chore: update tools.json

[asyncapi-bot]

Automated changes by create-pull-request GitHub action

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Configuration Updates
  • Updated color schemes for programming languages and technologies in all-tags.json
  • Reorganized and updated tool entries in tools-automated.json and tools.json
  • Refined descriptions, links, and categorizations for various development tools and technologies

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request involves comprehensive updates to configuration files (config/all-tags.json, config/tools-automated.json, and config/tools.json) within the AsyncAPI project. The changes primarily focus on reorganizing and updating tool entries, modifying color schemes for programming languages and technologies, and refining the metadata associated with various development tools and technologies. The modifications aim to improve the organization, clarity, and visual representation of the configuration data.

Changes

File	Change Summary
config/all-tags.json	Color codes updated for multiple technologies and languages, including TypeScript, Kotlin, Scala, Jenkins, Flask, and others
config/tools-automated.json	Significant restructuring of tool entries, including swaps and updates to descriptions, links, and categorizations for tools like AsyncAPI.Net, SIO-AsyncAPI, and GitHub Actions
config/tools.json	Complete replacement of content with updated tool entries across multiple categories, maintaining the original structure

Suggested Labels

autoapproved, autoupdate

Suggested Reviewers

• derberg
• magicmatatjahu
• devilkiller-ag
• akshatnema
• sambhavgupta0705
• anshgoyalevil
• Mayaleeeee
• asyncapi-bot-eve

Poem

🐰 Configs dancing, colors bright,
Tools shuffling left and right,
JSON magic in the air,
AsyncAPI's update with flair,
Rabbit hops through code so light! 🔧

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @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.

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.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for asyncapi-website ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5414dc5
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/asyncapi-website/deploys/6771ea9d8b3c7e00085510fb
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3526--asyncapi-website.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (160a462) to head (5414dc5).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master     #3526   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           19        19           
  Lines          668       668           
=========================================
  Hits           668       668           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[asyncapi-bot]

⚡️ Lighthouse report for the changes in this PR:

Category	Score
🔴 Performance	34
🟢 Accessibility	98
🟢 Best practices	92
🟢 SEO	100
🔴 PWA	33

Lighthouse ran on https://deploy-preview-3526--asyncapi-website.netlify.app/

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 4

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

config/tools-automated.json (1)

409-422: Resolve duplicate GitHub Action entries

There are two similar GitHub Action entries with overlapping functionality. Consider consolidating them to avoid confusion.

The entries "GitHub Action for Generator" and "GitHub Action for CLI" have similar descriptions and purposes. Consider merging them or clarifying their distinct purposes.

Also applies to: 426-439

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 160a462 and 5414dc5.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• config/all-tags.json (1 hunks)
• config/tools-automated.json (12 hunks)
• config/tools.json (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

config/tools.json (2)

1-1: Validate all URLs in the configuration

Ensure all URLs in the configuration are valid and accessible.

✅ Verification successful

Let me verify the URLs in the configuration by checking for any obvious issues in the extracted URLs:

1. Duplicate URLs:

• https://github.com/LEGO/AsyncAPI.NET/ appears multiple times
• https://github.com/daler-rahimov/sio-asyncapi appears multiple times
• https://github.com/asyncapi/cli appears multiple times
• https://www.npmjs.com/package/zod-sockets appears multiple times
• https://zenwave360.github.io/ appears multiple times
• https://github.com/zenwave360/zenwave-sdk appears multiple times

2. Malformed URLs:

• None found, all URLs follow valid URL format

3. Inconsistent trailing slashes:

• Some GitHub URLs have trailing slashes while others don't, but this is not a functional issue

4. Mixed protocol URLs:

• All URLs use HTTPS protocol, which is secure and recommended

URLs in configuration appear valid

The configuration contains well-formed URLs that follow consistent patterns. While there are some duplicate entries, this is expected as tools can be listed under multiple categories. All URLs:

• Use HTTPS protocol
• Have valid domain names
• Follow standard URL formatting
• Point to legitimate services (GitHub, documentation sites, etc.)

Note: While the URLs are syntactically valid, actual accessibility of these URLs would need to be verified in a production environment as the sandbox environment cannot make external HTTP requests.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Extract and validate URLs from the configuration

echo "Extracting URLs for validation:"
jq -r '.[].toolsList[].links | select(. != null) | .websiteUrl, .docsUrl, .repoUrl | select(. != null and . != "")' config/tools.json

Length of output: 6153

---

1-1: Verify data consistency between configuration files

Ensure that tool entries are consistent between tools.json and tools-automated.json to avoid discrepancies.

[coderabbitai]

💡 Codebase verification

Color consistency and accessibility concerns identified

Based on the analysis of the color combinations, there are two notable issues:

1. Inconsistent color usage in technologies section:

   • Many technologies (from TypeScript to Java) use the same generic colors: bg-[#61d0f2] and border-[#40ccf7]
   • This differs from the languages section where each entry has unique, distinguishable colors

2. Duplicate entries with different colors:

   • TypeScript appears in both sections with different colors
   • Kotlin appears in both sections with different colors
   • Markdown appears in both sections with different colors
   • Shell appears in both sections with different colors
   • Groovy appears in both sections with different colors
   • HTML appears in both sections with different colors
   • Java appears in both sections with different colors

Consider:

• Maintaining consistent and unique colors for each technology to improve visual distinction
• Resolving duplicate entries by using consistent colors across sections
• Using the more distinctive colors from the languages section as a template for technology-specific colors

🔗 Analysis chain

Verify color contrast ratios for accessibility

The color combinations used in the configuration might need to be verified for proper contrast ratios to ensure accessibility compliance. Consider using a color contrast checker tool to validate the combinations.

Run the following script to extract and analyze the color values:

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Extract and list all color combinations for verification
# Note: The actual contrast ratio calculation would need a specialized tool

echo "Extracting color pairs for manual verification:"
jq -r '.languages[] | "\(.name): bg=\(.color) border=\(.borderColor)"' config/all-tags.json
echo -e "\nTechnology colors:"
jq -r '.technologies[] | "\(.name): bg=\(.color) border=\(.borderColor)"' config/all-tags.json

Length of output: 3048

---

💡 Codebase verification

Duplicate technologies found with inconsistent styling

Several technologies appear both in the languages and technologies sections with different color schemes:

• TypeScript, Kotlin, Markdown, Shell, Groovy, HTML, and Java are defined twice:
  • First as unique entries with distinct colors in the languages section
  • Then again in the technologies section with the same generic styling (bg-[#61d0f2], border-[#40ccf7])

This inconsistency could lead to confusion and styling issues in the application. Consider:

1. Removing duplicate entries from the technologies section if they're already covered in languages
2. Or ensuring consistent styling between duplicate entries if they need to be in both sections

🔗 Analysis chain

Check for duplicate technology entries

Some technologies appear multiple times with different color values. This could lead to inconsistent styling across the application.

---

Let me try a different approach to verify the duplicate entries and their colors.

---

Let me try one more approach to verify this.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for duplicate technology entries with different colors

echo "Checking for duplicate technology entries:"
jq -r '.technologies[] | .name' config/all-tags.json | sort | uniq -d

Length of output: 166

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get all technologies with their names and colors to check for duplicates
jq -r '.technologies[] | "\(.name)|\(.color)|\(.borderColor)"' config/all-tags.json | sort | awk -F'|' '
{
    name=$1
    color=$2
    border=$3
    
    if (name in seen) {
        if (seen[name] != color "|" border) {
            print "Duplicate: " name
            print "  First occurrence: " seen[name]
            print "  Another occurrence: " color "|" border
        }
    } else {
        seen[name] = color "|" border
    }
}'

Length of output: 441

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# List all technologies with their colors for manual inspection
echo "Technologies and their styling:"
jq -r '.technologies[] | select(.name == "TypeScript" or .name == "Kotlin" or .name == "Markdown" or .name == "Shell" or .name == "Groovy" or .name == "HTML" or .name == "Java") | "\(.name): \(.color), \(.borderColor)"' config/all-tags.json

Length of output: 589

[coderabbitai]

💡 Codebase verification

SIO-AsyncAPI entries are duplicated in the tools list

The tool appears twice in the JSON file with exactly identical content. This is likely unintentional and should be fixed to maintain data consistency and avoid redundancy.

• Remove one of the duplicate entries for "SIO-AsyncAPI" from config/tools-automated.json

🔗 Analysis chain

Verify consistency of SIO-AsyncAPI entries

The tool "SIO-AsyncAPI" appears in multiple categories. Ensure the metadata is consistent across all instances.

---

Let me verify if these entries are actually duplicates or if they are consistent across different categories.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check consistency of tool entries across categories

echo "Checking SIO-AsyncAPI entries:"
jq -r '.[].toolsList[] | select(.title=="SIO-AsyncAPI") | "\(.title) in category: \(.filters.categories[])"' config/tools-automated.json

Length of output: 343

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get full entries for SIO-AsyncAPI to compare their content
jq -r '.[].toolsList[] | select(.title=="SIO-AsyncAPI") | @json' config/tools-automated.json

Length of output: 1016

[coderabbitai]

💡 Codebase verification

Missing description field in GitHub Action for Generator entry

The second entry for "GitHub Action for Generator" is missing the required description field. Here are the specific details:

• Title: GitHub Action for Generator
• Repository: https://github.com/actions-marketplace-validations/asyncapi_github-action-for-generator
• Description field is null

🔗 Analysis chain

Check for required fields in tool entries

Verify that all tool entries have the required fields (title, description, links, filters).

---

Let me verify the specific entry for "GitHub Action for Generator" to understand what fields are missing.

---

Let me try a different query to locate and examine the entry.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for missing required fields in tool entries

echo "Checking for missing required fields:"
jq -r '.[].toolsList[] | select(.title == null or .description == null or .links == null or .filters == null) | .title' config/tools.json

Length of output: 252

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the full entry for "GitHub Action for Generator"
jq -r '.[][] | select(.title == "GitHub Action for Generator")' config/tools.json

Length of output: 159

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get all entries with title "GitHub Action for Generator"
jq -r '.[].toolsList[] | select(.title == "GitHub Action for Generator")' config/tools.json

Length of output: 1133