Test PR #1
Test PR #1
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| - name: Install dependencies | ||
| run: npm install | ||
| - name: Build Code | ||
| run: npm run build | ||
| - name: Run Custom Action |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is good to see the action updated to newer versions; however, there is a minor typo in the property name expluded_files. It should be excluded_files.
| - name: Run Custom Action | ||
| uses: ./ | ||
| with: | ||
| github-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| github_token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| pr-number: ${{ github.event.number }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The github-token field has been modified to github_token. Make sure this is consistent with the naming conventions used in other workflows or scripts to avoid potential issues.
| pr-number: ${{ github.event.number }} | ||
| openai_api_key: ${{ secrets.OPENAI_API_KEY }} | ||
| openai_api_key: ${{ secrets.OPEN_AI_KEY }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The secret key has been changed from OPENAI_API_KEY to OPEN_AI_KEY. Ensure that the correct key is updated in the repository secrets.
| @@ -2,10 +2,10 @@ name: 'Github PR Magic' | |||
| description: 'Automatically reviewing and approving PRs' | |||
| author: 'Darrell Richards' | |||
| inputs: | |||
| github-token: | |||
| github_token: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The input parameter change from github-token to github_token seems to be inconsistent with common GitHub Actions naming conventions which typically use dashes (-) instead of underscores (_). Please ensure this aligns with the expected naming conventions for the inputs of GitHub Actions.
| description: 'Github token' | ||
| required: true | ||
| pr-number: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similarly to the previous comment, changing pr-number to pr_number may not align with the usual GitHub Actions input naming conventions. It's commonly recommended to use dashes to separate words in input names.
| const resss = response.choices[0].message?.content?.trim() || "{}"; | ||
| return JSON.parse(resss).reviews; | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| console.log('validateCodeViaAI error', error) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The error handling could be improved. Consider providing a more user-friendly message or handling the specific types of errors that might occur.
src/services/ai.ts
Outdated
| // const response = await aiService(message); | ||
| // console.log('response', response); | ||
| // return response; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure there is a newline at the end of the file to comply with POSIX standards.
| return message; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This section is empty and should either be removed or include logic if this was unintentionally left empty.
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| // const response = await aiService(message); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove commented out code unless there is an explicit reason to keep it with an explanatory comment.
| @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ | |||
| import { Octokit } from '@octokit/rest'; | |||
| import * as core from "@actions/core" | |||
| const GITHUB_TOKEN: string = core.getInput("github_token"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is not secure to use core.getInput directly for secrets. Use core.getSecret instead to mask the secret from logs.
|
|
||
| if (mappedResults) { | ||
| neededComments.push(...mappedResults); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like the function validateOverallCodeReview has been introduced, but its body is currently incomplete. The obtainFeedback function is called, however, the results are not being used except for being logged to the console. Make sure to implement the functionality that processes these results, including mapping them to detailedFeedback and handling them accordingly.
| const detailedFeedback = []; | ||
| for (const file of diff) { | ||
| for (const chunk of file.chunks) { | ||
| const results = await obtainFeedback(file, chunk, details); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like the log for generating a summary of new PRs has been removed. This information could be useful for debugging. Consider adding it back or replacing it with a more informative message, especially if other logging mechanisms haven't been provided elsewhere.
| dif = String(data); | ||
| } else { | ||
| console.log('Unknown action', process.env.GITHUB_EVENT_NAME); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (!dif) { | ||
| // Well shit. | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This @ToDo comment should be tracked as an issue in the project's issue tracker instead of being left in the code.
src/index.ts
Outdated
| if (reviewCode) { | ||
| // @ToDo Improve the support for comments, | ||
| // IE: Remove outdated comments when code is changed, revalidated if the Pull Request is ready to be approved. | ||
| const neededComments = await validateCode(filteredDiff, { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It appears that the if condition checking if the action is opened and if createPullRequestSummary is true is no longer followed by a code block due to the new console.log inserted. Make sure to wrap the code block that should run under the if statement with {} to avoid unintended behavior.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export async function obtainFeedback(file: File, chunk: Chunk, details: Details) { | ||
| const message = ` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like you're implementing a function obtainFeedback that constructs a message prompt for AI. Can you confirm that the model gpt-4-1106-preview is the correct and most updated version available for use?
|
|
||
| ${chunk.content} | ||
| ${chunk.changes | ||
| // @ts-expect-error - ln and ln2 exists where needed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The //@ts-expect-error directive is suppressed TypeScript errors. Ideally, the type definitions should be corrected to accurately reflect the data structure so that type checking is enforced.
|
|
||
| Pull Request title: ${details.title} | ||
|
|
||
| Files to review: ${file.to} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The commented out response_format may still be useful for future use cases where structured responses are preferred. If there is no intention to use JSON object responses in the future, this commented code should be removed to keep the codebase clean. However, if there is a possibility that you may want to re-enable this feature soon, consider adding a TODO comment with a clear explanation.
| model: "gpt-4-1106-preview", | ||
| response_format: { | ||
| type: "json_object", | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It appears that debug logging code was commented out rather than being removed. For cleaner code, it is recommended that you remove any code that is not being used.
| ], | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| const resss = response.choices[0].message?.content?.trim() || "{}"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The variable name resss is not descriptive and may lead to confusion. Consider renaming it to reflect its purpose, such as parsedResponse.
| ], | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| const resss = response.choices[0].message?.content?.trim() || "{}"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The code silently ignores any JSON parse errors that might occur when resss is being used elsewhere. Consider adding error handling for JSON.parse to catch any potential issues.
| return neededComments; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async function validateOverallCodeReview(diff: File[], details: Details) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The results are checked for existence but not for their content structure before mapping. Ensure that the results follow the expected structure for changesOverview, feedback, improvements, and conclusion before mapping. This will prevent runtime errors in case the structure is not what the code expects.
| changesOverview: result.changesOverview, | ||
| feedback: result.feedback, | ||
| improvements: result.improvements, | ||
| conclusion: result.conclusion, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The variable mappedResults is assumed not to be empty before pushing its contents into detailedFeedback. Consider validating it contains items before this operation. Empty or incorrect data could potentially cause issues downstream.
| const message = ` | ||
| Feedback to review: ${feedbacks.map((f) => f).join(", ")} | ||
| ` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The use of await openai.chat.completions.create suggests that the openai variable should be defined and initialized within this file or imported from a module. Ensure that the necessary OpenAI client setup exists and is included properly before this function.
| ` | ||
|
|
||
| const response = await openai.chat.completions.create({ | ||
| model: "gpt-4o", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The model should be defined as a constant at the beginning of the file or within a configuration file. This practice decreases the risk of typos and makes future updates to the model easier.
| ], | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| const resss = response.choices[0].message?.content?.trim() || "{}"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The fallback to an empty object {} when response.choices[0].message?.content?.trim() is not present might not always be suitable. It would be better to handle the potential absence of content explicitly and provide a meaningful message or log an error when the feedback cannot be retrieved.
|
|
||
| export async function summaryOfAllFeedback(feedbacks: any[]) { | ||
| const systemMessage = ` | ||
| Your requirement is to merge all the feedbacks into one feedback. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The instructions provided inside systemMessage are detailed for the system, which might be useful for code documentation, but it is unclear if the system (AI) needs these instructions. If the systemMessage is intended to control the behavior of GPT-4, make sure the instructions align with the expectations of how GPI-4 processes system prompts.
| - Please format each header as a H2 header. | ||
| ` | ||
| const message = ` | ||
| Feedback to review: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure that the concatenated strings from the feedbacks array do not result in a run-on sentence or incoherent message when joined. Consider using list formatting or separators for clarity.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export async function summaryOfAllFeedback(feedbacks: any[]) { | ||
| console.log('feedbacks', feedbacks); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding console.log here might be for debugging purposes; remember to remove any debugging statements before the final merge to keep the codebase clean.
src/index.ts
Outdated
| if (reviewCode) { | ||
| // @ToDo Improve the support for comments, | ||
| // IE: Remove outdated comments when code is changed, revalidated if the Pull Request is ready to be approved. | ||
| const neededComments = await validateCode(filteredDiff, { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems there is a missing else block. In the current implementation, if detailedFeedback is empty or undefined, resultsFullFeedback will not be declared or used later on. Consider adding handling for the case when detailedFeedback is empty.
GitHub CommentSummaryThe pull request aims to enhance the Workflow Enhancements
Action Configuration
Package Dependency Updates
TypeScript Code Refactoring
Code Improvements
Recommendations
ConclusionThe pull request is well-intentioned and aligns with modern CI/CD practices for Node.js projects. With minor improvements in documentation, testing, and code cleanup, the changes can be seamlessly integrated into the repository. Ensure thorough communication with stakeholders regarding token renaming and removed inputs and consider adding inline comments to explain critical code sections. Overall, the pull request can be merged after addressing the noted concerns, making it a positive enhancement to the project's CI workflow and codebase. |
| if (!result.lineNumber) { | ||
| return []; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing result.required_changed affects the check for whether a change is required or not. If no checks are implemented elsewhere, this could lead to the problem that code reviews are not properly enforced. Ensure that this behavior is captured in a different part of the workflow or consider adding the required change logic back.
Summary of Changes in the Pull Request
This pull request introduces a series of comprehensive updates across multiple files to enhance the CI process, interaction with GitHub and OpenAI APIs, and overall workflow for handling pull requests.
CI Workflow Changes
.github/workflows/action.ymlInput Variable Adjustments
action.ymlgithub-token->github_tokenpr-number->pr_numberRefactoring of Pull Request Handling
src/index.ts@tandil/diffparsewithparse-diff.openailibrary usage../services/githuband./services/ai).Detailsinterface andvalidateCodefunction for generating comments and summaries for changed files.OpenAI.PRDetailsfunction to includepatch_urlanddiff_short_url.Integration with OpenAI GPT-4
src/services/ai.tscreateMessage: Constructs a message prompt for AI to generate a code review response.prSummaryCreation: Creates a PR summary based on file changes and PR title.summaryAllMessages: Merges multiple summaries into a Markdown-formatted pull request summary.validateCodeViaAI: Uses GPT-4 to validate code and generate a code review.OPEN_AI_KEY.GitHub API Interactions
src/services/github.tsPRDetails: Fetches and structures PR details including title, description, patch URL, and diff URL.updateBody: Updates PR description by removing content matching a regex pattern.gitDiff: Retrieves the unified diff of a pull URL.createReviewComment: Submits review comments to a PR and requests changes based on provided comments.These updates collectively enhance the workflow's efficiency, improve interaction with external APIs, and streamline the process of managing and reviewing pull requests.