Diff Graph implementation #187
Conversation
…process_review_changes
Separated the relevant-reviewers comment from the DiffGraph comment.
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve multiple modifications across various files in the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant ReviewService
participant GitHub
participant DiffGraph
User->>ReviewService: Submit review
ReviewService->>GitHub: Process review changes
GitHub->>DiffGraph: Generate diff graph
DiffGraph-->>GitHub: Return diff graph
GitHub-->>ReviewService: Send diff graph comment
ReviewService-->>User: Notify review processed
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 (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 54
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (29)
vibi-dpu/src/graph/mod.rs (1)
1-10: LGTM! Consider improving module organization.The module declarations look good and follow Rust's conventions. The modules seem to cover various aspects of graph operations, Git interactions, and function analysis, which aligns with the PR objectives.
However, consider the following suggestions for improved organization:
Group related modules: You could group related modules using nested modules. For example:
pub mod git { pub mod gitops; } pub mod graph { pub mod elements; pub mod mermaid_elements; pub mod graph_info; pub mod graph_edges; } pub mod function_analysis { pub mod function_line_range; pub mod function_call; pub mod function_name; } pub mod utils; pub mod file_imports;Consider creating a prelude module: If many of these modules are commonly used together, you could create a prelude module to re-export commonly used items:
pub mod prelude { pub use super::graph::*; pub use super::function_analysis::*; // Add other commonly used items }These suggestions could improve the module's organization and make it easier for users of your library to import the necessary components.
Would you like me to generate documentation comments for these modules to explain their purpose and contents?
vibi-dpu/src/utils/repo_config.rs (2)
6-7: LGTM! Consider adding documentation for the new field.The addition of the
diff_graphfield and the syntax changes look good. They align with the PR objectives and follow Rust's style guidelines.Consider adding a doc comment for the
diff_graphfield to explain its purpose and usage. For example:/// Indicates whether diff graph functionality is enabled. diff_graph: bool
20-22: LGTM! Consider adding documentation for the new method.The new getter method for
diff_graphis implemented correctly and follows the existing pattern in the struct.Consider adding a doc comment for the
diff_graph()method to explain its purpose and return value. For example:/// Returns whether diff graph functionality is enabled. /// /// # Returns /// /// `true` if diff graph is enabled, `false` otherwise. pub fn diff_graph(&self) -> bool { self.diff_graph }vibi-dpu/Cargo.toml (1)
41-41: Address the TODO comment regarding library license checks.The TODO comment indicates that not all library licenses have been checked. This is a crucial step in ensuring compliance and avoiding potential legal issues.
Please take the following actions:
- Review and document the licenses of all dependencies.
- Ensure all licenses are compatible with your project's GPL-3.0-or-later license.
- Update your project's documentation to include a section on third-party licenses.
- Remove the TODO comment once this task is completed.
Consider using a tool like
cargo-licenseto help automate this process:cargo install cargo-license cargo licenseThis will list all dependencies along with their licenses, making the review process easier.
vibi-dpu/src/main.rs (3)
10-10: LGTM: Newgraphmodule added.The addition of the
graphmodule is a good practice for code organization. However, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this module for better documentation.
Line range hint
18-55: Improve code structure and security in the main function.The changes in the main function improve flexibility and debuggability. However, consider the following suggestions:
- Refactor the nested if-else statements to improve readability.
- Remove the debug logging of the GitHub PAT for security reasons.
- Consider using a match statement for the provider check instead of if-else.
Here's a suggested refactoring:
async fn main() { // ... (previous code remains unchanged) let github_pat = match env::var("GITHUB_PAT") { Ok(pat) => { log::debug!("[main] GITHUB_PAT is set"); Some(pat) }, Err(_) => { log::debug!("[main] GITHUB_PAT env var is not set"); None } }; let provider = env::var("PROVIDER").unwrap_or_else(|_| { log::debug!("[main] PROVIDER env var is not set"); String::new() }); log::debug!("[main] PROVIDER: {}", provider); match (github_pat, provider.to_ascii_lowercase().as_str()) { (Some(pat), "github") => { core::github::setup::setup_self_host_user_repos_github(&pat).await; }, _ => { load_auth_from_previous_installation().await; } } // ... (rest of the main function) }This refactoring improves readability, removes the security risk of logging the PAT, and uses a match statement for cleaner control flow.
Line range hint
57-62: LGTM: Newload_auth_from_previous_installationfunction.The function provides a good fallback mechanism for authentication. The use of
if letfor handling theOptionreturned byapp_access_tokenis idiomatic Rust.Consider making the provider more flexible:
async fn load_auth_from_previous_installation(provider: ProviderEnum) { if let Some(access_token) = app_access_token(&None).await { log::info!("Using Stored Auth..."); process_repos(&access_token, &provider.to_string()).await; } }Then update the call in
main:load_auth_from_previous_installation(ProviderEnum::Github).await;This change allows for easier extension if more providers are added in the future.
vibi-dpu/src/core/diff_graph.rs (1)
15-15: Address the TODO: Implement Bitbucket comment functionalityThe TODO comment indicates that adding comments for Bitbucket is pending. Implementing this will extend support to Bitbucket repositories.
Would you like assistance in implementing the Bitbucket comment functionality? I can help provide guidance or open an issue to track this task.
vibi-dpu/src/graph/mermaid_elements.rs (2)
41-60: Remove unnecessary commented-out code for clarityThe commented-out code between lines 41-60 adds clutter and may reduce readability. If this code is no longer needed, consider removing it to keep the codebase clean and maintainable.
28-28: Simplify return statements by omitting thereturnkeywordIn Rust, it is idiomatic to omit the
returnkeyword for the last expression in a function. Consider simplifying the return statements at lines 28 and 64 to enhance code readability.Apply this diff:
- return Some(flowchart_str); + Some(flowchart_str)- return Some(elems_str); + Some(elems_str)Also applies to: 64-64
vibi-dpu/src/core/review.rs (4)
74-74: Avoid unnecessary cloning ofrepo_configCloning
repo_configtorepo_config_clonemay be unnecessary ifprocess_relevancedoesn't require ownership or mutation of the entire struct. Consider borrowingrepo_configas mutable directly or refactoringprocess_relevanceto accept an immutable reference if possible.
90-99: Enhance clarity by renaming variablesIn
get_included_and_excluded_files, consider renamingsmallfilestoincluded_filesfor consistency and better readability, as it pairs withexcluded_filesand indicates their purpose clearly.Apply this diff:
fn get_included_and_excluded_files(review: &Review) -> Option<(Vec<StatItem>, Vec<StatItem>)> { let fileopt = get_excluded_files(&review); log::debug!("[process_review_changes] fileopt = {:?}", &fileopt); if fileopt.is_none() { log::error!("[process_review_changes] No files to review for PR {}", review.id()); return None; } - let (excluded_files, smallfiles) = fileopt.expect("fileopt is empty"); - return Some((excluded_files, smallfiles)); + let (excluded_files, included_files) = fileopt.expect("fileopt is empty"); + return Some((excluded_files, included_files)); }
Line range hint
101-117: Add error handling incalculate_hunkmapThe function
calculate_hunkmapassumes all operations succeed. To prevent potential panics or undefined behavior, add error handling for operations likegenerate_diff,process_diffmap, andgenerate_blame, which may fail or return invalid data.
234-236: Consistent error logging formatEnsure that the error message in
create_and_save_github_review_objectfollows the same format and detail level as other error logs. This enhances log readability and aids in debugging.vibi-dpu/src/graph/utils.rs (5)
91-94: Check file existence before readingThe function attempts to read the file before checking if it exists. It's more efficient to check for the file's existence first to avoid unnecessary operations.
Apply this diff to reorder the checks:
- let content_res = fs::read_to_string(path); - if !path.exists() { + if !path.exists() { log::error!("[read_file] File does not exist: {:?}", &path); return None; - } - if content_res.is_err() { + } + let content_res = fs::read_to_string(path); + if content_res.is_err() { let err = content_res.expect_err("Empty error in content_res"); log::error!("[read_file] Error in reading content: {:?}", err); return None; }
184-184: Adjust line numbering to start from 1In the
numbered_contentfunction, line numbering starts from 0. Typically, line numbers start from 1 to align with common conventions.Apply this diff to adjust the line numbering:
- .map(|(index, line)| format!("{} {}", index, line)) + .map(|(index, line)| format!("{} {}", index + 1, line))
200-200: Correct typo in error messageThere's a typographical error in the error message: "deserialze" should be "deserialize".
Apply this diff to correct the typo:
- return Some(rel_path.to_str().expect("Unable to deserialze rel_path").to_string()); + return Some(rel_path.to_str().expect("Unable to deserialize rel_path").to_string());
243-253: Duplicate entries for "Sass" in the extension mapThe extension map has duplicate entries for "Sass" with extensions
"scss"and"sass". While this may be intentional to cover different file extensions, ensure that it doesn't cause any unintended behavior.If intentional, consider adding a comment for clarity:
+ // Both .scss and .sass extensions are used for Sass files
161-162: Remove misleading commentThe comment suggests returning an empty
PathBuf, but the function returnsNonewhen no match is found. This could confuse future maintainers.Apply this diff to remove or correct the comment:
- // Return an empty PathBuf or handle the case where no match is found + // Return None if no matching path is foundvibi-dpu/src/core/relevance.rs (1)
212-218: Add a newline after the colon for better readabilityIn the message indicating the ignored files, adding a newline after the colon improves readability by separating the introductory text from the list.
Apply this diff:
-comment += "Ignoring following files due to large size: "; +comment += "Ignoring following files due to large size:\n";This change will ensure that the list of files starts on a new line, making the output cleaner and easier to read.
vibi-dpu/src/graph/function_call.rs (2)
234-238: Correct the log message to reflect the function nameIn the
new()function ofFunctionCallIdentifier, the error message incorrectly references[function_calls_in_chunk]. It should reference[FunctionCallIdentifier/new]or a similar identifier to accurately reflect the function where the error occurred.Apply this diff to fix the log message:
if system_prompt_opt.is_none() { - log::error!("[function_calls_in_chunk] Unable to read prompt_function_calls"); + log::error!("[FunctionCallIdentifier/new] Unable to read prompt_function_calls"); return None; }
64-64: Fix typo in error message: "Uncuaght" should be "Uncaught"There's a typo in the error message on line 64. The word "Uncuaght" should be corrected to "Uncaught".
Apply this diff to fix the typo:
let func_call_chunk: FunctionCallChunk = deserialized_response.expect("Uncuaght error in deserialized_response"); +// Corrected spelling of "Uncaught"vibi-dpu/src/graph/elements.rs (1)
346-370: Add unit tests for the 'add_edge' method to ensure correctnessThe
add_edgemethod is central to building the graph elements. Adding unit tests will help verify its behavior under various scenarios and catch potential bugs early.Would you like assistance in generating unit tests for this method?
vibi-dpu/src/graph/file_imports.rs (1)
365-365: Correct the logging message to reflect the actual function nameThe log message on line 365 incorrectly references
[get_import_lines]. It should be[get_import_path_file]to accurately reflect the current function and aid in debugging.Apply this diff to fix the logging message:
-log::error!("[get_import_lines] Unable to read file: {:?}, error: {:?}", file_path, e); +log::error!("[get_import_path_file] Unable to read file: {:?}, error: {:?}", file_path, e);vibi-dpu/src/graph/function_line_range.rs (3)
248-259: Remove commented-out code to enhance readabilityThe code between lines 248 and 259 is commented out. Leaving large sections of commented code can clutter the codebase and reduce readability. If this code is no longer needed, consider removing it. If it needs to be retained for future reference, provide a comment explaining why it's commented out.
475-477: Remove unused commented-out codeThe code between lines 475 and 477 is commented out and appears to be unused. Removing dead code helps keep the codebase clean and maintainable.
126-195: Add unit tests for critical functionsFunctions like
FunctionDefIdentifier::newandfunction_defs_in_fileare central to the application's functionality but do not have accompanying unit tests. Adding tests can help ensure correctness and catch regressions in future changes.Would you like assistance in writing unit tests for these functions?
vibi-dpu/src/utils/gitops.rs (1)
Line range hint
519-525: Incorrect formatting ofaccess_tokenin Bitbucket clone URLIn the
create_clone_urlfunction, while constructing the clone URL for Bitbucket repositories, theaccess_tokenis enclosed within extra curly braces, which may lead to an incorrect URL format.Line 523~:
.replace("git@", format!("https://x-token-auth:{{{access_token}}}@").as_str())The
format!macro interprets{{and}}as literal{and}, resulting in theaccess_tokenbeing wrapped in braces in the output URL. This could cause authentication issues when cloning the repository.Suggested fix:
Remove the extra curly braces around
{access_token}to correctly format the URL:- .replace("git@", format!("https://x-token-auth:{{{access_token}}}@").as_str()) + .replace("git@", format!("https://x-token-auth:{access_token}@").as_str())vibi-dpu/src/graph/graph_edges.rs (1)
12-190: Remove or document the large block of commented-out codeThe
incoming_edgesfunction contains a substantial block of commented-out code (lines 12 to 190). If this code is no longer needed, consider removing it to improve readability. If it is intended for future use or reference, please add comments explaining its purpose.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (23)
- Dockerfile (2 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/Cargo.toml (3 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/core/diff_graph.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/core/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/core/relevance.rs (4 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/core/review.rs (6 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/core/trigger.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/db/review.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/elements.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/file_imports.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/function_call.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/function_line_range.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/function_name.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/gitops.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/graph_edges.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/graph_info.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/mermaid_elements.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/mod.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/graph/utils.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/main.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/utils/gitops.rs (4 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/utils/relevance.rs (1 hunks)
- vibi-dpu/src/utils/repo_config.rs (2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- vibi-dpu/src/db/review.rs
- vibi-dpu/src/utils/relevance.rs
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (14)
vibi-dpu/src/core/mod.rs (1)
8-8: LGTM! New module declaration added correctly.The addition of the
diff_graphmodule is consistent with the PR objectives for implementing a Diff Graph. The module is correctly declared as public, allowing it to be accessed from outside thecoremodule.To ensure the new module is properly implemented, please run the following script:
This script will help verify:
- The existence of the
diff_graph.rsfile in the correct location.- That the
diff_graphmodule contains some basic Rust constructs (functions, structs, enums, or traits).- Usage of the
diff_graphmodule in other parts of the codebase.✅ Verification successful
Verified:
diff_graphmodule added successfully.The
diff_graphmodule exists in the correct location and contains the necessary implementation. There are no issues detected with this addition.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and basic structure of the diff_graph module # Test 1: Check if the diff_graph.rs file exists echo "Checking for diff_graph.rs file..." fd --type f "diff_graph.rs" src/core # Test 2: Verify that the diff_graph module is not empty echo "Checking contents of diff_graph.rs..." rg --type rust "fn|struct|enum|trait" src/core/diff_graph.rs # Test 3: Look for usage of the diff_graph module in other files echo "Checking for usage of diff_graph module..." rg --type rust "use (crate::)?core::diff_graph" srcLength of output: 615
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and basic structure of the diff_graph module with corrected path # Test 1: Check if the diff_graph.rs file exists echo "Checking for diff_graph.rs file in vibi-dpu/src/core..." fd --type f "diff_graph.rs" vibi-dpu/src/core # Test 2: Verify that the diff_graph module is not empty echo "Checking contents of vibi-dpu/src/core/diff_graph.rs..." rg --type rust "fn|struct|enum|trait" vibi-dpu/src/core/diff_graph.rs # Test 3: Look for usage of the diff_graph module in other files echo "Checking for usage of diff_graph module in the codebase..." rg --type rust "use (crate::)?vibi_dpu::core::diff_graph" vibi-dpu/srcLength of output: 933
vibi-dpu/src/utils/repo_config.rs (2)
28-29: LGTM! Default implementation looks good.The changes to the
default()method are correct and well-implemented:
- Initializing
diff_graphtofalseby default is a good choice, suggesting it's an opt-in feature.- The syntax is correct, including the trailing comma after
auto_assign.
Line range hint
1-32: Overall, the changes look good and are well-implemented.The addition of the
diff_graphfield and its associated getter method are consistent with the PR objectives. The implementation follows Rust best practices and maintains the existing code structure. Consider adding documentation comments for the new field and method to improve code clarity and maintainability.vibi-dpu/Cargo.toml (2)
3-3: Verify the major version bump and provide a changelog.The package version has been updated from 1.0.0 to 2.0.0, which indicates a major release with potential breaking changes.
Please confirm:
- Is this major version bump intentional?
- Are there breaking changes that justify this bump?
- Has a changelog been prepared to document the significant changes in this version?
If a changelog hasn't been prepared yet, please consider adding one to help users understand the major changes and any migration steps required.
40-40: Verify usage and license compatibility of the new walkdir dependency.The addition of the walkdir dependency is likely related to new functionality for traversing directory structures, possibly for Git operations or file system tasks.
Please ensure the following:
Verify the usage of walkdir in the codebase:
Confirm that the Unlicense/MIT license of walkdir is compatible with your project's GPL-3.0-or-later license. While they are generally compatible, it's good practice to explicitly verify this.
Update the project's documentation or README to mention this new dependency and its purpose in the project.
If walkdir is not currently used, consider removing it to keep the dependencies minimal, or add a TODO comment to implement its functionality in the future.
Dockerfile (1)
7-7: Addition of 'ripgrep' package: ApprovedThe inclusion of 'ripgrep' alongside 'ca-certificates' and 'git' is a good addition. Ripgrep is a fast, efficient tool for searching text, which can be beneficial for various operations within the container.
vibi-dpu/src/core/trigger.rs (1)
51-51: Approve change with suggestions for verification and documentation.The modification simplifies the
process_triggerfunction by consolidating the review processing logic into a single call toprocess_review_changes. This is a good improvement in terms of code organization and readability.However, please ensure the following:
Verify that error handling in the updated
process_review_changesfunction is comprehensive, especially considering it now encompasses the functionality previously handled bysend_hunkmap.Update the documentation for
process_review_changesto reflect its new parameters and expanded responsibilities if this hasn't been done already.To verify the changes in
process_review_changes, please run the following script:vibi-dpu/src/graph/function_name.rs (2)
73-75: Avoid unnecessary cloning ofStringwhen cachingCloning
Stringinstances can be expensive. Since you own theString, consider using references or cloning only when necessary.[performance]
Apply this diff to optimize cloning:
// In function_name_in_line if let Some(cached_func_name) = self.cached_output.get(code_line) { - return Some(FunctionNameOutput{ function_name: cached_func_name.to_string(), notes: None }) + return Some(FunctionNameOutput{ function_name: cached_func_name.clone(), notes: None }) } // When inserting into the cache - self.cached_output.insert(code_line.to_string(), func_calls.get_function_name().to_string()); + self.cached_output.insert(code_line.to_string(), func_calls.get_function_name().clone());Alternatively, adjust the types to use references if possible.
Also applies to: 100-101
86-86: Ensure the final prompt is correctly formattedDouble-check that the prompt sent to the LLM API matches the expected format. The
\nOutput -may need to be adjusted depending on the API's requirements.Confirm that the LLM API expects the prompt in this format. If not, adjust accordingly.
vibi-dpu/src/graph/gitops.rs (1)
214-218: Verify the correctness of end line calculations in hunk parsing.The calculation of
current_del_endandcurrent_add_endusesstart + len - 1. Ensure that subtracting one fromstart + lenaccurately reflects the end line number, as off-by-one errors can occur iflenis zero or if the ranges are misinterpreted.Run the following script to check for potential off-by-one errors:
vibi-dpu/src/graph/utils.rs (2)
81-82: Ensure consistency in response trimmingThe check for starting with
"{"and not ending with"}"may not effectively handle all cases. Additionally, appending"}"without ensuring the JSON structure is correct might lead to parsing issues.Consider reviewing the logic for trimming and fixing the final response. Ensure that the JSON response is well-formed before processing.
70-70:⚠️ Potential issueHandle parsing errors without panicking
Using
expectcan cause a panic if an error occurs. Instead, handle the error gracefully to improve the robustness of the application.Apply this diff to handle parsing errors:
- let parsed_chunk = parsed_chunk_res.expect("Uncaught error in parsed_chunk_res"); + let parsed_chunk = match parsed_chunk_res { + Ok(value) => value, + Err(e) => { + log::error!("[call_llm_api] Error parsing chunk: {:?}", e); + continue; + } + };Likely invalid or redundant comment.
vibi-dpu/src/core/relevance.rs (1)
7-7: Verify all calls toprocess_relevanceinclude the newexcluded_filesparameterSince you've added the new parameter
excluded_filesto theprocess_relevancefunction signature, ensure that all calls to this function throughout the codebase are updated accordingly to prevent compilation errors.Run the following script to find all calls to
process_relevance:✅ Verification successful
All calls to
process_relevanceinclude the newexcluded_filesparameter.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all calls to `process_relevance` in the codebase. rg --type rust 'process_relevance\('Length of output: 263
vibi-dpu/src/graph/graph_edges.rs (1)
192-193:⚠️ Potential issueCorrect the log message to reflect the current function
In the
incoming_edgesfunction, the log message incorrectly references[outgoing_edges]instead of[incoming_edges]. Please update the log message for accuracy and consistency.Apply this diff to correct the log message:
- log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); + log::debug!("[incoming_edges] Unable to create func def identifier");Likely invalid or redundant comment.
| @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ serde = { version = "1.0", features = ["derive"] } | |||
| serde_json = "1.0" | |||
| base64ct = "1.5.3" | |||
| sha256 = "1.1.1" | |||
| reqwest = { version = "0.11", features = ["json", "blocking"] } | |||
| reqwest = { version = "0.11", features = ["json", "blocking", "stream"] } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
The "stream" feature added to reqwest is not utilized in the codebase.
Consider removing this feature to maintain minimal and efficient dependencies.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify usage of the new reqwest "stream" feature.
The addition of the "stream" feature to the reqwest dependency is a good improvement that can enable more efficient handling of large HTTP responses.
To ensure this new feature is being utilized, please run the following script to check for its usage in the codebase:
If the feature is not currently used, consider removing it to keep the dependencies minimal, or add a TODO comment to implement streaming in the future.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for usage of reqwest streaming functionality
# Test: Search for common streaming methods from reqwest
rg --type rust 'reqwest::.*Client.*stream' || echo "No direct usage of reqwest streaming found."
Length of output: 141
| @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ ENV PROVIDER=$PROVIDER | |||
| COPY ./vibi-dpu/target/debug/vibi-dpu /app/vibi-dpu | |||
| COPY ./pubsub-sa.json /app/pubsub-sa.json | |||
| COPY ./repo-profiler.pem /app/repo-profiler.pem | |||
|
|
|||
| COPY ./prompts /app/prompts | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Issue Detected with prompts Directory
The prompts directory does not exist in the repository, which will cause the Docker build to fail when attempting to copy it.
- Dockerfile (Line 48)
COPY ./prompts /app/prompts
🔗 Analysis chain
New step to copy 'prompts' directory: Approved
The addition of this step to copy the ./prompts directory into the container at /app/prompts suggests that the application now utilizes prompt files. This is likely related to new functionality, possibly involving AI or templating features.
To ensure the prompts directory exists and contains necessary files, let's run a verification script:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the existence and contents of the prompts directory
# Check if the prompts directory exists
if [ -d "./prompts" ]; then
echo "prompts directory exists."
# List contents of the prompts directory
echo "Contents of prompts directory:"
ls -la ./prompts
else
echo "Error: prompts directory does not exist."
fi
Length of output: 113
| use crate::core::github; | ||
| use crate::utils::gitops::StatItem; | ||
|
|
||
| pub async fn send_diff_graph(review: &Review, excluded_files: &Vec<StatItem>, small_files: &Vec<StatItem>, access_token: &str) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use slices &[StatItem] instead of &Vec<StatItem> for function parameters
In Rust, it's more idiomatic to accept slices (&[T]) rather than references to vectors (&Vec<T>). This allows for more flexible function signatures and can accept both slices and vectors without unnecessary constraints.
Apply this diff to update the function signatures:
-pub async fn send_diff_graph(review: &Review, excluded_files: &Vec<StatItem>, small_files: &Vec<StatItem>, access_token: &str) {
+pub async fn send_diff_graph(review: &Review, excluded_files: &[StatItem], small_files: &[StatItem], access_token: &str) {-async fn diff_graph_comment_text(excluded_files: &Vec<StatItem>, small_files: &Vec<StatItem>, review: &Review) -> String {
+async fn diff_graph_comment_text(excluded_files: &[StatItem], small_files: &[StatItem], review: &Review) -> String {-async fn mermaid_comment(diff_files: &Vec<StatItem>, review: &Review) -> Option<String> {
+async fn mermaid_comment(diff_files: &[StatItem], review: &Review) -> Option<String> {Also applies to: 18-18, 33-33
| async fn mermaid_comment(diff_files: &Vec<StatItem>, review: &Review) -> Option<String> { | ||
| let flowchart_str_opt = generate_mermaid_flowchart(diff_files, review).await; | ||
| if flowchart_str_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::error!("[mermaid_comment] Unable to generate flowchart for review: {}", review.id()); | ||
| return None; | ||
| } | ||
| let flowchart_str = flowchart_str_opt.expect("Empty flowchart_str_opt"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify mermaid_comment function using if let
You can streamline the handling of flowchart_str_opt by using if let Some(...) instead of separately checking for None and then unwrapping with expect.
Apply this diff to refactor the function:
async fn mermaid_comment(diff_files: &[StatItem], review: &Review) -> Option<String> {
- let flowchart_str_opt = generate_mermaid_flowchart(diff_files, review).await;
- if flowchart_str_opt.is_none() {
+ if let Some(flowchart_str) = generate_mermaid_flowchart(diff_files, review).await {
+ let mermaid_comment = format!(
+ "### Call Stack Diff\n```mermaid\n{}\n```",
+ flowchart_str,
+ );
+ Some(mermaid_comment)
+ } else {
log::error!("[mermaid_comment] Unable to generate flowchart for review: {}", review.id());
- return None;
- }
- let flowchart_str = flowchart_str_opt.expect("Empty flowchart_str_opt");
- let mermaid_comment = format!(
- "### Call Stack Diff\n```mermaid\n{}\n```",
- flowchart_str,
- );
- return Some(mermaid_comment);
+ None
+ }
}| pub async fn send_diff_graph(review: &Review, excluded_files: &Vec<StatItem>, small_files: &Vec<StatItem>, access_token: &str) { | ||
| let comment = diff_graph_comment_text(excluded_files, small_files, review).await; | ||
| // add comment for GitHub | ||
| if review.provider().to_string() == ProviderEnum::Github.to_string() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simplify enum comparison by matching enum variants directly
Instead of converting enums to strings for comparison, you can compare enums directly. This makes the code more idiomatic and efficient.
Apply this diff to simplify the comparison:
-if review.provider().to_string() == ProviderEnum::Github.to_string() {
+if review.provider() == &ProviderEnum::Github {📝 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.
| if review.provider().to_string() == ProviderEnum::Github.to_string() { | |
| if review.provider() == &ProviderEnum::Github { |
| async fn process_func_defs(review: &Review, funcdef_identifier: &mut FunctionDefIdentifier, | ||
| diff_graph: &DiffGraph, func_call_identifier: &mut FunctionCallIdentifier, | ||
| graph_elems: &mut MermaidGraphElements, edge_color: &str) | ||
| { | ||
| for (dest_filename, dest_file_hunks) in diff_graph.hunk_diff_map().file_line_map() { | ||
| let dest_lang_opt = detect_language(&dest_filename); | ||
| if dest_lang_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::error!("[process_func_defs] Unable to detect language: {}", dest_filename); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let dest_lang = dest_lang_opt.expect("Empty dest_lang_opt"); | ||
| let func_defs; | ||
| if edge_color == "red" { | ||
| func_defs = dest_file_hunks.deleted_hunks(); | ||
| } else { | ||
| func_defs = dest_file_hunks.added_hunks(); | ||
| } | ||
| for dest_func in func_defs { | ||
| if let Some(dest_func_name) = dest_func.function_name() { | ||
| if let Some(dest_funcdef_line) = dest_func.line_number() { | ||
| if let Some(possible_filepaths) = | ||
| function_calls_search(review, dest_func_name, &dest_lang) | ||
| { | ||
| if possible_filepaths.is_empty() { | ||
| log::debug!("[process_func_defs] No files detected having function call"); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| for possible_filepath in possible_filepaths { | ||
| if possible_filepath == *dest_filename { | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let lang_opt = detect_language(&possible_filepath); | ||
| if lang_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::debug!("[process_func_defs] Unable to determine language: {}", &possible_filepath); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let lang = lang_opt.expect("Empty lang_opt"); | ||
| if lang != dest_lang { | ||
| log::debug!("[process_func_defs] Different languages: {}, {}", &lang, &dest_lang); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let possible_path = Path::new(&possible_filepath); | ||
| let possible_pathbuf = possible_path.to_path_buf(); | ||
| // get func call | ||
| if let Some(func_calls) = func_call_identifier.functions_in_file(&possible_pathbuf, &lang).await { | ||
| // get func def | ||
| for func_call in func_calls.function_calls() { | ||
| if let Some(src_func_def) = get_function_def_for_func_call( | ||
| &possible_pathbuf, func_call.line_number().to_owned() as usize | ||
| ).await { | ||
| if let Some(source_filename) = absolute_to_relative_path(&possible_filepath, review) { | ||
| // add edge | ||
| let mut dest_file_rel = dest_filename.to_string(); | ||
| if let Some(dest_file_relative_path) = absolute_to_relative_path(&dest_filename, review) { | ||
| dest_file_rel = dest_file_relative_path; | ||
| } | ||
| graph_elems.add_edge(edge_color, | ||
| func_call.line_number().to_owned() as usize, | ||
| src_func_def.name(), | ||
| dest_func_name, | ||
| &source_filename, | ||
| &dest_file_rel, | ||
| "", | ||
| edge_color, | ||
| src_func_def.line_start(), | ||
| dest_funcdef_line); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring process_func_defs for maintainability
The process_func_defs function is lengthy and contains nested loops and conditionals. Refactoring it into smaller functions can improve readability and make the codebase easier to maintain.
Potential refactoring steps:
- Create helper functions for handling different languages.
- Extract the logic for processing possible file paths into a separate function.
- Modularize the edge creation logic.
This would enhance the structure of the code and facilitate easier debugging and testing.
| src_func_name, | ||
| dest_func_call.function_name(), | ||
| &source_file_name, | ||
| &possible_file_rel, | ||
| edge_color, | ||
| "", | ||
| src_func_line_number, | ||
| &dest_func_def_line); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| // get import and path | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async fn process_func_defs(review: &Review, funcdef_identifier: &mut FunctionDefIdentifier, | ||
| diff_graph: &DiffGraph, func_call_identifier: &mut FunctionCallIdentifier, | ||
| graph_elems: &mut MermaidGraphElements, edge_color: &str) | ||
| { | ||
| for (dest_filename, dest_file_hunks) in diff_graph.hunk_diff_map().file_line_map() { | ||
| let dest_lang_opt = detect_language(&dest_filename); | ||
| if dest_lang_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::error!("[process_func_defs] Unable to detect language: {}", dest_filename); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let dest_lang = dest_lang_opt.expect("Empty dest_lang_opt"); | ||
| let func_defs; | ||
| if edge_color == "red" { | ||
| func_defs = dest_file_hunks.deleted_hunks(); | ||
| } else { | ||
| func_defs = dest_file_hunks.added_hunks(); | ||
| } | ||
| for dest_func in func_defs { | ||
| if let Some(dest_func_name) = dest_func.function_name() { | ||
| if let Some(dest_funcdef_line) = dest_func.line_number() { | ||
| if let Some(possible_filepaths) = | ||
| function_calls_search(review, dest_func_name, &dest_lang) | ||
| { | ||
| if possible_filepaths.is_empty() { | ||
| log::debug!("[process_func_defs] No files detected having function call"); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| for possible_filepath in possible_filepaths { | ||
| if possible_filepath == *dest_filename { | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let lang_opt = detect_language(&possible_filepath); | ||
| if lang_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::debug!("[process_func_defs] Unable to determine language: {}", &possible_filepath); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let lang = lang_opt.expect("Empty lang_opt"); | ||
| if lang != dest_lang { | ||
| log::debug!("[process_func_defs] Different languages: {}, {}", &lang, &dest_lang); | ||
| continue; | ||
| } | ||
| let possible_path = Path::new(&possible_filepath); | ||
| let possible_pathbuf = possible_path.to_path_buf(); | ||
| // get func call | ||
| if let Some(func_calls) = func_call_identifier.functions_in_file(&possible_pathbuf, &lang).await { | ||
| // get func def | ||
| for func_call in func_calls.function_calls() { | ||
| if let Some(src_func_def) = get_function_def_for_func_call( | ||
| &possible_pathbuf, func_call.line_number().to_owned() as usize | ||
| ).await { | ||
| if let Some(source_filename) = absolute_to_relative_path(&possible_filepath, review) { | ||
| // add edge | ||
| let mut dest_file_rel = dest_filename.to_string(); | ||
| if let Some(dest_file_relative_path) = absolute_to_relative_path(&dest_filename, review) { | ||
| dest_file_rel = dest_file_relative_path; | ||
| } | ||
| graph_elems.add_edge(edge_color, | ||
| func_call.line_number().to_owned() as usize, | ||
| src_func_def.name(), | ||
| dest_func_name, | ||
| &source_filename, | ||
| &dest_file_rel, | ||
| "", | ||
| edge_color, | ||
| src_func_def.line_start(), | ||
| dest_funcdef_line); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add unit and integration tests for new functionalities
The new functions introduced in this file lack accompanying unit or integration tests. Implementing tests will help ensure the correctness of these functions and prevent future regressions.
Would you like assistance in generating test cases or setting up a testing framework for these functions?
| if func_call_identifier_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::error!("[incoming_edges] Unable to create new FunctionCallIdentifier"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Update log message to match the function context
In the outgoing_edges function, the log message references [incoming_edges] instead of [outgoing_edges]. This may cause confusion when debugging. Please correct the log message.
Apply this diff to fix the log message:
- log::error!("[incoming_edges] Unable to create new FunctionCallIdentifier");
+ log::error!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create new FunctionCallIdentifier");📝 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.
| if func_call_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::error!("[incoming_edges] Unable to create new FunctionCallIdentifier"); | |
| if func_call_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::error!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create new FunctionCallIdentifier"); |
| let func_def_identifier_opt = FunctionDefIdentifier::new(); | ||
| if func_def_identifier_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| let mut funcdef_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure consistent variable naming for func_def_identifier
There is inconsistent naming between func_def_identifier_opt and funcdef_identifier. For clarity and maintainability, consider using a consistent naming convention throughout the code.
Apply this diff to use func_def_identifier consistently:
- let mut funcdef_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt");
+ let mut func_def_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt");And update subsequent references to funcdef_identifier accordingly.
📝 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.
| let func_def_identifier_opt = FunctionDefIdentifier::new(); | |
| if func_def_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| let mut funcdef_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt"); | |
| let func_def_identifier_opt = FunctionDefIdentifier::new(); | |
| if func_def_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| let mut func_def_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt"); |
| if import_identifier_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create import identifier"); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| let mut import_identifier = import_identifier_opt.expect("Empty import_identifier_opt"); | ||
| let func_def_identifier_opt = FunctionDefIdentifier::new(); | ||
| if func_def_identifier_opt.is_none() { | ||
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
| let mut funcdef_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maintain consistent variable naming for func_def_identifier
Similar to the earlier comment, ensure that the variable naming is consistent between func_def_identifier_opt and funcdef_identifier in the outgoing_edges function.
Apply this diff to maintain consistency:
- let mut funcdef_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt");
+ let mut func_def_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt");And update all instances of funcdef_identifier to func_def_identifier in this context.
📝 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.
| if import_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create import identifier"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| let mut import_identifier = import_identifier_opt.expect("Empty import_identifier_opt"); | |
| let func_def_identifier_opt = FunctionDefIdentifier::new(); | |
| if func_def_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| let mut funcdef_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt"); | |
| if import_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create import identifier"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| let mut import_identifier = import_identifier_opt.expect("Empty import_identifier_opt"); | |
| let func_def_identifier_opt = FunctionDefIdentifier::new(); | |
| if func_def_identifier_opt.is_none() { | |
| log::debug!("[outgoing_edges] Unable to create func def identifier"); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| let mut func_def_identifier = func_def_identifier_opt.expect("Empty func_def_identifier_opt"); |
Please check the action items covered in the PR -
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores