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.

Sign up for GitHub

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: coderabbit config file #3426

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 23, 2024
Merged

fix: coderabbit config file #3426

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d3c9c84
fix coderabbit config file
akshatnema Nov 23, 2024
07143b7
fixed lint errors
akshatnema Nov 23, 2024
c43e099
refactored configuration
akshatnema Nov 23, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
35 changes: 35 additions & 0 deletions .coderabbit.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
language: "en-US"
reviews:
high_level_summary: true
tools:
markdownlint:
enabled: true
biome:
enabled: true
github-checks:
enabled: true
timeout_ms: 180000
languagetool:
enabled: true
enabled_only: false
level: default
hadolint:
enabled: true
yamllint:
enabled: true
gitleaks:
enabled: true
Comment on lines +20 to +21
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Nov 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Enhance security scanning configuration.

While Gitleaks is enabled for secret scanning, consider adding specific configuration to reduce false positives and focus on relevant patterns.

 gitleaks:
   enabled: true
+  allow_paths:        # Exclude test files and examples
+    - "**/*.test.{js,ts}"
+    - "examples/**"
+  deny_patterns:      # Add custom patterns
+    - "(?i)api[_-]?key"
+    - "(?i)auth[_-]?token"
📝 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.

Suggested change
gitleaks:
enabled: true
gitleaks:
enabled: true
allow_paths: # Exclude test files and examples
- "**/*.test.{js,ts}"
- "examples/**"
deny_patterns: # Add custom patterns
- "(?i)api[_-]?key"
- "(?i)auth[_-]?token"

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

these changes are not part of .coderabbitai.yaml schema

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@akshatnema, thank you for pointing that out. I understand that these changes are not part of the .coderabbit.yaml schema. I'll keep this in mind for future reviews.

✏️ Learnings added 
Learnt from: akshatnema
PR: asyncapi/website#3426
File: .coderabbit.yaml:20-21
Timestamp: 2024-11-23T07:35:38.391Z
Learning: The `.coderabbit.yaml` schema does not include configuration options for Gitleaks such as `allow_paths` and `deny_patterns`.

Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.

eslint:
enabled: true
actionlint:
enabled: true
semgrep:
enabled: true
Comment on lines +4 to +27
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Nov 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Review tool activation impact on performance

Having all linting and security tools enabled might impact the review process performance. Consider:

  1. The low performance score (34) in the Lighthouse report might be partially related to the processing overhead.
  2. Some tools might overlap in functionality.

Consider selectively enabling only the essential tools based on your project's needs.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is your recommended suggestion?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@akshatnema, thank you for your question.

After reviewing the situation, I realize that the low performance score in the Lighthouse report is unrelated to the code review tools configured in .coderabbit.yaml. The Lighthouse performance score reflects the runtime performance of the website, whereas the code review tools affect the PR review process.

However, having all linting and security tools enabled can impact the review process performance (i.e., the time it takes for reviews to complete). To optimize the review workflow, I recommend:

  1. Evaluate Tool Overlap:

    • Biome and ESLint both perform linting for JavaScript/TypeScript code. Since you have ESLint enabled, you might consider disabling Biome to avoid redundancy.

      biome:
  enabled: false

    • Markdownlint and LanguageTool both analyze Markdown files. While Markdownlint focuses on formatting and style, LanguageTool focuses on grammar and spelling. Depending on your priorities, you could disable one of them.

      # To disable LanguageTool
languagetool:
  enabled: false

      or

      # To disable Markdownlint
markdownlint:
  enabled: false

    • Semgrep is a versatile static analysis tool that might cover rules checked by other linters or security tools. Review your Semgrep configuration to see if it overlaps with tools like ESLint or Gitleaks.

  2. Performance Considerations:

    • Each additional tool adds to the review time. If you notice that reviews are slower, consider prioritizing tools that provide the most value to your project.

  3. Security Tools:

    • Gitleaks scans for hardcoded secrets. If your project doesn't handle sensitive information, you might consider disabling it.

      gitleaks:
  enabled: false

  4. Adjust Tool Configurations:

    • Fine-tune the settings of enabled tools to focus only on the most relevant rules for your project, reducing unnecessary checks.

Ultimately, the choice depends on your project's specific needs and priorities. Disabling non-essential or overlapping tools can streamline the review process without compromising code quality.

Let me know if you'd like any further assistance.

✏️ Learnings added 
Learnt from: akshatnema
PR: asyncapi/website#3426
File: .coderabbit.yaml:10-33
Timestamp: 2024-11-23T06:58:43.227Z
Learning: Ensure to differentiate between runtime performance issues (e.g., Lighthouse performance scores) and code review process performance. Avoid attributing runtime performance issues to code review tool configurations.

Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.

knowledge_base:
opt_out: false
learnings:
scope: "local"
issues:
scope: "local"
pull_requests:
scope: "local"
45 changes: 0 additions & 45 deletions .coderrabbit.yml
View file
Open in desktop

This file was deleted.

Loading