir's built-in functions.
Consider this alternative implementation:
defp cli_tasks(opts) do tasks = opts |> Enum.filter(fn {key, _} -> key == :task end) |> Enum.map(fn {_, value} -> value end) opts |> Keyword.delete(:task) |> Keyword.put(:tasks, tasks) end
187-202: Consider simplifying the nested configuration transformation.While the validation logic is thorough, the nested reduce operation could be simplified for better readability.
Consider this alternative approach:
defp validate_task_config!(task, config) do invalid_keys = Keyword.keys(config) -- @task_config_keys if not Enum.empty?(invalid_keys) do task_config = invalid_keys |> Map.new(&{&1, config[&1]}) |> Keyword.new() updated_config = config |> Keyword.drop(invalid_keys) |> Keyword.put(:config, task_config) Mix.raise(""" Invalid config keys #{inspect(invalid_keys)} for #{inspect(task)} found. Did you want to create a task-specific configuration: {#{inspect(task)}, #{inspect(updated_config)}} """) end end
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex(1 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex(8 hunks)lib/recode/issue.ex(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex
🔇 Additional comments (8)
lib/recode/issue.ex (4)
19-27: Documentation looks great!
The updated documentation is clear, well-structured, and includes comprehensive examples covering all major use cases. The parameter descriptions accurately reflect the new function signatures.
Also applies to: 34-34, 36-41
43-49: Implementation looks solid!
The function specification and implementation are well-designed with appropriate type specs and guard clauses. The delegation pattern to new/1 keeps the code DRY.
51-63: Function overloads are well-designed!
The overloads provide convenient ways to create issues while maintaining type safety through guard clauses. The implementations are consistent and follow good functional programming practices.
68-70: Consider adding validation as suggested in the past review
The base implementation would benefit from validation to ensure type safety. The previous review comment suggesting validation for required fields is still applicable.
Let's verify if there are any existing validation patterns in the codebase:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for similar validation patterns in other structs
rg -A 5 "def new\(.*?\) when is_list\(" --type elixirlib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (4)
39-46: Documentation for new options is clear and complete!
The documentation for the new options (--color, --manifest, --force) follows the established format and clearly explains their default behaviors and interactions.
60-62: Option struct updates are correct!
The new boolean options :force and :manifest are properly integrated into the strict options list, maintaining alphabetical order.
119-127: Option merging is correctly implemented!
The new options :color and :manifest are properly included in the merge operation, maintaining alphabetical ordering.
233-259: Manifest handling implementation is well-structured!
The new manifest handling logic is:
- Well-documented with clear comments explaining the behavior
- Properly handles CLI options and task presence
- Uses a clean helper function for config updates
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
examples/my_code/.recode.exs (1)
15-19: Input configuration change looks good, minor comment improvement suggestedThe change to use
:formatterfor inputs is well-documented. However, there's a minor grammatical issue in the comment.- # With the atom :formatter the inputs from .formatter.exs are - # used. also allowed in the list mentioned above. + # With the atom :formatter, the inputs from .formatter.exs are + # used. This is also allowed in the list mentioned above.examples/minimal/.recode.exs (1)
1-14: Version number might need adjustmentThe version is set to "0.8.0" but the PR title suggests this is a development version ("0.8.0-dev"). Consider using "0.8.0-dev" for consistency.
The configuration structure and documentation are well-organized, with clear explanations of CLI override options.
lib/recode/config.ex (1)
10-14: Consider maintaining a version gap for backward compatibilitySetting both
@config_versionand@config_min_versionto "0.8.0" might force immediate updates for all users. Consider keeping@config_min_versionat a lower version (e.g., "0.7.0") to allow for a smoother transition period.lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (2)
194-209: Consider simplifying the error message construction.While the validation logic is solid, the error message construction could be simplified for better maintainability.
Consider this alternative:
- Mix.raise(""" - Invalid config keys #{inspect(keys)} for #{inspect(task)} found. - Did you want to create a task-specific configuration: - {#{inspect(task)}, #{inspect(config)}} - """) + message = [ + "Invalid config keys #{inspect(keys)} for #{inspect(task)} found.", + "Did you want to create a task-specific configuration:", + "{#{inspect(task)}, #{inspect(config)}}" + ] + Mix.raise(Enum.join(message, "\n"))
217-217: Consider making the behavior check more explicit.The behavior check could be more explicit to improve code clarity.
Consider this alternative:
- if Recode.Task not in task.__info__(:attributes)[:behaviour] do + behaviours = task.__info__(:attributes)[:behaviour] || [] + if Recode.Task not in behaviours dotest/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (1)
506-516: Consider adding more descriptive test names and documentationWhile the test implementation is solid, consider making the test names more descriptive of the specific scenarios being tested. For example,
"runs task with a source"could be"successfully transforms source code using SinglePipe task".
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
CHANGELOG.md(2 hunks)examples/minimal/.recode.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/.recode.exs(2 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex(8 hunks)lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex(7 hunks)lib/recode/config.ex(9 hunks)test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs(24 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- CHANGELOG.md
- lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex
🔇 Additional comments (24)
examples/my_code/.recode.exs (2)
2-2: Version bump and new settings look good
The version bump to "0.8.0" aligns with the PR title. The new silent setting is well-documented and includes CLI override capability.
Also applies to: 13-14
21-22: New manifest setting is well-documented
The new manifest setting is properly documented with its default value and CLI override capability.
examples/minimal/.recode.exs (3)
1-45: Well-structured configuration with good documentation
The overall configuration is well-organized with:
- Clear documentation for each option
- Logical grouping of settings
- Good balance of default settings
- Comprehensive set of tasks with appropriate defaults
23-44: Verify task modules and check for potential improvements
The task configuration looks comprehensive, but let's verify a few aspects:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if all task modules exist
echo "Checking task modules..."
rg -l "defmodule ($(cat <<'END' | paste -sd'|' -
Recode\.Task\.AliasExpansion
Recode\.Task\.AliasOrder
Recode\.Task\.Dbg
Recode\.Task\.EnforceLineLength
Recode\.Task\.FilterCount
Recode\.Task\.IOInspect
Recode\.Task\.LocalsWithoutParens
Recode\.Task\.Moduledoc
Recode\.Task\.Nesting
Recode\.Task\.PipeFunOne
Recode\.Task\.SinglePipe
Recode\.Task\.Specs
Recode\.Task\.TagFIXME
Recode\.Task\.TagTODO
Recode\.Task\.TestFile
Recode\.Task\.UnnecessaryIfUnless
Recode\.Task\.UnusedVariable
END
))"Consider the following suggestions:
- The exclude patterns
["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"]are repeated in bothModuledocandSpecstasks. Consider extracting common patterns into a variable. - The exit codes 2 and 4 for FIXME and TODO tasks allow them to be used as bit flags (2|4 = 6 for both). This is a good practice!
[
version: "0.8.0",
# ... other config ...
+ # Common exclusion patterns
+ common_excludes = ["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"],
tasks: [
# ... other tasks ...
- {Recode.Task.Moduledoc, [exclude: ["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"]]},
+ {Recode.Task.Moduledoc, [exclude: common_excludes]},
# ... other tasks ...
- {Recode.Task.Specs, [exclude: ["test/**/*.{ex,exs}", "mix.exs"], config: [only: :visible]]},
+ {Recode.Task.Specs, [exclude: common_excludes, config: [only: :visible]]},
# ... remaining tasks ...
]
]15-22: Verify .formatter.exs existence
The configuration uses :formatter as input, which depends on .formatter.exs. Let's verify this dependency.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try another script to specifically check for .formatter.exs in the minimal example directory:
Let me check the contents of the .formatter.exs file to ensure it's properly configured:
Configuration dependency verified successfully
The .formatter.exs file exists in the examples/minimal/ directory and is properly configured with standard Elixir formatting inputs that cover all Elixir source files. The :formatter input configuration in .recode.exs will work as expected.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if .formatter.exs exists in the examples/minimal directory
if [ -f "examples/minimal/.formatter.exs" ]; then
echo "✓ .formatter.exs exists"
cat "examples/minimal/.formatter.exs"
else
echo "⚠ Missing .formatter.exs in examples/minimal/"
fi
Length of output: 4541
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# List all files in examples/minimal/ to see what configuration files exist
ls -la examples/minimal/
Length of output: 603
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check contents of .formatter.exs
cat examples/minimal/.formatter.exs
Length of output: 134
lib/recode/config.ex (5)
123-124: Documentation improvement looks good
The clarification about deep merge behavior and version handling in the documentation is helpful and accurate.
188-192: Implementation of defaults/1 looks good
The new defaults/1 function correctly handles merging with default config while preserving version and tasks from the input config.
158-166: Verify test coverage for new delete_tasks function
The new delete_tasks/2 function has been added. Let's verify its test coverage.
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files containing delete_tasks
rg -l "delete_tasks" test/16-27: Verify the new manifest configuration key usage
The :manifest key has been added to @config_keys. Let's verify its implementation and usage across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Let's gather more information about the manifest implementation and usage.
The manifest configuration key is properly implemented and documented
The :manifest key is well-integrated into the codebase with clear implementation and usage:
- Implemented in
lib/recode/manifest.exto track files with issues - Properly documented in configuration examples and CLI options
- Default behavior is enabled (
true) unless specific tasks are provided via--task - Can be controlled via
--manifest/--no-manifestCLI flags - Used to optimize performance by tracking files that need attention
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for manifest usage in the codebase
rg -l "manifest" --type elixir
Length of output: 286
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check manifest implementation
echo "=== Manifest implementation ==="
rg -A 10 "manifest" lib/recode/manifest.ex
echo -e "\n=== Manifest usage in config ==="
rg -A 5 "manifest" lib/recode/config.ex
echo -e "\n=== Manifest usage in formatter plugin ==="
rg -A 5 "manifest" lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex
echo -e "\n=== Manifest usage in mix task ==="
rg -A 5 "manifest" lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex
echo -e "\n=== Example configurations ==="
cat examples/minimal/.recode.exs examples/my_code/.recode.exs
Length of output: 8751
Line range hint 37-56: Verify impact of Task.TestFileExt to Task.TestFile rename
The task has been renamed from TestFileExt to TestFile. This change might affect existing user configurations.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the rename and its documentation.
Let me check if there's any migration code in the update config task to handle this rename.
Task rename from TestFileExt to TestFile is properly handled
The rename is well-managed through the config update system:
- It's documented in the CHANGELOG.md
Recode.Task.TestFileExtis listed in@removed_tasksin the config update task- The update task automatically removes the old task name from user configs
- Test cases verify this migration behavior
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to TestFileExt
rg "TestFileExt" --type elixir
# Search for migration guides or documentation updates
fd -e md -e ex -e exs | xargs rg -l "TestFile"
Length of output: 455
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check CHANGELOG.md for rename documentation
rg -A 5 -B 5 "TestFileExt|TestFile" CHANGELOG.md
# Check if there are any references to TestFileExt in test fixtures or configs
rg "TestFileExt" test/fixtures/
# Look for any migration code that handles the rename
ast-grep --pattern 'def update_config($$$) { $$ TestFileExt $$ }'
Length of output: 620
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the update config task implementation
cat lib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex
# Check for any test cases handling the rename
cat test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs
Length of output: 3605
lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (6)
33-50: Documentation updates look good!
The new options (--silent, --manifest, --force) and the updated --color option are well documented with clear explanations of their behavior and defaults.
64-75: Option configurations are properly structured!
The new options are correctly added to the strict list with appropriate boolean types, and the silent option alias follows the established pattern.
99-108: Core logic updates improve clarity and maintainability!
The pipeline is well-structured with clear step progression. The rename from config! to read_config! better reflects the function's purpose.
Line range hint 145-158: CLI tasks handling refactor improves code clarity!
The new cli_tasks implementation provides a more functional and maintainable approach to collecting task options.
247-262: Manifest handling implementation is well-structured!
The update_manifest function is well-documented and handles all cases correctly, with clear logic for determining the manifest state based on CLI options and task presence.
264-266: Helper function is concise and focused!
The put helper function follows functional programming principles and has a clear, single responsibility.
test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs (5)
11-11: LGTM: Configuration update for silent mode
The addition of silent: false to @config provides a sensible default that maintains backward compatibility while supporting the new silent mode feature.
36-53: LGTM: Well-structured test for silent mode
The test case effectively verifies the silent mode functionality with clear setup and assertions. It follows the established testing patterns in the file.
65-65: LGTM: Consistent attribution of source updates
The addition of the by: parameter to all Source.update calls provides clear attribution of changes. The parameter is consistently applied with appropriate values depending on the context (:test for test cases, TestTask/TaTask for task-specific updates).
Also applies to: 105-105, 110-110, 155-156, 201-201, 225-225, 422-422, 639-639
30-31: LGTM: Improved clarity in output messages
The updates to output messages ("Executed" → "Completed" and "Files" → "Files processed") provide more precise and descriptive feedback. These changes are consistently applied across all test cases.
Also applies to: 88-89, 138-139, 170-171, 240-241, 266-267, 292-293, 328-329, 365-366, 402-403, 445-446, 480-481, 552-553
676-676: LGTM: Improved helper function interface
The update to use keyword arguments in Source.Ex.from_string improves code readability and follows Elixir conventions.
test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (3)
33-36: Well-structured helper function for configuration management!
The config/1 helper function effectively encapsulates the configuration merging logic, making the test code more maintainable and reducing duplication.
564-600: Well-structured plugin integration test!
The test case effectively verifies the integration with FreedomFormatter plugin:
- Proper setup of formatter configuration
- Clear input/output validation
- Good use of conditional compilation with
if function_exported?
171-171: Ensure proper cleanup of test files
The tests create files (lib/bar.ex) but don't explicitly clean them up. While the @tag :tmp_dir helps with isolation, it's good practice to ensure cleanup in the test itself or use on_exit callbacks.
Consider using a helper function for file operations:
+ defp with_temp_file(path, content, fun) do
+ File.write!(path, content)
+ try do
+ fun.()
+ after
+ File.rm!(path)
+ end
+ end
- File.write("lib/bar.ex", "x |> to_string()\n")
+ with_temp_file("lib/bar.ex", "x |> to_string()\n", fn ->
+ # test code
+ end)Also applies to: 195-195
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
test/support/test_project.ex (3)
1-4: Consider enhancing module documentation.While the current documentation is clear, it would be helpful to include:
- Usage examples
- Return value expectations
- Typical use cases in tests
Example enhancement:
@moduledoc """ -A module to fake projects in tests. +A module to create fake test projects for testing purposes. + +## Examples + + project_module = TestProject.new() + assert project_module.project()[:app] =~ ~r/test_project_\d+/ + +Used primarily in test scenarios where a dynamic project configuration is needed, +such as testing backup/restore functionality or project-specific operations. + +Returns a dynamically generated module name that implements a `project/0` function. """
6-9: Add @SPEC and improve function documentation.The function documentation should include return value details and a @SPEC type specification.
+@spec new() :: module() @doc """ -Creates a new project. +Creates a new project module with a unique name. + +Returns a module name (atom) of the dynamically generated project module. +The generated module implements a `project/0` function that returns a keyword +list with `:app` and `:version` keys. """
9-25: Consider making the implementation more configurable.The current implementation has hardcoded values and limited flexibility.
Consider accepting options to customize the generated project:
- def new do + def new(opts \\ []) do nr = :erlang.unique_integer([:positive]) + version = Keyword.get(opts, :version, "0.1.0") + prefix = Keyword.get(opts, :prefix, "test_project") case Code.eval_string(""" - defmodule FormatWithDepsApp#{nr} do + defmodule TestProject.Fake#{nr} do def project do [ - app: :test_project_#{nr}, - version: "0.1.0" + app: :#{prefix}_#{nr}, + version: #{inspect(version)} ] end end """) do {{:module, module, _bin, _meta}, _binding} -> module error -> raise "Failed to create test project: #{inspect(error)}" end end
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
test/recode/manifest_test.exs(1 hunks)test/support/recode_case.ex(4 hunks)test/support/test_project.ex(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- test/recode/manifest_test.exs
- test/support/recode_case.ex
🔇 Additional comments (1)
test/support/test_project.ex (1)
1-26: Verify test helper isolation.
Let's ensure this test helper is properly isolated and not accessible from production code.
✅ Verification successful
Test helper is properly isolated to test environment
The verification confirms that TestProject module:
- Is defined in
test/support/test_project.ex - Is only used within test files (specifically in
test/recode/manifest_test.exs) - Has no references in production code
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if this module is referenced outside of test files
rg -g '!test/**' -g '!*.md' 'TestProject'
# Verify it's only used in test files
rg -g 'test/**/*.{ex,exs}' 'TestProject'
Length of output: 199
| {{:module, module, _bin, _meta}, _binding} = | ||
| Code.eval_string(""" | ||
| defmodule FormatWithDepsApp#{nr} do | ||
| def project do | ||
| [ | ||
| app: :test_project_#{nr}, | ||
| version: "0.1.0" | ||
| ] | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| """) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add error handling for dynamic code evaluation.
The current implementation could fail silently if code evaluation fails. Consider adding proper error handling and validation.
- {{:module, module, _bin, _meta}, _binding} =
- Code.eval_string("""
- defmodule FormatWithDepsApp#{nr} do
+ case Code.eval_string("""
+ defmodule TestProject.Fake#{nr} do
def project do
[
app: :test_project_#{nr},
version: "0.1.0"
]
end
end
- """)
-
- module
+ """) do
+ {{:module, module, _bin, _meta}, _binding} -> module
+ error ->
+ raise "Failed to create test project: #{inspect(error)}"
+ end📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| {{:module, module, _bin, _meta}, _binding} = | |
| Code.eval_string(""" | |
| defmodule FormatWithDepsApp#{nr} do | |
| def project do | |
| [ | |
| app: :test_project_#{nr}, | |
| version: "0.1.0" | |
| ] | |
| end | |
| end | |
| """) | |
| case Code.eval_string(""" | |
| defmodule TestProject.Fake#{nr} do | |
| def project do | |
| [ | |
| app: :test_project_#{nr}, | |
| version: "0.1.0" | |
| ] | |
| end | |
| end | |
| """) do | |
| {{:module, module, _bin, _meta}, _binding} -> module | |
| error -> | |
| raise "Failed to create test project: #{inspect(error)}" | |
| end |
A minimal example to test recode.
This feature is already part of recode, but was lost in the development of the new version.
* Add silent mode * Remove negated condition in if-else * Add default for silent in CliFormatter * Update silent mode doc * Add some tests * Fix typo * Add tests * Fix rebase fail * Add minor refactorings
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
test/recode/config_test.exs (1)
125-125: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionRename test to match the functionality being tested.
The test name "merges configs" doesn't accurately describe what's being tested. This test is verifying the task deletion functionality.
- test "merges configs" do + test "removes specified tasks from config" dolib/recode/runner/impl.ex (2)
54-57:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for dot_formatter initialization.
The
DotFormatter.from_formatter_optscall should handle potential errors.Apply this diff:
formatter_opts = Keyword.get(config, :formatter_opts, []) -dot_formatter = - DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(formatter_opts, remove_plugins: [Recode.FormatterPlugin]) +dot_formatter = + case DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(formatter_opts, remove_plugins: [Recode.FormatterPlugin]) do + {:ok, formatter} -> formatter + {:error, error} -> Mix.raise("Failed to create dot_formatter: #{Exception.message(error)}") + end
40-40:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for manifest writing.
The manifest write operation should handle potential errors.
Apply this diff:
- |> tap(fn project -> Manifest.write(project, config) end) + |> tap(fn project -> + case Manifest.write(project, config) do + :ok -> :ok + {:error, reason} -> + Mix.shell().error("Failed to write manifest: #{:file.format_error(reason)}") + end + end)
🧹 Nitpick comments (10)
examples/my_code/README.md (3)
5-5: Fix grammar: "backup" vs "back up"When used as a verb, "back up" should be two words. When used as a noun or adjective, it's one word "backup".
-The project provides a mix task to backup and restore the source code: +The project provides a mix task to back up and restore the source code:🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~5-~5: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a space.
Context: ...e. The project provides a mix task to backup and restore the source code: *mix ...(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
7-7: Fix grammar in command descriptionSimilar to the previous correction, "back up" should be two words when used as a verb.
- * `mix backup` to backup the source code + * `mix backup` to back up the source code🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~7-~7: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a white space.
Context: ...e the source code: *mix backupto backup the source code * `mix backup --rest...(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
🪛 Markdownlint (0.37.0)
7-7: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
7-9: Fix markdown list indentationThe unordered list items should not be indented with spaces before the asterisk.
- * `mix backup` to back up the source code - - * `mix backup --restore` to write the backup back +* `mix backup` to back up the source code + +* `mix backup --restore` to write the backup back🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~7-~7: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a white space.
Context: ...e the source code: *mix backupto backup the source code * `mix backup --rest...(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
🪛 Markdownlint (0.37.0)
7-7: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
9-9: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
lib/recode/task/alias_expansion.ex (1)
Line range hint
2-2: Fix typo in @shortdocThere's a typo in the shortdoc: "Exapnds" should be "Expands"
- @shortdoc "Exapnds multi aliases to separate aliases." + @shortdoc "Expands multi aliases to separate aliases."lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (1)
28-42: Consider adding error handling for missing dot_formatter file.Using
Keyword.fetch!on line 30 could raise an error if the dot_formatter file is missing. Consider usingKeyword.getwith a default value or adding explicit error handling to provide a better user experience.- |> Keyword.fetch!(:dot_formatter) + |> Keyword.get(:dot_formatter, %{})test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (2)
390-390: Consider using module attributes for feature checks.Instead of using a runtime check with
function_exported?/3, consider using a module attribute at compile time. This improves code readability and performance.- if function_exported?(FreedomFormatter, :features, 1) do + @freedom_formatter_available function_exported?(FreedomFormatter, :features, 1) + if @freedom_formatter_available do
345-345: Enhance error message for invalid formatter.Consider adding a more specific error message that includes the invalid formatter name to help with debugging.
- assert_raise RuntimeError, fn -> Runner.run(config) end + assert_raise RuntimeError, "Invalid formatter: Foo", fn -> Runner.run(config) endlib/recode/task/test_file.ex (1)
62-74: Consider optimizing the module name extraction.The current implementation processes all modules in the source file. Consider early return if a matching test module is found to avoid unnecessary processing.
defp test_module_filenames(source) do source |> Source.Ex.modules() - |> Enum.reduce([], fn module, acc -> + |> Enum.reduce_while([], fn module, acc -> basename = module |> Macro.underscore() |> Path.basename() if String.ends_with?(basename, "_test") do - [basename <> ".exs" | acc] + {:halt, [basename <> ".exs"]} else - acc + {:cont, acc} end end) endtest/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs (1)
26-52: Consider adding test cases for edge cases.The tests cover basic user input scenarios but could benefit from additional cases:
- Invalid user input (not Y/n)
- Empty user input
- Multiple attempts with invalid input
lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex (1)
84-86: Consider adding documentation for the manifest option.The addition of
manifest: falseshould be documented to explain its purpose and impact.@moduledoc """ Defines Recode formatter plugin for `mix format`. + + ## Configuration + + The formatter plugin uses the following configuration options: + + * `:manifest` - Set to `false` to disable manifest file generation during formatting. + This is useful when running the formatter as a plugin to avoid conflicts with + the main formatter manifest.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
examples/minimal/mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lockexamples/my_code/backup.binis excluded by!**/*.binexamples/my_code/mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lockexamples/my_code/scripts/backup.binis excluded by!**/*.bin
📒 Files selected for processing (70)
.dialyzer_ignore.exs(1 hunks)CHANGELOG.md(2 hunks)README.md(10 hunks)coveralls.json(1 hunks)examples/minimal/.formatter.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/.gitignore(1 hunks)examples/minimal/.recode.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/README.md(1 hunks)examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex(1 hunks)examples/minimal/mix.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/test/minimal_test.exs(1 hunks)examples/minimal/test/test_helper.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/.formatter.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/.recode.exs(2 hunks)examples/my_code/README.md(1 hunks)examples/my_code/lib/mix/tasks/backup.ex(1 hunks)examples/my_code/mix.exs(2 hunks)examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/.formatter.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/20190417140000_create_users.exs(1 hunks)examples/my_code/priv/some.json(1 hunks)examples/my_code/scripts/backup.exs(0 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex(8 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.help.ex(1 hunks)lib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex(7 hunks)lib/recode/config.ex(9 hunks)lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/issue.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/manifest.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/runner/impl.ex(9 hunks)lib/recode/task.ex(4 hunks)lib/recode/task/alias_expansion.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/alias_order.ex(3 hunks)lib/recode/task/dbg.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex(3 hunks)lib/recode/task/filter_count.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/format.ex(0 hunks)lib/recode/task/io_inspect.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/moduledoc.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/nesting.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/pipe_fun_one.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/single_pipe.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/specs.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/test_file.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/task/test_file_ext.ex(0 hunks)lib/recode/task/unnecessary_if_unless.ex(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/unused_variable.ex(1 hunks)lib/recode/timestamp.ex(1 hunks)mix.exs(4 hunks)recode.exs(1 hunks)test/fixtures/config.exs(2 hunks)test/fixtures/invalid_task_config.exs(2 hunks)test/fixtures/runner/config.exs(0 hunks)test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs(1 hunks)test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs(24 hunks)test/recode/config_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/manifest_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs(2 hunks)test/recode/task/enforce_line_length_test.exs(22 hunks)test/recode/task/format_test.exs(0 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens.exs(0 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs(1 hunks)test/recode/task/test_file_ext_test.exs(0 hunks)test/recode/task/test_file_test.exs(1 hunks)test/support/recode_case.ex(4 hunks)test/support/test_project.ex(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (7)
- test/fixtures/runner/config.exs
- examples/my_code/scripts/backup.exs
- lib/recode/task/test_file_ext.ex
- lib/recode/task/format.ex
- test/recode/task/locals_without_parens.exs
- test/recode/task/format_test.exs
- test/recode/task/test_file_ext_test.exs
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (39)
- .dialyzer_ignore.exs
- coveralls.json
- examples/minimal/test/test_helper.exs
- examples/minimal/.formatter.exs
- examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/.formatter.exs
- examples/my_code/priv/some.json
- examples/my_code/mix.exs
- examples/minimal/lib/minimal.ex
- recode.exs
- examples/minimal/test/minimal_test.exs
- lib/recode/timestamp.ex
- test/fixtures/invalid_task_config.exs
- CHANGELOG.md
- test/fixtures/config.exs
- lib/recode.ex
- lib/mix/tasks/recode.help.ex
- test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs
- examples/minimal/.gitignore
- lib/mix/tasks/recode.update.config.ex
- examples/my_code/priv/repo/migrations/20190417140000_create_users.exs
- lib/recode/task/nesting.ex
- test/support/test_project.ex
- examples/minimal/mix.exs
- README.md
- test/recode/task/enforce_line_length_test.exs
- lib/recode/task/specs.ex
- test/mix/tasks/recode_test.exs
- lib/recode/issue.ex
- lib/recode/task/enforce_line_length.ex
- test/recode/manifest_test.exs
- examples/my_code/lib/mix/tasks/backup.ex
- lib/recode/task/pipe_fun_one.ex
- test/support/recode_case.ex
- lib/recode/cli_formatter.ex
- lib/recode/task/moduledoc.ex
- lib/recode/task/unused_variable.ex
- lib/recode/task/filter_count.ex
- test/recode/task/test_file_test.exs
- mix.exs
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint (0.37.0)
examples/minimal/README.md
3-3: null
Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
examples/my_code/README.md
7-7: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
9-9: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
🪛 LanguageTool
examples/my_code/README.md
[grammar] ~5-~5: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a space.
Context: ...e. The project provides a mix task to backup and restore the source code: * mix ...
(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
[grammar] ~7-~7: The word “backup” is a noun. The verb is spelled with a white space.
Context: ...e the source code: * mix backup to backup the source code * `mix backup --rest...
(NOUN_VERB_CONFUSION)
🔇 Additional comments (60)
lib/recode/task/alias_expansion.ex (2)
32-32: Clean refactoring using the newupdate_sourcecallback!The change simplifies the code by leveraging the new standardized
update_sourcecallback, improving maintainability and consistency across tasks.
58-58: Good use of the newnew_issuecallback!The change simplifies issue creation and reduces direct dependencies by using the standardized
new_issuecallback instead of directly constructing issue structs.examples/minimal/README.md (2)
5-16: LGTM! Installation instructions are clear and follow Hex standards.The installation section provides clear instructions with appropriate version constraints.
18-20: LGTM! Documentation section is complete.The documentation section includes all necessary information about generating and accessing the documentation.
lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (5)
22-22: LGTM! More descriptive alias name.The change from
FormattoDotFormatterprovides better clarity about the module's purpose.
44-45: LGTM! Clean abstraction for source updates.The new
updatefunction provides a clear separation of concerns and follows the established pattern across tasks.
49-65: LGTM! Consistent use of new_issue helper.The change from
Issue.newtonew_issuealigns with the established pattern across tasks, as verified in previous reviews.
68-70: LGTM! Clean catch-all implementation.The catch-all clause provides a safe default behavior and follows Elixir best practices.
Line range hint
72-80: LGTM! Effective use of pattern matching.The helper function efficiently handles both specific arity and wildcard cases using clean pattern matching.
test/recode/runner/impl_test.exs (3)
12-12: Well-structured configuration setup!The addition of the
DotFormatteralias and the centralized default configuration with the newconfig/1helper function improves code organization and reduces duplication.Also applies to: 19-36
154-203: Comprehensive test coverage for silent mode!The test cases thoroughly cover all aspects of silent mode:
- Complete output suppression in basic mode
- Selective output in verbose mode
- Critical issue reporting behavior
Line range hint
1-600: Excellent test organization and coverage!The test suite is well-structured with:
- Clear describe blocks
- Consistent use of tags and fixtures
- Comprehensive coverage of features
- Good balance of happy path and error cases
test/recode/cli_formatter_test.exs (5)
11-11: LGTM! Good default configuration.The addition of
silent: falseto@configmaintains backward compatibility while supporting the new silent mode feature.
30-31: LGTM! Improved output message clarity.The changes from "Executed" to "Completed" and the addition of "Files processed" make the output messages more precise and professional. The updates are consistently applied across all test cases.
Also applies to: 88-89, 138-139, 170-171, 240-241, 266-267, 292-293, 328-329, 365-366, 402-403, 445-446, 480-481, 552-553
65-65: LGTM! Enhanced change traceability.The addition of the
by:option to allSource.updatecalls improves traceability by clearly attributing the source of each change. The attribution is consistently applied across all test cases with appropriate values for each context.Also applies to: 105-105, 110-110, 155-156, 201-201, 225-225, 422-422, 639-639
36-53: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage for silent mode.The new test cases thoroughly verify the silent mode functionality:
- No output for projects without changes
- No output for project information
The implementation follows existing test patterns and provides good coverage of the new feature.Also applies to: 505-522
676-676: LGTM! Improved helper function readability.The modification to use
path:as a keyword argument inSource.Ex.from_stringimproves code readability while maintaining backward compatibility.examples/my_code/.formatter.exs (2)
5-5: LGTM! Good plugin configuration.The explicit plugin configuration with both
FreedomFormatterandRecode.FormatterPluginis clear and well-structured.
13-15: LGTM! Good path configuration.The input paths and subdirectories are well-defined:
- JSON files in
privdirectory are now included- Migration files are properly handled through subdirectories
examples/my_code/.recode.exs (4)
2-2: LGTM! Version bump to 0.8.0.Version update aligns with the PR title and changes.
13-14: LGTM! New silent mode configuration.The silent mode can be controlled via command-line options, providing good flexibility.
21-22: LGTM! New manifest configuration.The manifest option can be controlled via command-line, consistent with other toggleable options.
41-42: References to old task nameTestFileExtneed updating.The task has been renamed from
TestFileExttoTestFile. Ensure all references are updated across the codebase.#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to the old task name # Search for any remaining references to TestFileExt rg "TestFileExt" --type elixir # Search for usage of the new task name to ensure consistency rg "TestFile" --type elixirexamples/minimal/.recode.exs (2)
15-19: LGTM! Good input configuration.Using
:formatterinputs is a clean approach to reuse paths from.formatter.exs.
23-43: LGTM! Well-structured task configuration.The task list is comprehensive and well-documented:
- Each task has clear options
- Inactive tasks are properly marked
- Exit codes are defined for tag tasks
lib/recode/task/io_inspect.ex (2)
23-23: LGTM! Good refactoring of update logic.The update logic has been improved:
- Passes complete opts map instead of just autocorrect
- Uses update_source for consistent handling
Also applies to: 26-27
68-69: LGTM! Improved issue creation.Using
new_issueprovides a more consistent approach to issue creation across tasks.test/recode/formatter_plugin_test.exs (2)
27-31: LGTM! Updated configuration assertions.Test assertions properly validate the new configuration structure with formatter options.
42-46: LGTM! Clean formatter options setup.The formatter options are well-structured with locals and recode configuration.
lib/recode/task/test_file.ex (2)
1-14: LGTM! Well-structured module with clear documentation.The module has a clear purpose, well-defined functionality, and good examples in the documentation.
34-35: Verify the test directory check logic.The current check
in_test = path |> Path.split() |> Enum.member?("test")may yield false positives if any directory in the path contains "test" as part of another word (e.g., "contest", "latest").#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential false positives in test directory detection # Test: Search for directories containing "test" as part of another word fd -t d ".*test.*" -x echo "Found potential false positive: {}"test/mix/tasks/recode.update.config_test.exs (2)
10-24: LGTM! Good test isolation using temporary directory.The test properly uses
@tag :tmp_dirfor isolation and cleanup.
54-67: Verify task removal behavior.The test verifies that
TestFileExttask is removed, but it should also verify that other tasks remain intact.lib/recode/task/dbg.ex (2)
22-23: LGTM! Good standardization of source updates.The change to use
update_sourcehelps standardize source updates across tasks.Also applies to: 26-27
81-82: LGTM! Consistent issue creation.The change to use
new_issuealigns with the standardization across tasks.lib/recode/task/unnecessary_if_unless.ex (1)
35-35: LGTM! Good standardization of issue creation and source updates.The changes to use
new_issueandupdate_sourcehelp standardize the codebase.Also applies to: 65-65
lib/recode/formatter_plugin.ex (1)
59-59: LGTM! Simplified formatter options handling.The change to directly pass formatter options improves code clarity.
lib/recode/task/single_pipe.ex (2)
32-39: LGTM! Clean refactor of the run function.The changes improve code readability by chaining operations and consolidating the update logic in a new private function.
41-42: LGTM! Well-structured update function.The new private function encapsulates the source update logic, making the code more maintainable.
lib/recode/manifest.ex (3)
21-34: LGTM! Robust implementation of manifest write function.The implementation includes:
- Proper error handling for file operations
- Appropriate use of
withfor handling multiple operations- Clear error messages using
:file.format_error/1
36-57: LGTM! Well-structured manifest read function.The implementation includes:
- Proper validation of configuration options
- Clear error handling with specific error messages
- Consistent return values
77-84: LGTM! Clear content validation logic.The
to_term/1function properly validates the manifest content format and returns appropriate error tuples.lib/recode/task/alias_order.ex (2)
34-40: LGTM! Clean refactor of do_run functions.The changes properly integrate the new task callbacks while maintaining the existing functionality.
Also applies to: 43-49
97-99: LGTM! Consistent use of new_issue.The changes align with the new issue creation pattern introduced in the task module.
Also applies to: 106-109
lib/recode/task.ex (4)
4-18: LGTM! Clear and comprehensive documentation.The documentation provides a clear step-by-step guide for creating recode tasks and explains the behavior of
use Recode.Task.
59-89: LGTM! Well-documented new callbacks.The new callbacks are thoroughly documented with clear explanations of their behavior and default implementations.
140-164: LGTM! Robust source update implementation.The implementation properly handles different update scenarios and maintains consistent behavior.
185-198: LGTM! Complete default implementations in using.The macro provides default implementations for all callbacks, ensuring consistent behavior across tasks.
lib/recode/config.ex (5)
10-14: LGTM! Version update and config keys align with new features.The version update to "0.8.0" and the addition of
:manifestand:silentconfig keys properly support the new features.Also applies to: 16-27
Line range hint
31-60: LGTM! Default configuration properly initialized.The new defaults are sensible:
silent: falsepreserves existing behavior by defaultmanifest: trueenables the new feature by default- Task rename from
TestFileExttoTestFileis properly reflected
68-71: LGTM! Clear and focused function.The
default_filename/0function provides a clean way to access the config filename constant.
123-124: LGTM! Documentation clarification.The updated documentation clearly explains that the version is taken from the right config during merge.
158-166: LGTM! Clean implementation of task removal.The
delete_tasks/2function provides a clean way to remove deprecated tasks from the configuration.lib/mix/tasks/recode.ex (4)
33-50: LGTM! Clear and comprehensive documentation for new options.The documentation for new options is well-written and explains:
- Purpose of each option
- Default values
- Interactions with other options (e.g., manifest defaults based on --task)
64-67: LGTM! Options and aliases properly configured.The new options are correctly added to the strict list with appropriate types, and the silent option has an intuitive alias.
Also applies to: 75-75
194-209: LGTM! Improved config validation with better error handling.The validation now:
- Provides clearer error messages for invalid task configs
- Automatically moves unknown keys to task-specific config
- Suggests the correct configuration format
240-262: LGTM! Robust manifest and verbose handling.The implementation:
- Correctly forces verbose mode for dry runs
- Properly disables manifest when specific tasks are provided
- Includes clear comments explaining the logic
lib/recode/runner/impl.ex (3)
84-100: LGTM! Clean implementation of format function.The function:
- Properly handles both dry run and normal execution
- Generates appropriate issues for unformatted files in dry run mode
- Uses clear conditional logic
186-196: LGTM! Improved error handling with better context.The error handling:
- Properly propagates test assertion errors
- Includes task module and error in metadata
- Provides formatted error messages with stack traces
268-278: Improve error message in dot_formatter function.The error handling could be more informative.
Apply this diff:
- Mix.raise("Failed to read formatter: #{inspect(error)}") + Mix.raise(""" + Failed to read .formatter.exs file: + #{Exception.message(error)} + """)
| # Minimal | ||
|
|
||
| **TODO: Add description** | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Replace TODO with package description and fix markdown formatting.
The description section needs attention:
- Replace the TODO with an actual description explaining the package's purpose and functionality.
- Use a proper heading format for the description section instead of bold emphasis.
Apply this diff to improve the markdown structure:
# Minimal
-**TODO: Add description**
+## Description
+
+Minimal is an example package demonstrating the usage of the `recode` library.
+It provides a simple `hello/0` function that returns `:world`.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| # Minimal | |
| **TODO: Add description** | |
| # Minimal | |
| ## Description | |
| Minimal is an example package demonstrating the usage of the `recode` library. | |
| It provides a simple `hello/0` function that returns `:world`. |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.37.0)
3-3: null
Emphasis used instead of a heading
(MD036, no-emphasis-as-heading)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (1)
63-71: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance issue verification test.
The current test verifies that an issue is raised but could be more thorough:
- Verify the specific issue details (line number, message)
- Test multiple violations in the same code block
- Test different types of violations (nested calls, multiple arguments)
Consider expanding the test like this:
test "adds issue" do dot_formatter = DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(locals_without_parens: [foo: 1]) """ x = foo(bar) + y = foo(1) + z = foo(baz(2)) """ |> run_task(LocalsWithoutParens, autocorrect: false, dot_formatter: dot_formatter) - |> assert_issue() + |> assert_issues([ + %{line: 1, message: "Unnecessary parentheses in foo/1"}, + %{line: 2, message: "Unnecessary parentheses in foo/1"}, + %{line: 3, message: "Unnecessary parentheses in foo/1"} + ])
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (1)
7-32: Test case could be more comprehensive.The "remove parens" test could include more edge cases:
- Nested function calls with mixed parens requirements
- Pipeline operators
- Function calls in list comprehensions
Consider adding these cases:
test "remove parens" do dot_formatter = DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(locals_without_parens: [foo: 1, bar: 2, baz: :*]) code = """ [x] = foo(bar(y)) bar(y, x) baz(a) baz(a,b) baz(a,b,c) if(x == 1, do: true) + result = foo bar |> baz(1) + items = for x <- list, do: foo(x) + nested = foo bar(baz(1)) """CHANGELOG.md (1)
3-13: Enhance changelog entries with more details.Consider improving the changelog entries:
- Mark breaking changes (e.g., task renaming)
- Add migration guides for significant changes
- Provide examples for new features (e.g., silent mode usage)
Example improvements:
## 0.8.0 - dev + Use `Rewrite` version `~> 1.0`. + Add callback and default implementation `Recode.Task.update_source/3`. + Add callback and default implementation `Recode.Task.new_issue/1` and `Recode.Task.new_issue/2`. -+ Rename `Recode.Task.TestFileExt` to `Recode.Task.TestFile`. ++ BREAKING: Rename `Recode.Task.TestFileExt` to `Recode.Task.TestFile`. + Migration: Update your configs and imports to use the new module name. + Update `mix recode.update.config` to remove deprecated tasks. + Add a manifest file to store information about the files processed. -+ Add silent mode with flag `--silent`. ++ Add silent mode with flag `--silent`. + Example: `mix recode --silent` to suppress all output. + Fix `Recode.Task.LocalsWithoutParens`.lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (2)
31-37: Consider caching formatter options.The formatter options are fetched and processed for each run. Consider caching these options when they're unlikely to change during execution.
+ @formatter_opts_cache_key :formatter_opts_cache + + defp get_formatter_opts(opts, source) do + case Process.get(@formatter_opts_cache_key) do + nil -> + opts = opts + |> Keyword.fetch!(:dot_formatter) + |> DotFormatter.formatter_opts_for_file(source.path || "nofile") + |> Keyword.get(:locals_without_parens, []) + |> Enum.concat(Code.Formatter.locals_without_parens()) + Process.put(@formatter_opts_cache_key, opts) + opts + opts -> opts + end + end
116-134: Optimize pattern matching in do_remove_parens.The current implementation checks conditions sequentially. Consider using pattern matching to handle different cases more efficiently.
- defp do_remove_parens( - %Zipper{node: {fun, meta, args}} = zipper, - issues, - locals_without_parens, - autocorrect? - ) do - if Keyword.has_key?(meta, :closing) and - local_without_parens?(locals_without_parens, fun, args) do - if autocorrect? do - node = {fun, Keyword.delete(meta, :closing), args} - {:cont, Zipper.replace(zipper, node), issues} - else - issue = new_issue("Unnecessary parens", meta) - {:cont, zipper, [issue | issues]} - end - else - {:cont, zipper, issues} - end - end + defp do_remove_parens( + %Zipper{node: {fun, meta, args}} = zipper, + issues, + locals_without_parens, + autocorrect? + ) + when is_map_key(meta, :closing) and + local_without_parens?(locals_without_parens, fun, args) do + if autocorrect? do + node = {fun, Keyword.delete(meta, :closing), args} + {:cont, Zipper.replace(zipper, node), issues} + else + issue = new_issue("Unnecessary parens", meta) + {:cont, zipper, [issue | issues]} + end + end + + defp do_remove_parens(zipper, issues, _locals_without_parens, _autocorrect?) do + {:cont, zipper, issues} + end
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
mix.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.credo.exs(2 hunks)CHANGELOG.md(2 hunks)lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex(2 hunks)mix.exs(4 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- mix.exs
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Test on Ubuntu (Elixir 1.18.1, OTP 27.2)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.credo.exs (2)
49-49: Consider the impact of enabling strict mode.Enabling strict mode (
strict: true) will make the linting process more rigorous. This could potentially increase the number of reported issues across the codebase.Run this script to assess the impact:
✅ Verification successful
Enabling strict mode appears safe to proceed with ✅
The codebase shows no existing Credo suppressions or lint-related comments, suggesting it already maintains high code quality standards. Given this is a development tool with comprehensive tests and examples, enabling strict mode aligns well with the project's quality requirements.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Compare Credo issues before and after enabling strict mode # Note: This will help identify any new issues that might arise # Search for existing Credo-related comments/issues in the codebase rg "# credo:disable" rg "@lint"Length of output: 33
Script:
#!/bin/bash # First, find all Elixir files echo "=== Elixir Files ===" fd -e ex # Look for alternative Credo comment formats and lint-related comments echo -e "\n=== Credo Comments ===" rg -i "credo:" rg -i "lint:" rg -i "noqa" # Check for any other Credo config files echo -e "\n=== Credo Configs ===" fd credoLength of output: 3245
163-164: Verify the rationale for disabling these checks.The following checks have been disabled:
ParenthesesOnZeroArityDefs: Affects consistency in function definitionsFunctionArity: Removes restrictions on function parameter countConsider documenting the reasoning in the config file.
Let's check the current usage patterns:
✅ Verification successful
Disabled checks align with codebase patterns
The disabled checks reflect practical needs in the codebase:
ParenthesesOnZeroArityDefs: The codebase uses both styles appropriately, especially for Mix callbacks and test functionsFunctionArity: Higher arity functions are necessary for AST manipulation and data transformation in core modulesWhile the rationale is evident from the code patterns, consider adding a brief comment in
.credo.exsto document these decisions.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check current practices for zero-arity functions and function arities # Check for zero-arity function definitions ast-grep --pattern 'def $name() do $$$ end' # Look for functions with high arity ast-grep --pattern 'def $name($p1, $p2, $p3, $p4, $p5, $$$) do $$$ end'Length of output: 123
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for zero-arity functions (both with and without parentheses) echo "=== Zero-arity function definitions ===" rg "def \w+\s*(?:\(\))?\s*do" --type elixir # Check for functions with high arity (5 or more parameters) echo -e "\n=== High arity functions ===" rg "def \w+\([^)]{40,}\)" --type elixir # Look for comments explaining these Credo configurations echo -e "\n=== Related documentation ===" rg -B 2 "ParenthesesOnZeroArityDefs|FunctionArity" .credo.exsLength of output: 5381
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (2)
11-19: Consider including the commented test cases.The commented test cases cover valuable edge cases and combinations that would enhance test coverage:
- Multiple function calls
- Nested function calls
- Different arities
- Special forms like
ifConsider uncommenting and including these test cases to ensure comprehensive testing of the functionality.
Also applies to: 20-22
114-126: Clarify test expectations for multiline calls.The test verifies that one issue is raised, but it's unclear which function call (single-line or multi-line) should trigger the issue. Consider:
- Adding assertions to verify which call raises the issue
- Adding comments to explain the expected behavior
test "add no issue for multiline calls" do dot_formatter = DotFormatter.from_formatter_opts(locals_without_parens: [foo: 2]) """ + # Should raise issue (single-line) foo(x, y) + # Should not raise issue (multi-line) foo( x, y ) """ |> run_task(LocalsWithoutParens, autocorrect: false, dot_formatter: dot_formatter) - |> assert_issues(1) + |> assert_issues([ + %{line: 2, message: "Unnecessary parens"} + ]) endlib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (2)
125-128: Improve readability of the predicate function.Consider breaking down the conditions for better readability:
defp remove_parens?(fun, meta, args, locals_without_parens) do - Keyword.has_key?(meta, :closing) and not multiline?(meta) and - local_without_parens?(locals_without_parens, fun, args) + has_parens = Keyword.has_key?(meta, :closing) + is_single_line = not multiline?(meta) + is_local_without_parens = local_without_parens?(locals_without_parens, fun, args) + + has_parens and is_single_line and is_local_without_parens end
Line range hint
130-139: Consider optimizing the locals lookup.For better performance with large lists of locals, consider using pattern matching in a function head or using MapSet for O(1) lookup:
+defp local_without_parens?(locals_without_parens, fun, args) do + arity = length(args) + do_local_without_parens?(locals_without_parens, fun, arity) +end + +defp do_local_without_parens?([{fun, :*} | _rest], fun, _arity), do: true +defp do_local_without_parens?([{fun, arity} | _rest], fun, arity), do: true +defp do_local_without_parens?([_other | rest], fun, arity), do: do_local_without_parens?(rest, fun, arity) +defp do_local_without_parens?([], _fun, _arity), do: false
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex(2 hunks)test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
test/recode/task/locals_without_parens_test.exs (2)
1-6: LGTM! Test module setup is well-structured.The module is properly set up with appropriate test case and necessary aliases.
62-70: Enhance issue verification test.The test could be more thorough by:
- Verifying specific issue details (line number, message)
- Testing multiple violations in the same code block
- Testing different types of violations (nested calls, multiple arguments)
lib/recode/task/locals_without_parens.ex (1)
22-45: LGTM! Well-structured implementation of the run function.The function correctly:
- Fetches formatter options from the provided dot_formatter
- Combines locals_without_parens from formatter and Code.Formatter
- Uses proper traversal pattern
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes for Recode v0.8.0
New Features
--silentflag to limit console output.--manifestoption for reading and writing manifest files.--forceflag to execute without reading the manifest file.TestFileExttask toTestFile.update_source/3,new_issue/1, andnew_issue/2.Recode.Manifestmodule for managing manifest files.Recode.Timestampmodule for retrieving file modification times.Improvements
Breaking Changes
Formattask.Dependency Updates
rewritedependency to~> 1.1.freedom_formatterdependency.