Add lint and test workflows #3
Conversation
|
Warning Rate Limit Exceeded@joshklop has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 6 minutes and 27 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. WalkthroughThis update revolutionizes the Go project's development process, enhancing automation for code quality checks and testing. It optimizes workflows, empowering contributors. GitHub Actions workflows for linting and testing, along with an enriched Makefile, streamline project maintenance and reliability. Changes
Poem
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 Configration 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: 1
Review Status
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (3)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
.github/workflows/lint.yml (1)
1-27: LGTM! The lint workflow is well-structured, with appropriate triggers and permissions. Usinggo.modto specify the Go version and a fixed version ofgolangci-lintare best practices that ensure consistency and reliability..github/workflows/test.yml (1)
1-28: LGTM! The test workflow is well-structured, with appropriate triggers and a comprehensive testing strategy across multiple Go versions and operating systems. Ensure the third-party actionvladopajic/go-test-coverage@v2is evaluated for reliability and security.
joshklop
force-pushed
the
workflows
branch
2 times, most recently
from
097aabd
to
457c300
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Status
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (3)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- Makefile
joshklop
force-pushed
the
workflows
branch
4 times, most recently
from
71b6f45
to
12195b6
Compare
Co-authored-by: Colin Kennedy <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Status
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (21)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- .golangci.yaml (1 hunks)
- .testcoverage.yml (1 hunks)
- Makefile (1 hunks)
- app/peptide/payloadstore/payloadstore_test.go (2 hunks)
- builder/builder.go (3 hunks)
- builder/builder_test.go (1 hunks)
- cmd/monomer/main.go (3 hunks)
- engine/engine.go (10 hunks)
- eth/eth.go (1 hunks)
- mempool/mempool.go (1 hunks)
- monomer.go (4 hunks)
- x/rollup/genesis.go (1 hunks)
- x/rollup/keeper/grpc_query.go (1 hunks)
- x/rollup/keeper/keeper.go (1 hunks)
- x/rollup/keeper/msg_server.go (8 hunks)
- x/rollup/module.go (4 hunks)
- x/rollup/types/codec.go (2 hunks)
- x/rollup/types/msgs.go (2 hunks)
- x/rollup/types/params.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (20)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml
- .github/workflows/test.yml
- .golangci.yaml
- .testcoverage.yml
- Makefile
- builder/builder.go
- builder/builder_test.go
- cmd/monomer/main.go
- engine/engine.go
- eth/eth.go
- mempool/mempool.go
- monomer.go
- x/rollup/genesis.go
- x/rollup/keeper/grpc_query.go
- x/rollup/keeper/keeper.go
- x/rollup/keeper/msg_server.go
- x/rollup/module.go
- x/rollup/types/codec.go
- x/rollup/types/msgs.go
- x/rollup/types/params.go
Additional comments not posted (5)
app/peptide/payloadstore/payloadstore_test.go (5)
8-8: Consider grouping imports logically to enhance readability. Typically, Go imports are grouped in the following order: standard library imports, third-party imports, and then imports from within the same module or project.
21-32: Ensure that all fields of thePayloadstruct are correctly initialized with the intended values fromattrs. The direct assignment of fields fromattrstoPayloadenhances clarity and reduces the risk of errors during struct creation.
37-37: The change in the type ofidsslice toengine.PayloadIDaligns with the updated import and usage patterns. Verify that this type change is consistent throughout the codebase, especially in areas interacting with payload IDs.Verification successful
The change to
engine.PayloadIDis consistent throughout the codebase, as evidenced by the absence ofeetypes.PayloadIDand the widespread usage ofengine.PayloadIDacross various files. This confirms that the type change aligns with the updated import and usage patterns, ensuring consistency in handling payload IDs.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for inconsistent usage of PayloadID types across the codebase. rg --type go 'eetypes\.PayloadID' || echo "No inconsistencies found." rg --type go 'engine\.PayloadID' || echo "No usage found."Length of output: 1582
42-42: The transition to using theIDmethod directly onpayloadinstances simplifies the retrieval of payload IDs. Confirm that theIDmethod correctly implements the logic previously encapsulated byGetPayloadID, ensuring the integrity of test validations.Verification successful
The implementation of the
IDmethod in thePayloadstruct has been verified. It comprehensively generates aPayloadIDbased on various attributes of thePayload, ensuring a unique and consistent identification mechanism. This method appears to be designed with integrity in mind, likely maintaining or enhancing the integrity of test validations compared to the previousGetPayloadIDmethod. Without direct comparison to the old method or specific test cases, the transition seems to maintain the integrity of test validations based on the robustness of theIDmethod's logic.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the implementation of the ID method in the Payload struct. ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func ($_ *Payload) ID() *engine.PayloadID { $$$ }'Length of output: 1090
48-48: Usingrequire.Equalfor comparing payload IDs directly is a straightforward approach. Ensure that theIDmethod returns a comparable type that accurately reflects the payload's identity for effective test validation.
Summary by CodeRabbit