feat(ci): initialize ci from other rollkit repos #24
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@MSevey has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 5 minutes and 2 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. WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several configuration files and workflows to enhance the automation and management of the GitHub repository. Key additions include automated review settings, dependency updates, CI/CD workflows for linting, testing, and releases, as well as housekeeping tasks for issue and pull request management. Linting configurations for various file types are also established, improving code quality and maintainability. Overall, these changes aim to streamline the development process and ensure consistent code standards. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant GitHub
participant CI/CD
participant Reviewers
User->>GitHub: Open Pull Request
GitHub->>CI/CD: Trigger CI Workflow
CI/CD->>Reviewers: Request Review
Reviewers->>GitHub: Provide Feedback
GitHub->>User: Notify Review Status
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (3)
.github/workflows/test.yml (2)
20-35: Well-configured unit testing workflow.The
unit_testjob is properly set up to run tests and handle code coverage. Usingcodecovfor coverage reporting is a good choice.Suggestion: Ensure that the
CODECOV_TOKENis securely managed and rotated periodically to maintain security.
37-47: Placeholder for integration tests noted.It's good to see a placeholder for integration tests. However, it should be clearly documented that these tests are not yet implemented to avoid confusion.
.github/workflows/ci_release.yml (1)
44-57: Manual release job well-configured but consider tightening permissions.The
releasejob is well-configured for manual triggers. However, the permissions are set to "write-all", which might be more permissive than necessary.Suggestion: Review and possibly restrict the permissions to only what is necessary for the release process to enhance security.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (11)
- .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)
- coverage.txt (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- .github/dependabot.yml
- .markdownlint.yaml
- .yamllint.yml
- coverage.txt
Additional context used
actionlint
.github/workflows/ci_release.yml
41-41: shellcheck reported issue in this script: SC2086:info:1:45: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
(shellcheck)
.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)
Additional comments not posted (20)
.github/auto_request_review.yml (4)
1-7: Well-configured reviewer settings.The configuration for default reviewers and groups is well set up to ensure that the right team members are notified for reviews.
8-11: Appropriate assignment of file-specific reviewers.Assigning specific reviewers for changes in the
.github/**directory ensures that experts can review relevant changes efficiently.
12-15: Smart configuration of review options.The options to ignore drafts and keywords like 'WIP' are well-thought-out, helping to streamline the review process by focusing on more finalized changes.
15-15: Good practice to require multiple reviewers.Requiring three reviewers enhances the thoroughness and reliability of the review process.
.github/workflows/semantic-pull-request.yml (3)
1-9: Appropriately named and triggered workflow.The workflow is aptly named "Semantic Pull Request" and correctly triggers on pull request events, ensuring that all PRs adhere to semantic conventions.
10-12: Secure and minimal permissions setup.Setting the permissions to read-only for pull requests is a good security practice, ensuring that the workflow has only the necessary access.
13-20: Well-configured job for enforcing semantic PR titles.The job configuration uses
amannn/action-semantic-pull-request@v5effectively to enforce conventional commit messages, aligning with the project's standards..golangci.yml (3)
1-21: Comprehensive linter configuration.The run settings and the selection of linters are well-chosen to ensure high code quality and efficient CI runs.
22-33: Well-tailored issues handling in linter configuration.Excluding directories with borrowed code and including specific issues are thoughtful choices that tailor the linter to the project's specific needs.
34-46: Customized linter settings for project-specific needs.The settings for
reviveandgoimportsare well-customized to fit the project's specific requirements, enhancing maintainability and readability of the code..github/workflows/lint.yml (2)
33-37: Good use of custom action for YAML linting.The
yamllintjob is appropriately configured using a custom action, which should help maintain consistency with the repository's linting standards.
39-43: Consistent linting setup for Markdown files.The
markdown-lintjob uses a custom action similar to theyamllintjob, ensuring consistent linting practices across different file types..github/workflows/test.yml (1)
8-18: Effective dependency check withgo mod tidy.The
go_mod_tidy_checkjob is well-configured to ensure that thego.modfile is always up to date, which is crucial for maintaining dependency health..github/workflows/ci_release.yml (2)
25-28: Efficient reuse of lint workflow.The
lintjob effectively reuses thelint.ymlworkflow, ensuring consistency across the CI process.
29-31: Good reuse of test workflow with secure handling of secrets.The
testjob effectively reuses thetest.ymlworkflow and appropriately handles secrets, ensuring both consistency and security in the CI process..github/workflows/housekeeping.yml (5)
1-2: Clear and concise workflow name.The workflow is aptly named "Housekeeping," which clearly indicates its purpose.
3-8: Well-configured triggers for issues and pull requests.The workflow is triggered by issue openings and pull request activities, which are appropriate for the tasks defined.
9-23: Efficient use of reusable workflows for issue management.Utilizing a reusable workflow (
[email protected]) is a great practice for maintaining consistency across projects. The configuration for adding issues to a project and labeling them for triage is well-defined.
24-35: Proper exclusion of dependabot PRs and efficient project addition.The condition to exclude dependabot PRs from being added to the project ensures that automated updates do not clutter the project board. The reuse of the
reusable_housekeeping.ymlworkflow for adding PRs to the project is consistent and efficient.
37-47: Automated reviewer addition to PRs is set up correctly.The job to automatically add reviewers to PRs is a good practice to ensure that PRs are reviewed promptly. The use of the reusable workflow here maintains consistency.
|
@coderabbittai ignore |
|
@coderabbittai resolve |
Overview
Initializing CI to bring repo up to standard
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation