feat: initial import #1
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe changes introduce a comprehensive setup for a Go project, including configuration files for dependency management, automated code reviews, and various GitHub Actions workflows for continuous integration, release processes, and housekeeping tasks. New linting configurations are added for different file types, and a Makefile is established to streamline project management tasks. Additionally, a new module is created with an initial implementation of a sequencer structure, laying the groundwork for further development. Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
tzdybal
force-pushed
the
tzdybal/initial_import
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e191504 to
c72ec93
Compare
tzdybal
force-pushed
the
tzdybal/initial_import
branch
from
c72ec93 to
5519234
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 14
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (17)
.markdownlint.yaml (1)
1-6: Consider adding comments for clarity.While the configuration is straightforward, it would be helpful to add comments explaining the purpose of each rule modification. This can help other contributors understand the reasoning behind these choices.
Here's a suggested modification with comments:
# Enable all rules by default default: true # MD010: Allow hard tabs in code blocks MD010: code_blocks: false # MD013: Disable line length checks MD013: false # MD024: Allow headers with same name if they are not siblings MD024: allow_different_nesting: true.yamllint.yml (1)
1-9: LGTM! Consider enhancing the comment for clarity.The YAML linting configuration file is well-structured and extends the default rules, which is a good practice. It provides a solid foundation for maintaining consistent YAML formatting across the project.
Consider expanding the comment to provide more context about the purpose of this configuration file within the project. For example:
# YAML Lint configuration # Extends default rules and customizes line length for project-wide YAML consistency # For more information, see: https://yamllint.readthedocs.io/en/stable/configuration.html.github/auto_request_review.yml (2)
1-3: LGTM! Consider adding individual default reviewers.The use of a default reviewer group is a good practice. It ensures that all PRs get reviewed and helps distribute the workload.
Consider adding one or two individual reviewers as defaults alongside the "rollkit" group. This can help ensure faster initial reviews and provide a mix of group and individual attention to PRs.
7-10: LGTM! Consider expanding file-specific reviewers.The configuration for .github files is well-structured, combining individual and group reviewers. This ensures both specific expertise and team oversight for important configuration files.
Consider expanding this section to include other critical areas of the codebase. For example, you might want to specify reviewers for core functionality, test files, or documentation. This can help ensure that the most appropriate reviewers are assigned to different parts of the project.
.github/workflows/semantic-pull-request.yml (2)
13-20: LGTM! Consider adding configuration options.The job configuration is correct and uses a specific version of the action, which is good for stability. The GITHUB_TOKEN is correctly used for authentication.
However, consider adding configuration options for the semantic PR check. For example:
- uses: amannn/action-semantic-pull-request@v5 env: GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} with: # Specify allowed types, scopes, etc. types: | fix feat chore # Allow breaking changes allowBreakingChanges: ['feat', 'fix'] # Require a scope requireScope: falseThis will give you more control over the accepted PR title format.
1-20: Good start on GitHub Actions setup, consider expanding.This workflow for enforcing semantic PR titles is a great start and aligns well with the PR objectives, particularly addressing Issue #3 (Initial GitHub actions setup). It uses good security practices and follows the principle of least privilege.
To fully address the objectives and enhance the development process, consider adding more workflows:
- Linting workflow: To automatically check code style and catch potential errors.
- Testing workflow: To run unit tests and ensure code quality.
- Build workflow: To verify that the project builds successfully.
- Release workflow: To automate the release process when merging to main.
These additional workflows will further streamline the development process and ensure code quality.
.github/workflows/test.yml (1)
20-35: LGTM: Unit Test job is well-configured with a minor suggestionThe
unit_testjob is correctly set up to run unit tests and report coverage. It uses a Makefile command for consistency and securely uploads the coverage report to Codecov.Consider adding a step to cache Go dependencies to speed up the workflow:
- uses: actions/cache@v3 with: path: ~/go/pkg/mod key: ${{ runner.os }}-go-${{ hashFiles('**/go.sum') }} restore-keys: | ${{ runner.os }}-go-This step should be added after the
actions/setup-gostep and before running the tests..github/workflows/lint.yml (3)
33-38: Consider removing or uncommenting the hadolint jobThe hadolint job is currently commented out. If Dockerfile linting is not required for this project, it's better to remove these lines entirely. If it is needed, consider uncommenting and configuring the job appropriately.
If hadolint is not needed, apply this diff to remove the commented job:
- # hadolint lints the Dockerfile -# hadolint: -# uses: rollkit/.github/.github/workflows/[email protected] # yamllint disable-line rule:line-length -# with: -# dockerfile: Dockerfile -# failure-threshold: error
40-50: LGTM: Well-structured yamllint and markdown-lint jobsThe yamllint and markdown-lint jobs are concise and use custom actions, which is good for reusability and consistency across projects.
Consider adding conditional execution for these jobs similar to the golangci-lint job. This would optimize the workflow by skipping these jobs when no relevant files have changed. Here's an example of how you could modify the yamllint job:
yamllint: runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - uses: actions/checkout@v4 - uses: technote-space/[email protected] with: PATTERNS: | **/*.yml **/*.yaml - uses: rollkit/.github/.github/actions/[email protected] if: env.GIT_DIFFApply a similar modification to the markdown-lint job for .md files.
1-7: LGTM: Well-structured lint workflow with room for optimizationThe overall structure of the lint workflow is good:
- It covers linting for Go, YAML, and Markdown files.
- The use of
workflow_calltrigger allows for flexible integration with other workflows.- It uses a mix of official GitHub Actions and custom actions, which is good for maintainability and consistency.
To further improve the workflow:
Consider adding conditional execution for yamllint and markdown-lint jobs, similar to the golangci-lint job. This would optimize the workflow by skipping these jobs when no relevant files have changed.
If Dockerfile linting is needed, uncomment and configure the hadolint job. If not, remove the commented-out section entirely.
Consider adding a job status check at the end of the workflow to ensure all linting jobs have passed before considering the entire lint process successful.
Makefile (3)
1-5: Fix typo and add missing variable definition.There's a typo in the comment, and the mentioned "cover" variable is not defined.
Please apply the following changes:
-# Define pkgs, run, and cover vairables for test so that we can override them in +# Define pkgs, run, count, and cover variables for test so that we can override them in # the terminal more easily. pkgs := $(shell go list ./...) run := . count := 1 +cover := coverage.txt
34-43: LGTM: Comprehensive lint target. Consider adding error checking.The lint target is well-implemented, covering multiple file types and using appropriate configuration files.
Consider adding error checking to ensure the lint process stops if any linter fails. You can do this by removing the
@symbol before each command, which will make the output visible and stop the makefile execution if a command fails. For example:lint: vet - @echo "--> Running golangci-lint" - @golangci-lint run - @echo "--> Running markdownlint" - @markdownlint --config .markdownlint.yaml '**/*.md' - @echo "--> Running yamllint" - @yamllint --no-warnings . -c .yamllint.yml + echo "--> Running golangci-lint" + golangci-lint run + echo "--> Running markdownlint" + markdownlint --config .markdownlint.yaml '**/*.md' + echo "--> Running yamllint" + yamllint --no-warnings . -c .yamllint.ymlThis change will make the lint process more robust by failing early if any linter detects issues.
53-63: LGTM: Well-implemented vet and test targets. Consider adding a benchmark target.The vet and test targets are correctly implemented and follow good practices for Go testing.
Consider adding a benchmark target to run benchmarks separately from tests. This can be useful for performance testing. Here's an example implementation:
## benchmark: Run benchmarks benchmark: @echo "--> Running benchmarks" @go test -v -run=^$ -bench=. -benchmem $(pkgs) .PHONY: benchmarkThis new target would allow developers to easily run benchmarks across all packages in the project.
.github/workflows/housekeeping.yml (1)
10-22: LGTM: Issue management job is well-structured.The issue management job effectively uses a reusable workflow and applies appropriate actions for new issues.
Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the project URL for better maintainability. For example:
project-url: https://github.com/orgs/rollkit/projects/7 # Rollkit main project boardsequencer.go (3)
28-29: Address the TODO: ImplementSubmitRollupTransactionmethodThe method
SubmitRollupTransactioncontains a TODO comment indicating it needs implementation. I can assist in drafting this method if you'd like.Do you want me to help implement this method or open a GitHub issue to track this task?
34-35: Address the TODO: ImplementGetNextBatchmethodThe
GetNextBatchmethod is currently unimplemented. Implementing this method is crucial for building transaction batches from the DA.Would you like assistance in implementing this method or creating a GitHub issue to ensure it gets addressed?
40-41: Address the TODO: ImplementVerifyBatchmethodThe
VerifyBatchmethod needs to be implemented to ensure data availability of batches in the DA.I'm available to help draft this implementation or to open a GitHub issue to track this task. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
🔇 Files ignored due to path filters (1)
go.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum
📒 Files selected for processing (14)
- .github/auto_request_review.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/dependabot.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/ci_release.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/housekeeping.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/semantic-pull-request.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- .golangci.yml (1 hunks)
- .markdownlint.yaml (1 hunks)
- .yamllint.yml (1 hunks)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
- README.md (1 hunks)
- go.mod (1 hunks)
- sequencer.go (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- README.md
🧰 Additional context used
actionlint
.github/workflows/ci_release.yml
8-8: character '' is invalid for branch and tag names. only special characters [, ?, +, *, , ! can be escaped with . see
man git-check-ref-formatfor more details. note that regular expression is unavailable. note: filter pattern syntax is explained at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet(glob)
8-8: character '' is invalid for branch and tag names. only special characters [, ?, +, *, , ! can be escaped with . see
man git-check-ref-formatfor more details. note that regular expression is unavailable. note: filter pattern syntax is explained at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet(glob)
9-9: character '' is invalid for branch and tag names. only special characters [, ?, +, *, , ! can be escaped with . see
man git-check-ref-formatfor more details. note that regular expression is unavailable. note: filter pattern syntax is explained at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet(glob)
9-9: character '' is invalid for branch and tag names. only special characters [, ?, +, *, , ! can be escaped with . see
man git-check-ref-formatfor more details. note that regular expression is unavailable. note: filter pattern syntax is explained at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet(glob)
9-9: character ':' is invalid for branch and tag names. ref name cannot contain spaces, ~, ^, :, [, ?, *. see
man git-check-ref-formatfor more details. note that regular expression is unavailable. note: filter pattern syntax is explained at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet(glob)
9-9: character '' is invalid for branch and tag names. only special characters [, ?, +, *, , ! can be escaped with . see
man git-check-ref-formatfor more details. note that regular expression is unavailable. note: filter pattern syntax is explained at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#filter-pattern-cheat-sheet(glob)
.github/workflows/housekeeping.yml
59-59: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:56: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
59-59: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:63: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
79-79: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:50: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
79-79: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:56: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
🔇 Additional comments not posted (30)
.markdownlint.yaml (1)
1-6: LGTM! The markdownlint configuration looks good.The configuration sets sensible defaults and modifies specific rules to allow for more flexibility in markdown writing. This aligns well with common practices and should help maintain consistent documentation without being overly restrictive.
.yamllint.yml (1)
5-9: Verify if the line length limit aligns with project standards.The configuration sets a maximum line length of 120 characters with a warning level. This is a reasonable choice that balances readability with flexibility.
To ensure consistency across the project, let's verify if this line length limit is used in other linting configurations:
If inconsistencies are found, consider aligning the line length limits across all configuration files for better uniformity in the project.
✅ Verification successful
Line length limit aligns with project standards.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for line length configurations in other linting files # Search for line length configurations in other files echo "Searching for line length configurations in other files:" rg --type yaml --type json --type toml -i '(line.?length|max.?length)' -g '!.yamllint.yml' # Check if there's a .editorconfig file and if it specifies max line length if [ -f ".editorconfig" ]; then echo "Checking .editorconfig for max_line_length:" grep -i 'max_line_length' .editorconfig fiLength of output: 242
.github/auto_request_review.yml (2)
4-6: LGTM! Please clarify the team structure.Using a GitHub team as a reviewer group is an excellent practice for scalability and easier management of reviewers.
Could you please clarify if "team:core" is the only team for this project, or if there are plans to add more teams in the future? This information would help in understanding the overall review structure.
To verify the team structure, you can run the following command:
This will help us understand if there are other teams that could potentially be included in the review process.
11-15: LGTM! Consider the impact of requiring 3 reviewers.The options are well-structured and follow good practices. Ignoring draft and WIP PRs helps focus review efforts on ready code.
The requirement of 3 reviewers ensures thorough code review but might potentially slow down the merge process. Consider monitoring the impact of this requirement on your team's workflow. You may want to adjust this number based on the size and complexity of typical PRs in your project.
To help assess this, you could run the following command to check the average time to merge PRs:
This will give you an idea of how long PRs typically take to be merged, which can help inform your decision on the number of required reviewers.
.github/workflows/semantic-pull-request.yml (2)
1-8: LGTM! Good security practice withpull_request_target.The workflow name is clear, and the trigger events are appropriate for checking PR titles. Using
pull_request_targetinstead ofpull_requestis a good security practice, especially if this workflow needs to run on pull requests from forks.
10-11: Excellent use of least privilege principle!Setting only the necessary permissions (read access to pull-requests) aligns with security best practices. This ensures the workflow has access to what it needs without over-privileging.
go.mod (2)
10-19: Verify security of dependenciesWhile the indirect dependencies are properly versioned, it's important to ensure they don't contain any known security vulnerabilities.
Run the following script to check for any known vulnerabilities in the dependencies:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for vulnerabilities in dependencies # Test: Run go-vulncheck. Expect: No vulnerabilities found or a list of vulnerabilities if any exist. go install golang.org/x/vuln/cmd/govulncheck@latest govulncheck ./...If any vulnerabilities are found, consider updating the affected dependencies to patched versions.
5-8: Consider using a stable version for go-sequencingThe
github.com/rollkit/go-sequencingdependency is using a pseudo-version (v0.0.0-20240924073851-5e3b8522a072), which might be a development or unstable version.If a stable version is available, consider updating to it. Run the following script to check for available versions:
If a stable version is available, update the dependency accordingly.
.github/dependabot.yml (4)
1-2: LGTM: Correct Dependabot configuration structure.The file structure follows the expected format for Dependabot configuration, starting with the correct version declaration and using a YAML structure with an 'updates' list.
3-15: LGTM: Well-configured GitHub Actions ecosystem.The configuration for the GitHub Actions ecosystem is comprehensive and well-structured:
- Daily updates ensure timely dependency management.
- The pull request limit of 10 helps manage the volume of open PRs.
- Custom labeling with "T:dependencies" aids in categorization.
- Grouping patch updates into a single PR reduces noise from minor version bumps.
16-28: LGTM: Consistent Go modules ecosystem configuration.The Go modules ecosystem configuration maintains consistency with the GitHub Actions setup:
- Daily updates, PR limit of 10, and "T:dependencies" label are applied uniformly.
- The root directory ("/") is correctly set for Go modules.
- Grouping of patch updates is maintained, ensuring a consistent approach to minor version bumps.
This consistency across ecosystems is commendable and promotes a uniform dependency management strategy.
1-41: Overall: Excellent Dependabot configuration aligned with project objectives.This Dependabot configuration file is well-structured and comprehensive, covering GitHub Actions, Go modules, and Docker ecosystems. It aligns perfectly with the PR objective of initial project setup (Issue #2) by establishing a robust dependency management system. The consistent configuration across ecosystems, including daily updates, PR limits, and patch update grouping, will help maintain up-to-date dependencies efficiently.
The only minor point for verification is the Docker ecosystem directory ("/docker"), which I've addressed in a previous comment.
Great job on setting up this crucial part of the project infrastructure!
.golangci.yml (5)
1-3: LGTM: Run configuration looks good.The timeout of 5 minutes should be sufficient for most projects, and the readonly mode for module downloads is a good practice, especially in CI environments.
5-20: Excellent linter selection.The enabled linters provide comprehensive coverage for code quality, including style, potential errors, and security concerns. This selection aligns well with best practices in the Go community.
22-32: Good configuration, but be prepared for more linting issues.The 'issues' configuration is well-structured:
- Disabling default exclusions will provide more comprehensive linting, but may increase the number of reported issues.
- Excluding third-party and borrowed code directories is a good practice.
- Including EXC0012 and EXC0014 will enforce better documentation practices.
Just be aware that this strict configuration might initially flag many issues in existing code.
1-49: Overall, excellent linting configuration that aligns well with project objectives.This
.golangci.ymlfile provides a comprehensive and well-structured linting setup for the project. It aligns well with the objectives outlined in Issue #2 (Initial project setup) by:
- Implementing a robust set of linting tools.
- Establishing coding standards from the outset.
- Providing a foundation for maintaining code quality as the project grows.
The configuration strikes a good balance between strictness and practicality, which should help maintain high code quality without overly burdening developers. As the project evolves, you may want to revisit some of the more lenient settings (like disabled package comments) to see if stricter rules would benefit the project.
34-49: Linter settings are well-configured, but consider the gosec exclusion.The linter-specific settings are thoughtfully configured:
- The revive settings provide a good balance between strictness and practicality.
- The goimports local prefix is well-defined.
However, be cautious about excluding the G115 rule in gosec:
- This rule flags direct calls to os.Exit(), which can sometimes hide important cleanup or error reporting.
- Ensure that this exclusion is necessary for your application and doesn't mask potential issues.
To verify the necessity of excluding G115, run the following script:
This will help you assess whether the exclusion is justified based on your codebase's usage of os.Exit().
✅ Verification successful
Gosec G115 exclusion verified: No direct os.Exit() calls found.
The verification process did not find any direct
os.Exit()calls in the codebase. Therefore, excluding the G115 rule ingosecis justified.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for direct os.Exit() calls in the codebase # Test: Search for direct os.Exit() calls rg --type go 'os\.Exit\(' -C 3Length of output: 32
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Enhanced search for direct os.Exit() calls in the codebase # Search for os.Exit() with possible spaces rg --type go 'os\.Exit\s*\(' -C 3Length of output: 35
.github/workflows/test.yml (1)
8-18: LGTM: Go Mod Tidy Check job is well-configuredThe
go_mod_tidy_checkjob is correctly set up to ensure that the Go module dependencies are in order. It uses the Go version specified in thego.modfile and will fail if there are any uncommitted changes after runninggo mod tidy. This helps maintain consistency in the project's dependencies..github/workflows/ci_release.yml (3)
27-28: LGTM: Lint job is well-configured.Using a separate workflow file for linting is a good practice for modularity and reusability.
30-31: LGTM: Test job is well-configured.Using a separate workflow file for testing is a good practice for modularity and reusability.
33-37: LGTM: Release job configuration is well-structured.The release job correctly depends on lint and test jobs, runs on a reliable environment, and is limited to manual dispatch for controlled releases.
.github/workflows/lint.yml (1)
8-31: LGTM: Well-configured golangci-lint jobThe golangci-lint job is well-structured and optimized:
- Uses up-to-date versions of actions.
- Employs get-diff-action to skip linting if no relevant files have changed, which is an excellent optimization.
- Configures golangci-lint with a reasonable timeout of 10 minutes.
Makefile (4)
7-11: LGTM: Well-implemented help target.The help target is cleverly implemented to provide a self-documenting Makefile. Good use of sed and column for formatting, and correct use of .PHONY.
13-17: LGTM: Clean target implemented correctly.The clean target effectively clears the Go test cache, which is useful for ensuring fresh test runs. Proper use of .PHONY is noted.
1-63: Overall, excellent Makefile implementation aligned with PR objectives.This Makefile provides a comprehensive set of targets that align well with the PR objectives, particularly addressing Issue #2 (Initial project setup). It includes essential tasks such as linting, formatting, testing, and dependency management, which contribute to a structured build process and adherence to coding standards.
Key strengths:
- Well-organized with clear comments for each target.
- Implements multiple linters for different file types.
- Flexible test execution with variable overrides.
- Includes code coverage generation.
The Makefile sets a solid foundation for the project's build process and development workflow. It will greatly assist in maintaining code quality and streamlining the development process.
26-32: LGTM: Deps target is well-implemented. Query about proto-gen.The deps target correctly manages Go dependencies.
There's a commented out line for proto-gen. Is this intended for future use? If not, consider removing it. If it's for future use, it might be helpful to add a TODO comment explaining the plan.
To check if protocol buffers are used elsewhere in the project, you can run:
.github/workflows/housekeeping.yml (4)
1-7: LGTM: Workflow name and triggers are well-defined.The workflow name "Housekeeping" accurately describes its purpose. The trigger events are appropriately set to handle new issues and pull requests, including when PRs are marked as ready for review.
24-35: LGTM: PR project assignment job is well-implemented.The job for adding PRs to the project is well-structured and consistent with the issue management job. The condition to exclude Dependabot PRs is a good practice to maintain focus on human-created pull requests.
1-85: Overall, the housekeeping workflow is well-implemented and meets the PR objectives.This workflow effectively addresses the goals outlined in Issue #3 for setting up GitHub Actions. It automates various housekeeping tasks for issues and pull requests, which will streamline the development process. The use of reusable workflows promotes consistency and maintainability across the project.
Key strengths:
- Consistent structure across jobs
- Appropriate use of conditions to target specific events
- Integration with a project board for better task management
- Automated assignment of reviewers and assignees
Minor improvements have been suggested for script safety in the PR and issue assignment jobs. These changes will further enhance the robustness of the workflow.
🧰 Tools
actionlint
59-59: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:56: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
59-59: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:63: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
79-79: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:50: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
79-79: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:2:56: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
37-46: LGTM: Auto-add reviewer job is appropriately configured.The job for automatically adding reviewers to PRs is well-structured and consistent with other jobs. This can help streamline the review process.
To ensure the auto-add reviewer functionality is working as expected, you may want to verify the configuration in the reusable workflow. Run the following command to check the content of the reusable workflow:
This will help confirm how reviewers are being assigned and if any additional configuration is needed in this workflow.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Auto-add reviewer functionality is correctly configured and operational.
- The
auto-add-reviewerjob setsrun-auto-request-reviewtotrue, which successfully triggers theauto-request-reviewaction as defined in the reusable workflow.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
gh api repos/rollkit/.github/contents/.github/workflows/reusable_housekeeping.yml | jq -r '.content' | base64 -d | grep -A 10 "run-auto-request-review:"Length of output: 224
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Fetch the reusable_housekeeping.yml content as raw and search for 'run-auto-request-review:' gh api repos/rollkit/.github/contents/.github/workflows/reusable_housekeeping.yml -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3.raw" | grep -A 10 "run-auto-request-review:"Length of output: 521
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all instances of 'run-auto-request-review' in reusable_housekeeping.yml gh api repos/rollkit/.github/contents/.github/workflows/reusable_housekeeping.yml -H "Accept: application/vnd.github.v3.raw" | grep -C 5 "run-auto-request-review"Length of output: 932
MSevey
left a comment
MSevey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we also add the release action I made for go-da? Save me creating a separate PR for that.
https://github.com/rollkit/go-da/blob/main/.github/workflows/semantic_release.yml
tzdybal
force-pushed
the
tzdybal/initial_import
branch
from
a52a43b to
9cdee2f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/semantic_release.yml (2)
8-10: Consider specifying a specific Ubuntu version.While using
ubuntu-latestis generally fine, specifying a particular Ubuntu version (e.g.,ubuntu-22.04) can enhance reproducibility and prevent unexpected issues if the "latest" version changes.jobs: release: - runs-on: ubuntu-latest + runs-on: ubuntu-22.04
1-24: Overall, the semantic release workflow is well-structured but needs some clarifications.The workflow file is generally well-configured and follows good practices for implementing semantic releases. However, there are a few points that need attention:
- Consider specifying a particular Ubuntu version for better reproducibility.
- Clarify the purpose of the empty branches array in the .releaserc.json configuration.
- Resolve the inconsistency between the branches specification in the Create Release step and the configuration file.
Addressing these points will ensure a more robust and predictable release process. Once these issues are resolved, the workflow should effectively automate your semantic versioning and release process.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/dependabot.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/semantic_release.yml (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/dependabot.yml
🔇 Additional comments not posted (2)
.github/workflows/semantic_release.yml (2)
1-6: LGTM: Workflow name and trigger are well-defined.The workflow name "Semantic Release" is clear and descriptive. The trigger on pushes to the main branch is appropriate for a release workflow, ensuring that new releases are created automatically when changes are merged into the main branch.
12-17: Checkout step looks good, but please clarify the empty branches array.The use of
actions/checkout@v4is up-to-date, which is great. The configuration step for Semantic Release is a clever workaround for non-npm projects. However, the empty branches array in the configuration file ("branches":[]) needs explanation.Could you clarify why the branches array is empty? This might affect how Semantic Release determines version bumps. If it's intentional, consider adding a comment explaining the reason.
go.mod with dependencies, empty stub for BaseSequencer struct
Created workflows for testing, code coverage, linting, and other housekeeping tasks including issue management, semantic pull request enforcement, and dependency updates automation. These enhancements improve code quality, automate routine tasks, and ensure adherence to project standards.
tzdybal
force-pushed
the
tzdybal/initial_import
branch
from
9cdee2f to
6a422c4
Compare
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 1.0.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Overview
Resolves #2
Resolves #3
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
BasedSequencerstruct for handling based sequencing logic.Configuration Updates
.github/dependabot.yml,.github/auto_request_review.yml, and various workflow files for improved automation.Documentation
README.mdfor formatting consistency.