feat: Add accurate codebase scope description to output header #330
Conversation
yamadashy
changed the title
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #330 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.27% 90.41% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 48 48
Lines 2510 2588 +78
Branches 519 535 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 2266 2340 +74
- Misses 244 248 +4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@yamadashy has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 8 minutes and 55 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 (8)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis pull request refactors the output generation process by restructuring how rendering contexts are handled. The previous inline Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant U as User/Caller
participant B as buildOutputGeneratorContext
participant C as createRenderContext
U->>B: Call buildOutputGeneratorContext(rootDir, config, allFilePaths, processedFiles)
B-->>U: Return OutputGeneratorContext (including config)
U->>C: Call createRenderContext(OutputGeneratorContext)
C-->>U: Return RenderContext with integrated config data
sequenceDiagram
participant U as User/Caller
participant G as generateHeader
participant A as analyzeContent
U->>G: Call generateHeader(config, generationDate)
G->>A: Invoke analyzeContent(config)
A-->>G: Return ContentInfo
G-->>U: Return Generated Header with details from ContentInfo
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 (
|
yamadashy
force-pushed
the
feat/accurate-codebase-description
branch
from
2098a61 to
225712b
Compare
Deploying repomix with
|
| Latest commit: |
f9ef427
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://ab0bf737.repomix.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://feat-accurate-codebase-descr.repomix.pages.dev |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt (1)
38-41: Clarify Exclusion Notes and Tweak Minor Wording
The “Notes:” section now explicitly outlines file exclusion rules based on configuration and ignore patterns. Consider the following minor suggestions:
- Line 38: Evaluate whether a comma after “.gitignore rules” might improve readability.
- Line 39: The phrase “binary files” appears twice; if this redundancy is not intentional, streamline the wording to avoid possible repetition.
Overall, these changes enhance clarity, but a quick review for stylistic consistency would be beneficial.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~38-~38: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ... have been excluded based on .gitignore rules and Repomix's configuration - Binary fi...(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
[duplication] ~39-~39: Possible typo: you repeated a word.
Context: ...te list of file paths, including binary files - Files matching patterns in .gitignore are exc...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts (2)
3-18: Consider removing optional indicators for boolean fields inselection.
Currently, fields likeinclude?,ignore?, etc., are declared as optional booleans. Since they are always assigned a definitive boolean value, you might simplify by removing?, making them required booleans.interface ContentInfo { selection: { isEntireCodebase: boolean; - include?: boolean; - ignore?: boolean; - gitignore?: boolean; - defaultIgnore?: boolean; + include: boolean; + ignore: boolean; + gitignore: boolean; + defaultIgnore: boolean; }; ... }
39-79: Refine processing description for clarity.
The phrase “processed where…” might read awkwardly if multiple transformations are performed. Replacing it with “processed with the following transformations…” can improve readability.- processingNotes.length > 0 ? ` The content has been processed where ${processingNotes.join(', ')}.` : ''; + processingNotes.length > 0 ? ` The content has been processed with the following transformations: ${processingNotes.join(', ')}.` : '';tests/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.test.ts (1)
11-38: Consider adding an edge case test for default ignore patterns.
Whenignore.useDefaultPatterns = truebut no explicit ignores are set, confirm whether the code still detects the entire codebase correctly.Would you like me to propose a test snippet for this scenario?
src/core/output/outputGenerate.ts (1)
31-31: Convert Japanese comment to English.For better maintainability and consistency, please translate the Japanese comment "configを追加" to English (e.g., "Added config parameter").
- generationHeader: generateHeader(outputGeneratorContext.config, outputGeneratorContext.generationDate), // configを追加 + generationHeader: generateHeader(outputGeneratorContext.config, outputGeneratorContext.generationDate), // Added config parameter
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
src/core/output/outputGenerate.ts(3 hunks)src/core/output/outputGeneratorTypes.ts(1 hunks)src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts(2 hunks)tests/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.test.ts(1 hunks)tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt(2 hunks)tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.xml(2 hunks)website/server/cloudbuild.yaml(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.xml
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt
[uncategorized] ~38-~38: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ... have been excluded based on .gitignore rules and Repomix's configuration - Binary fi...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
[duplication] ~39-~39: Possible typo: you repeated a word.
Context: ...te list of file paths, including binary files - Files matching patterns in .gitignore are exc...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (8)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 23.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 22.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 21.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 20.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 19.x)
- GitHub Check: Test coverage
- GitHub Check: Analyze (javascript-typescript)
- GitHub Check: Cloudflare Pages
🔇 Additional comments (9)
tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt (1)
1-1: Header Wording Update & Subset Clarification
The introductory line now reads “This file is a merged representation of the entire codebase, combined into a single document.” While the simplified wording improves clarity, please verify that in scenarios where the--includeor--ignoreoptions are used the header is updated to explicitly indicate that the document represents a subset of the codebase rather than the entire repository.src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts (2)
20-37: Double-checkisEntireCodebaselogic.
Whenignore.useDefaultPatterns = true, the codebase might still be partially excluded. Ensure this condition accurately represents the “entire codebase” scenario.Would you like to run a script scanning references of
isEntireCodebasefor assumptions that default ignore patterns are excluded?
113-150: Code style and bullet usage are consistent.
The structure for notes is clear and easy to maintain. Great job!src/core/output/outputGeneratorTypes.ts (1)
12-26: Good use of a read-only context interface.
The immutability andReadonlyArrayusage help prevent accidental mutations, which is a solid approach for maintaining a stable rendering configuration.tests/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.test.ts (2)
40-85: Comprehensive coverage forgenerateHeader.
These tests effectively capture both entire codebase and subset usage, as well as security check toggles.
114-153: ThoroughgenerateSummaryNotestesting.
All major scenarios for selection and processing are covered. This suite provides strong confidence in correctness.src/core/output/outputGenerate.ts (2)
10-10: LGTM! Good separation of concerns.Moving the RenderContext type to a dedicated types file improves code organization.
162-162: LGTM! Improved readability.The added empty line improves readability by separating the error handling from the return statement.
website/server/cloudbuild.yaml (1)
41-41: Verify the need for increased CPU allocation.The CPU allocation has been doubled from 1 to 2. While this could support the enhanced output generation process, please verify:
- Are there performance metrics justifying this increase?
- Have you considered the cost implications?
- Would vertical autoscaling be a more cost-effective solution?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt (3)
39-39: Improve binary file exclusion clarity.
This note indicates that binary files are not included in the packed representation while also directing users to the Repository Structure for a complete list (which includes binary files). To avoid potential confusion, consider rephrasing it for clarity. For example:-Binary files are not included in this packed representation. Please refer to the Repository Structure section for a complete list of file paths, including binary files +Binary files are omitted from this packed representation. For a complete list of all file paths—including those for binary files—please refer to the Repository Structure section.🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[duplication] ~39-~39: Possible typo: you repeated a word.
Context: ...te list of file paths, including binary files - Files matching patterns in .gitignore are exc...(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
40-40: Evaluate potential redundancy in exclusion notes.
Line 40 mentions that files matching patterns in .gitignore are excluded. Since line 38 already touches on exclusions based on .gitignore and configuration, consider whether this point could be merged or reworded to reduce duplication and improve readability.
41-41: Confirm default ignore patterns note clarity.
The statement on line 41 is clear and concise, informing users that files matching default ignore patterns are excluded. Optionally, if further consolidation of exclusion notes is desired for a more unified style, you might merge it with the note on line 40.src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts (1)
42-55: Consider extracting description logic to a separate function.The description generation logic could be more maintainable if extracted to a dedicated function.
+const generateSelectionDescription = (info: ContentInfo): string => { + if (info.selection.isEntireCodebase) { + return 'This file is a merged representation of the entire codebase'; + } + const parts = []; + if (info.selection.include) { + parts.push('specifically included files'); + } + if (info.selection.ignore) { + parts.push('files not matching ignore patterns'); + } + return `This file is a merged representation of a subset of the codebase, containing ${parts.join(' and ')}`; +}; export const generateHeader = (config: RepomixConfigMerged, generationDate: string): string => { const info = analyzeContent(config); - - // Generate selection description - let description: string; - if (info.selection.isEntireCodebase) { - description = 'This file is a merged representation of the entire codebase'; - } else { - const parts = []; - if (info.selection.include) { - parts.push('specifically included files'); - } - if (info.selection.ignore) { - parts.push('files not matching ignore patterns'); - } - description = `This file is a merged representation of a subset of the codebase, containing ${parts.join(' and ')}`; - } + const description = generateSelectionDescription(info);🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 52-53: src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by testssrc/core/output/outputGenerate.ts (1)
31-31: Replace Japanese comment with English.- generationHeader: generateHeader(outputGeneratorContext.config, outputGeneratorContext.generationDate), // configを追加 + generationHeader: generateHeader(outputGeneratorContext.config, outputGeneratorContext.generationDate), // Added config parameter
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
src/core/output/outputGenerate.ts(3 hunks)src/core/output/outputGeneratorTypes.ts(1 hunks)src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts(2 hunks)tests/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.test.ts(1 hunks)tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt(2 hunks)tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.xml(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.xml
- src/core/output/outputGeneratorTypes.ts
- tests/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.test.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts
[warning] 52-53: src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
[warning] 138-139: src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts#L138-L139
Added lines #L138 - L139 were not covered by tests
🪛 LanguageTool
tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt
[duplication] ~39-~39: Possible typo: you repeated a word.
Context: ...te list of file paths, including binary files - Files matching patterns in .gitignore are exc...
(ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (5)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 23.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 22.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 21.x)
- GitHub Check: Test (windows-latest, 20.x)
- GitHub Check: Cloudflare Pages
🔇 Additional comments (8)
tests/integration-tests/fixtures/packager/outputs/simple-project-output.txt (2)
1-1: Verify header scope accuracy.
The header states "merged representation of the entire codebase, combined into a single document." Please verify that this description is accurate—especially in scenarios where file selection via--includeor--ignoreshould result in a "subset of codebase" header as outlined in the PR objectives.
38-38: Approved file exclusion note.
The note on line 38 clearly explains that some files may be excluded based on both .gitignore rules and Repomix's configuration. This adds useful context for users reviewing the packed output.src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts (4)
3-18: LGTM! Well-structured interface design.The
ContentInfointerface provides a clear and logical separation between content selection and processing flags.
20-37: LGTM! Clean and efficient implementation.The function correctly maps configuration values to the
ContentInfointerface, with clear logic for determining content selection and processing details.
39-79: LGTM! Comprehensive header generation with accurate scope description.The implementation aligns perfectly with the PR objectives by clearly distinguishing between entire codebase and subset representations.
Please add test coverage for the ignore patterns description at lines 52-53.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 52-53: src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
113-150: LGTM! Comprehensive summary notes generation.The implementation provides clear and well-organized notes about file selection and processing details.
Please add test coverage for the empty lines removal note at lines 138-139.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 138-139: src/core/output/outputStyleDecorate.ts#L138-L139
Added lines #L138 - L139 were not covered by testssrc/core/output/outputGenerate.ts (2)
10-10: LGTM! Correct type import.The import statement correctly reflects the relocation of the
RenderContexttype.
Line range hint
162-169: LGTM! Correct context building.The function correctly includes the config object needed for the updated header generation.
yamadashy
force-pushed
the
feat/accurate-codebase-description
branch
from
b5d274f to
f9ef427
Compare
This PR improves how Repomix describes the scope of packed files in output headers. When users specify files via --include or --ignore, the header now correctly indicates that it contains a subset rather than the entire codebase.
related: #328
Changes
Checklist
npm run testnpm run lint