Create size-label.yml #9
Conversation
|
Review changes with |
Please double check the following review of the pull request:Issues counts
Changes in the diff
Identified Issues
Issue 1: Best PracticesDetails: The permissions setting Proposed Code Fix: permissions:
pull-requests: writeExplanation: The Missing TestsSince this is a GitHub Actions workflow, traditional unit tests are not applicable. However, you can verify the workflow by creating test pull requests and observing if the size labels are applied correctly. Consider adding a test repository or branch to safely test the workflow without affecting the main project. Summon me to re-review when updated! Yours, Gooroo.dev |
Feedback:
Additional Info:
|
👋 Hi there!Everything looks good!
|
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis PR adds a new GitHub Actions workflow that automatically labels pull requests based on their size. The workflow uses the size-label-action and runs on pull request events, pull request target events, and manual workflow dispatch triggers. The implementation includes proper conditional checks to handle both internal and external pull requests securely. No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation. File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
WalkthroughA new GitHub Actions workflow file named Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Warning Rate limit exceeded@guibranco has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 4 minutes and 28 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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Potential issues, bugs, and flaws that can introduce unwanted behavior.
Code suggestions and improvements for better exception handling, logic, standardization, and consistency.
|
github-actions
bot
added
the
size/S
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-reviewon this PR and I'll review your latest changes.Korbit Guide: Usage and Customization
Interacting with Korbit
- You can manually ask Korbit to review your PR using the
/korbit-reviewcommand in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-descriptioncommand in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolvecommand in any comment on your PR.- Chat with Korbit on issues we post by tagging @korbit-ai in your reply.
- Help train Korbit to improve your reviews by giving a 👍 or 👎 on the comments Korbit posts.
Customizing Korbit
- Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
- Customize Korbit for your organization through the Korbit Console.
Current Korbit Configuration
General Settings
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions ✅ Issue Categories
Category Enabled Naming ✅ Database Operations ✅ Documentation ✅ Logging ✅ Error Handling ✅ Systems and Environment ✅ Objects and Data Structures ✅ Readability and Maintainability ✅ Asynchronous Processing ✅ Design Patterns ✅ Third-Party Libraries ✅ Performance ✅ Security ✅ Functionality ✅ Feedback and Support
|
Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked! Scan results: |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @guibranco - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
Overall Comments:
- The workflow has overly broad permissions (
write-all). Consider restricting to only the necessary permissions for PR labeling to follow the principle of least privilege.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟢 General issues: all looks good
- 🟡 Security: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
gstraccini
bot
added
the
☑️ auto-merge
![gstraccini[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/480132?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/size-label.yml (1)
16-25: Consider improving conditional readabilityWhile the conditional logic is correct, its readability could be improved by using GitHub Actions' expression syntax more effectively.
- 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' - ) + if: | + github.event_name == 'workflow_dispatch' || + (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)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/size-label.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/size-label.yml (1)
26-26: Verify the action version and consider adding size configurations
The action version is pinned which is good for stability. However:
- Consider verifying if v0.5.5 is the latest stable version
- The action supports customizing size thresholds, which might be useful to add
Let's check the latest version and default configurations:
Consider adding size configurations:
env:
GITHUB_TOKEN: "${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}"
IGNORED: ".*\\.md" # Ignore documentation changes
XS_MAX_SIZE: "10"
S_MAX_SIZE: "100"
M_MAX_SIZE: "500"
L_MAX_SIZE: "1000"✅ Verification successful
Action version is up-to-date, consider adding size configurations
The current version v0.5.5 is the latest stable release of pascalgn/size-label-action, so the version pinning is correct. You may want to add size threshold configurations to customize the labeling behavior according to your project needs.
Example configuration:
env:
GITHUB_TOKEN: "${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}"
IGNORED: ".*\\.md" # Ignore documentation changes
XS_MAX_SIZE: "10"
S_MAX_SIZE: "100"
M_MAX_SIZE: "500"
L_MAX_SIZE: "1000"🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the latest version of the action
gh api repos/pascalgn/size-label-action/releases/latest --jq .tag_name
Length of output: 79
|
@gstraccini create labels |
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
6 similar comments
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
|
Creating 9 labels and updating 23 labels! 🏷️ |
Closes #
📑 Description
✅ Checks
☢️ Does this introduce a breaking change?
ℹ Additional Information
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Create a GitHub Actions workflow file (
size-label.yml) to automatically label pull requests based on their size.Why are these changes being made?
This change aims to automate the process of assigning size-based labels to pull requests to improve workflow efficiency and maintain consistency. Utilizing the
size-label-actionreduces manual overhead and helps contributors quickly identify the scope of pull requests, facilitating better resource allocation and review prioritization.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Chores