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

adds a playground testfile to gitignore so Daniel has his own playground :) #883

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 2, 2024

Conversation

0xDEnYO
Copy link
Contributor

@0xDEnYO 0xDEnYO commented Nov 28, 2024

Which Jira task belongs to this PR?

Why did I implement it this way?

Checklist before requesting a review

  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • This pull request is as small as possible and only tackles one problem
  • I have added tests that cover the functionality / test the bug
  • I have updated any required documentation

Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)

  • I have checked that any arbitrary calls to external contracts are validated and or restricted
  • I have checked that any privileged calls (i.e. storage modifications) are validated and or restricted
  • I have ensured that any new contracts have had AT A MINIMUM 1 preliminary audit conducted on by <company/auditor>

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 28, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve updates to both the .gitignore file and the .github/workflows/types.yaml file. A new entry has been added to the .gitignore to ignore the file test/solidity/TestPlayground.t.sol. Additionally, the workflow file has been modified to enhance functionality and error handling, including updates to the versioning logic, file removal commands, and staging processes.

Changes

File Change Summary
.gitignore Added entry to ignore test/solidity/TestPlayground.t.sol
.github/workflows/types.yaml Modified workflow for TypeScript bindings to include a verification step, updated the removal command to rm -rf, clarified version bump logic, improved tag validity checks, and changed the staging process to git add -A.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • ezynda3
  • Matt-LiFi

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@0xDEnYO has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 24 minutes and 12 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c205b29 and 7b8c94b.


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c205b29 and 7b8c94b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/types.yaml (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/types.yaml (2)

60-69: LGTM! Improved file operations and debugging.

The changes enhance robustness and debuggability:

  • Using rm -rf ensures clean directory removal
  • The -p flag in mkdir prevents errors if parent directories exist
  • Added git status check helps diagnose copy operation issues

176-180: Verify no sensitive files are present before staging.

The change from explicit path staging to git add -A simplifies the process but requires careful consideration of staged files.

Let's verify no sensitive files would be staged:

✅ Verification successful

Using git add -A is safe in this CI workflow context

The change from explicit path staging to git add -A is safe because:

  1. The workflow runs in a clean CI environment with only generated files
  2. All operations happen in the lifi-contract-types directory
  3. The only files present are the ones copied from src/, dist/, and the updated package.json
  4. The workflow has strict controls on what files are copied into this directory
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential sensitive files that might be staged

# List all files that would be staged, excluding known safe paths
cd lifi-contract-types
git status --porcelain | grep -vE '^.. (src/|dist/|package.json)' || true

# Check for common sensitive file patterns
find . -type f -not -path "*/\.*" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" \
  -name "*secret*" -o \
  -name "*private*" -o \
  -name "*.key" -o \
  -name "*.pem" -o \
  -name "*password*" \
  2>/dev/null || true

Length of output: 381


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check for sensitive files and unintended staging

# List all tracked and untracked files in the repository
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard
git ls-files

# Check the contents of the workflow file to understand the context better
cat .github/workflows/types.yaml

Length of output: 36969


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.

@0xDEnYO 0xDEnYO marked this pull request as ready for review November 28, 2024 01:16
Copy link
Contributor

@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 (1)
.gitignore (1)

46-46: LGTM! Consider a more structured approach for developer playgrounds.

While ignoring personal playground files is good practice, consider establishing a dedicated developers/ directory structure for personal test files (e.g., test/solidity/developers/{username}/Playground.t.sol). This would:

  • Provide better organization
  • Prevent potential naming conflicts
  • Make it clear which files are personal playgrounds
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 207f863 and c205b29.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .gitignore (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.gitignore (1)

46-46: Verify the playground file usage.

Let's confirm that this file exists and is being used to avoid unnecessary .gitignore entries.

@lifi-action-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

lifi-action-bot commented Nov 28, 2024

Test Coverage Report

Line Coverage: 77.65% (2089 / 2690 lines)
Function Coverage: 83.10% ( 364 / 438 functions)
Branch Coverage: 36.21% ( 197 / 544 branches)
Test coverage (77.65%) is above min threshold (76%). Check passed.

@0xDEnYO 0xDEnYO enabled auto-merge (squash) November 28, 2024 01:50
ezynda3
ezynda3 previously approved these changes Nov 29, 2024
@0xDEnYO 0xDEnYO dismissed ezynda3’s stale review December 2, 2024 02:04

Needs reapproval to trigger git action

@0xDEnYO 0xDEnYO merged commit 9468a2d into main Dec 2, 2024
15 checks passed
@0xDEnYO 0xDEnYO deleted the testPlayground branch December 2, 2024 06:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants