semanticdiff-com[bot]
commented
2 months ago Review changes with SemanticDiff.
Closed guibranco closed 2 months ago
semanticdiff-com[bot]
commented
2 months ago Review changes with SemanticDiff.
senior-dev-bot[bot]
commented
2 months ago Hi there! :wave: 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
korbit-ai[bot]
commented
2 months ago My review is in progress :book: - I will have feedback for you in a few minutes!
pr-code-reviewer[bot]
commented
2 months ago Everything looks good!
Automatically generated with the help of gpt-3.5-turbo. Feedback? Please don't hesitate to drop me an email at webber@takken.io.
codara-ai-code-review[bot]
commented
2 months ago .github/workflows/deep-source.yml: The condition for running the job Build and analyze is complex and could be prone to errors or misunderstandings due to its length and logic complexity. It should be simplified for better readability and maintainability..github/workflows/deep-source.yml: Consider breaking down the complex condition for the job Build and analyze into smaller, more understandable parts using workflow syntax features like on, types, and paths. This will enhance readability and make maintenance easier..github/workflows/deep-source.yml: In the dotnet test command, it is advisable to use a consistent directory structure for the output files. The output directory for the Coverlet output is changed to ../Results/, but the path for ./bin/deepsource report still references Tests/Results/. Ensure consistency in directory paths to avoid confusion.
deepsource-io[bot]
commented
2 months ago Here's the code health analysis summary for commits 449f742..f214c48. View details on DeepSource ↗.
| Analyzer | Status | Summary | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
 Test coverage | ✅ Success | View Check ↗ | |
 Secrets | ✅ Success | View Check ↗ | |
 C# | ✅ Success | View Check ↗ |
| Metric | Aggregate | C# |
|---|---|---|
| Branch Coverage | 100% | 100% |
| Composite Coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Line Coverage | 0% | 0% |
💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.
instapr[bot]
commented
2 months ago ### 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
coderabbitai[bot]
commented
2 months ago [!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 `@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](https://coderabbit.ai/docs/faq) for further information.Commits
Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 449f7429ba57dcc1d48b7de392bd8df44ff13162 and f214c48c6f9a0324cd7579021833377f92170bb3.
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?
gooroo-dev[bot]
commented
2 months ago | 🐞Mistake | 🤪Typo | 🚨Security | 🚀Performance | 💪Best Practices | 📖Readability | ❓Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
pull_request, pull_request_target, workflow_dispatch).7.0.x to 8.0.x.dotnet test command to output coverage results to ../Results/ directory.Tests/Results/coverage.cobertura.xml.| ID | Type | Details | Severity | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 💪Best Practices | The conditional check for the workflow could be simplified for better readability. | 🟡Low | 🟡Low |
Details: 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: .github/workflows/deep-source.yml
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.
No 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 I'd appreciate your feedback! React or reply.
github-actions[bot]
commented
2 months ago Infisical secrets check: :white_check_mark: No secrets leaked!
Scan results:
8:32PM INF scanning for exposed secrets...
8:32PM INF 18 commits scanned.
8:32PM INF scan completed in 63.7ms
8:32PM INF no leaks found
sonarcloud[bot]
commented
2 months ago 
Quality Gate passedIssues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues
Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code
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.