Update deep-source.yml #23
Conversation
|
Review changes with SemanticDiff. |
|
Hi there! 👋 Thanks for opening a PR. It looks like you've already reached the 5 review limit on our Basic Plan for the week. If you still want a review, feel free to upgrade your subscription in the Web App and then reopen the PR |
|
My review is in progress 📖 - I will have feedback for you in a few minutes! |
👋 Hi there!Everything looks good!
|
Potential issues, bugs, and flaws that can introduce unwanted behavior:
Code suggestions and improvements for better exception handling, logic, standardization, and consistency:
|
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
Code Coverage Report
|
### Feedback
- **Before the change?**
* N/A
- **After the change?**
* Update 'dotnet-version' to '8.0.x'
* Modified build and analyze steps with new coverage output directory
- **Pull request checklist**
- [x] Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features)
- [ ] Docs have been reviewed and added/updated if needed (for bug fixes/features)
- **Does this introduce a breaking change?**
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No |
github-actions
bot
added
the
size/S
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@gstraccini[bot] has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 6 minutes and 14 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. 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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Please double check the following review of the pull request:Issues counts
Changes in the diff
Identified Issues
Issue 1: Simplifying Conditional ChecksDetails: The conditional check for the workflow could be simplified for better readability. The current implementation uses multiple nested conditions which can be hard to read and maintain. File Path: Lines of Code: if: >-
(
github.event_name == 'pull_request' &&
github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository
) || (
github.event_name == 'pull_request_target' &&
github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name != github.repository
) || (
github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch'
)Suggested Fix: if: >-
github.event_name == 'pull_request' && github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name == github.repository ||
github.event_name == 'pull_request_target' && github.event.pull_request.head.repo.full_name != github.repository ||
github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch'Explanation: The suggested fix simplifies the conditional check by removing unnecessary parentheses and line breaks, making it easier to read and maintain. Missing TestsNo new functionality has been added that requires additional tests. The changes are primarily configuration updates and improvements to the workflow conditions. Existing tests should cover the functionality affected by these changes. Summon me to re-review when updated! Yours, Gooroo.dev |
|
Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked! Scan results: |
|
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
gstraccini
bot
added
the
☑️ auto-merge
![gstraccini[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/480132?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Resolves #ISSUE_NUMBER
Before the change?
After the change?
Pull request checklist
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Update the .NET version to 8.0.x, add conditional checks for the build and analyze step, and modify the test coverage output path in the deep-source.yml workflow file.
Why are these changes being made?
The .NET version is updated to leverage new features and improvements in 8.0.x. Conditional checks ensure the workflow runs appropriately based on the event type, and the test coverage output path is modified to align with the new directory structure for better organization.