Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: bot comment should include images built on github actions #86

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 19, 2024

Conversation

aliciaaevans
Copy link
Contributor

The "please fetch artifacts" comment command stopped including images when we switched linux-64 builds to GitHub Actions. This includes those in the comment and handles the --- workaround used because GHA artifacts can't have : in the file name.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 19, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request encompass updates to a GitHub Actions workflow, a package configuration file, and a Python script related to a bot's functionality.

In the workflow configuration file .github/workflows/bot.yaml, the IMAGE_VERSION environment variable has been updated from '1.4.0' to '1.4.1', which affects the tagging of the Docker image during the build process. The workflow is triggered by pushes and pull requests to the main branch, specifically for changes in the images/bot/** directory. The job runs on an Ubuntu 24.04 environment and includes steps for checking out the repository, installing necessary tools, building the Docker image, testing it, and conditionally pushing it to the registry.

In the images/bot/setup.cfg file, the version number of the bioconda-bot package has been updated from 0.0.5 to 0.0.6, with no other changes to the metadata or structure.

The comment.py file has undergone modifications to the make_artifact_comment function, enhancing the parsing of Docker image names to support a new separator format and streamlining the comment construction logic. Additionally, error handling in the notify_ready function has been improved to log exceptions during Gitter notifications.


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a7f3efc and 75b2552.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • images/bot/src/bioconda_bot/comment.py (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • images/bot/src/bioconda_bot/comment.py

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
images/bot/src/bioconda_bot/comment.py (2)

60-63: Consider enhancing error handling for image name parsing

While the addition of '---' separator support is good, the error handling could be improved.

Consider adding logging for skipped images and explicit error messages:

 elif '---' in image_name:
     package_name, tag = image_name.split('---', 1)
 else:
+    logger.debug(f"Skipping image {image_name}: invalid format (missing separator)")
     continue

64-74: Consider refactoring platform-specific formatting to reduce duplication

The platform-specific comment formatting contains repeated patterns that could be extracted into a helper function.

Consider this refactor:

def format_image_comment(package_name: str, tag: str, ci_platform: str, url: str = None) -> str:
    platform_details = {
        "azure": {
            "title": "Azure",
            "summary": "Images for Azure are in the LinuxArtifacts zip file above.",
            "command": lambda name: f"gzip -dc LinuxArtifacts/images/{name}.tar.gz \\| docker load"
        },
        "circleci": {
            "title": "CircleCI",
            "summary": "",
            "command": lambda url: f'curl -L "{url}" \\| gzip -dc \\| docker load'
        },
        "github-actions": {
            "title": "GitHub Actions",
            "summary": "Images are in the linux-64 zip file above.",
            "command": lambda name: f"gzip -dc images/{name}.tar.gz \\| docker load"
        }
    }

    details = platform_details.get(ci_platform)
    if not details:
        return ""

    package_link = f"[{package_name}]({url})" if url else package_name
    command = details["command"](url if ci_platform == "circleci" else f"{package_name}---{tag}")
    
    return (
        f"{package_link} | {tag} | {details['title']} | "
        f"<details><summary>show</summary>{details['summary']}"
        f"{command}</details>\n"
    )

Then use it like:

-if ci_platform == "azure":
-    comment += f"{package_name} | {tag} | Azure | "
-    comment += "<details><summary>show</summary>Images for Azure are in the LinuxArtifacts zip file above."
-    comment += f"`gzip -dc LinuxArtifacts/images/{image_name}.tar.gz \\| docker load`</details>\n"
-elif ci_platform == "circleci":
-    comment += f"[{package_name}]({URL}) | {tag} | CircleCI | "
-    comment += f'<details><summary>show</summary>`curl -L "{URL}" \\| gzip -dc \\| docker load`</details>\n'
-elif ci_platform == "github-actions":
-    comment += f"{package_name} | {tag} | GitHub Actions | "
-    comment += "<details><summary>show</summary>Images are in the linux-64 zip file above."
-    comment += f"`gzip -dc images/{image_name}.tar.gz \\| docker load`</details>\n"
+comment += format_image_comment(package_name, tag, ci_platform, URL if ci_platform == "circleci" else None)

This refactor:

  • Reduces code duplication
  • Makes it easier to add new platforms
  • Centralizes the formatting logic
  • Makes the code more maintainable
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d0c22db and a7f3efc.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • .github/workflows/bot.yaml (1 hunks)
  • images/bot/setup.cfg (1 hunks)
  • images/bot/src/bioconda_bot/comment.py (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • images/bot/setup.cfg
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/bot.yaml (2)

33-33: LGTM! Version bump aligns with semantic versioning.

The patch version increment (1.4.0 → 1.4.1) is appropriate for fixing the bot comment functionality to include images built on GitHub Actions.


33-33: Verify version consistency across related files.

Let's ensure this version bump is consistent with other related files.

✅ Verification successful

Version 1.4.1 appears to be unique to the bot workflow

The version 1.4.1 specified in .github/workflows/bot.yaml is unique and not referenced in any other workflow files or configurations. The other workflows either use different version schemes or different version numbers (e.g., bioconda-recipes-issue-responder uses 1.1.1). This indicates that the version bump is isolated to the bot workflow and doesn't require consistency checks with other files.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check version numbers in related files to ensure consistency

# Check setup.cfg version
echo "Checking setup.cfg version:"
fd -t f setup.cfg -x cat {} \; | grep -E "^version\s*="

# Check other potential version references
echo -e "\nChecking other version references:"
rg -g '!.git' "1\.4\.[0-1]" --type yaml --type python --type ini

Length of output: 324


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for any version references in yaml files and docker related files
echo "Checking version references in yaml and docker files:"
rg "1\.4\.[0-1]" --type yaml

echo -e "\nChecking Dockerfile and docker-compose files:"
fd -e Dockerfile -e dockerfile -e "docker-compose.yml" -e "docker-compose.yaml" -x cat {}

echo -e "\nChecking other IMAGE_VERSION references in workflow files:"
fd -e yml -e yaml -p "workflows" -x cat {} | grep -i "IMAGE_VERSION:"

Length of output: 696


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a simpler approach to find all version references in workflow files
echo "Checking all workflow files content:"
fd . .github/workflows/ -x cat {}

echo -e "\nChecking all yaml files in the repository:"
fd -e yml -e yaml -x cat {}

Length of output: 30681

images/bot/src/bioconda_bot/comment.py (1)

56-57: LGTM: Header duplication fix

Good improvement to prevent duplicate headers by clearing the header string after first use.

Copy link
Member

@bgruening bgruening left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @aliciaaevans!

@aliciaaevans aliciaaevans merged commit 7b022b1 into main Nov 19, 2024
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants