Support publishing with goreleaser

[go-zen-chu]

Why

• We want aictl install more easily
• close: #2

What

• Introduce goreleaser
• Add goreleaser publishing in main.yml aciton

QA, Evidence

• [x] publish with goreleaser

[github-actions[bot]]

Here’s a code review for each file in markdown format:

pull_request_targetcheck-gogh pr comment.gitignoreis: cannot open is' (No such file or directory) properly: cannot openproperly' (No such file or directory) structured: cannot open structured' (No such file or directory) to: cannot opento' (No such file or directory) omit: cannot open omit' (No such file or directory) binaries: cannot openbinaries' (No such file or directory) and: cannot open and' (No such file or directory) build: cannot openbuild' (No such file or directory) artifacts,: cannot open artifacts,' (No such file or directory) which: cannot openwhich' (No such file or directory) is: cannot open is' (No such file or directory) essential: cannot openessential' (No such file or directory) for: cannot open for' (No such file or directory) keeping: cannot openkeeping' (No such file or directory) the: cannot open the' (No such file or directory) repository: cannot openrepository' (No such file or directory) clean.: cannot open `clean.' (No such file or directory)goreleasergo mod tidygo generatedockerregistryrepository-pdocker login--password-stdinmagefile.goslogMockGen

[github-actions[bot]]

Code Review

Below is a code review for each file in your repository. I've included feedback and suggestions for improvement, where applicable.

Review Summary

• Use of : It’s good that you’re using , which grants access to the repository. However, ensure that you trust the code being merged, as this can execute malicious code in your repository context.
• Check-out versioning: Consider locking the and actions to specific commits or tags to prevent unintentional breaking changes.
• Error Handling in Steps: There’s no error handling specified for or . Although GitHub Actions will fail the job on errors, explicit error handling or summarization is a good practice for readability.

Suggestions

• Explicitly include version constraints for actions to maintain stability.
• Consider adding a step to ensure the Go modules are tidy with before running tests.

---

Review Summary

• Job Separation: You’ve separated building and releasing jobs well, which aids in clarity and maintainability.
• Docker Login Security: The use of secrets for Docker is good practice. Ensure that Docker secrets are managed appropriately.
• Goreleaser: The setup for seems correct. The permissions for the scope are well-defined.

Suggestions

• Consider splitting the Docker publish job into a separate workflow that can be triggered after a successful build, promoting better CI/CD practices.
• Explicitly track the success of actions like Docker login and builds so that failures can be diagnosed more easily.

---

Review Summary

• Coverage: The file adequately ignores executable binaries and build artifacts.
• Organizational Clarity: The comments clarify different sections, which is good for maintainability.

Suggestions

• Ensure that any temporary or generated files from third-party packages are also appropriately ignored.

---

Review Summary

• Default Settings: The use of sensible defaults is beneficial for ease of use.
• Hook Usage: Including and in the pre-build hooks is a good practice to ensure the project is in the expected state.

Suggestions

• Consider setting a and in the to make distributions more informative and compliant.

---

Review Summary

• Error Reporting: Good use of error wrapping with , which provides better context and traceability.
• Environment Variables: Proper checks for environment variables before proceeding is a good practice for maintaining code stability.

Suggestions

• Add comments for public functions describing the function behavior and its parameters clearly, aiding usability.
• Consistently format code and accompanying comments for improved readability.

---

Review Summary

• Build Tags: Your use of build tags is clear for indicating mage as a build tool.
• Logging: Using structured logging is a commendable approach for better log handling.

Suggestions

• Consider adding error handling for the workflow so that if publishing fails, users are made aware.
• Remove commented code if it’s not necessary; maintain a clean codebase.

---

Review Summary

• Generated Code: As expected, generated code should be kept intact and avoided for editing. Logging the generation command provides infomation about upkeep.

Suggestions

• Ensure that your testing framework is hooked up correctly to leverage these mocks effectively.
• Keep the generated code in its own directory, i.e., , to differentiate it from actual application code.

---

This overall review should give you a clear path for improving the maintainability, readability, and functionality of your repository. Consider incorporating the suggestions for enhanced practices in code organization and error handling.

[github-actions[bot]]

Code Review

This document provides a review for each file in the provided codebase, focusing on structure, style, functionality, and adherence to best practices.

---

File:

Review

1. Pull Request Trigger: The workflow is correctly set to trigger on , which allows the action to run in the context of the PR's head.
2. Jobs Structure: The separation of jobs ( and ) is logical. It keeps the concerns distinct, making it easier to track each job's progress.
3. Fetch Depth Handling: The mechanism to determine fetch depth before checking out the code is appropriate, but consider using a more explicit context for environment variable names to avoid confusion.
4. Error Handling: The command correctly filters out deleted files, which is essential for reviewing changes without unrelated noise.
5. Comment Handling: The use of is a nice touch to control when the AI code review should not trigger.
6. Generalization: Consider making the AI query template more flexible by storing it in a separate configuration rather than hardcoding it every time.

---

File:

Review

1. Push Trigger: The workflow is triggered on pushes to the branch, which is a good practice for continuous integration.
2. Docker Integration: The use of Magefile for Docker interactions is clear, but ensure that all command line arguments are properly sanitized to avoid shell injection issues.
3. Secrets Management: Secrets are appropriately managed through GitHub secrets, which ensures sensitive information isn’t exposed.
4. Step Descriptions: Descriptive names for each step aid readability and maintainability.

---

File:

Review

1. Tag Trigger: The use of tag-based triggers for releases is standard practice in semver workflows, but consider documenting the naming conventions expected.
2. Goreleaser Configuration: The setup for GoReleaser is straightforward and adheres to the expected patterns.
3. Permissions: Althought is necessary here, always assess whether such broad permissions are essential to the workflow.
4. Depth Check on Checkout: Setting ensures the full history is available for tagging, which is a good approach for releases.

---

File:

Review

1. General Coverage: The entries for ignoring binaries and test-related files are standard and appropriate for Go projects.
2. Additional Entries: Consider whether other autogenerated files or development artifacts may need to be ignored to keep the repository clean.

---

File:

Review

1. Before Hooks: Including hooks for and is an excellent practice to ensure the project is in a clean state before builds.
2. Build Configuration: The builds section seems correctly configured for multiple OS targets. Just verify that the entry point is pointing to the correct path.
3. Changelog Filters: The filters for changelog generation are helpful for managing release notes and should continue being evaluated with each change add.

---

File:

Review

1. Document Structure: The README has a clear and logical structure that effectively guides users through authentication and usage.
2. Examples: Code examples are well-formatted and directly relevant to what a user might want to do, which is great for user engagement.
3. Language Support: The inclusion of language support in queries adds flexibility. Ensure to document any limitations associated with multi-language support.
4. Usage in CI: Great addition to showcase how to integrate with CI/CD, but clarify any prerequisite settings needed on GitHub Actions.

---

File:

Review

1. Error Handling: Error wrapping using is well-implemented and provides context which is useful during debugging.
2. Separation of Concerns: Each function has a single concern (docker login, build, push, etc.), promoting maintainability.
3. Command Construction: Consider the potential implications of directly injecting environment variables into shell commands; it may be beneficial to validate them or check their presence more rigorously.

---

File:

Review

1. Logger Initialization: Using for logging is appropriate. However, be mindful of log verbosity, particularly in CI environments.
2. Function Organization: The functions are well-organized with clear definitions. Group related tasks logically to improve maintainability.
3. Error Messaging: The error messages provide clear feedback to the user, but consider standardizing this output format across the application for consistency.

---

File:

Review

1. Mock Generation: The mock setup allows for easy testing of the interface methods, which is excellent for maintaining code quality.
2. Structuring: The generated code is cleanly formatted. However, it's always good practice to check the command used for generation to ensure it aligns with the existing interface structure and adds complete coverage.
3. No Edit Warning: Clear instructions about auto-generated files help reduce accidental modifications, but consider adding reminders in the build process to regenerate mocks when underlying interfaces change.

---

This code review aims to enhance clarity, security, and maintainability within your project. Continued adherence to good practices will contribute to the project's robustness.

[go-zen-chu]

toto toto lala

[github-actions[bot]]

Code Review

File:

Overview

This GitHub Action workflow is well-structured for checking pull requests, running , testing code, and posting reviews of code changes.

Review Points

1. Pull Request Target: The use of is appropriate for workflows that need access to secrets.
2. Job Organization: The workflow is divided into two jobs ( and ), which improves clarity and separation of concerns.
3. Environment Variables: Fetching and using to set the fetch depth is a good practice, allowing a dynamic approach based on the pull request.
4. Linting & Testing: Running and tests is critical for maintaining code quality and is correctly implemented.
5. Conditional Execution: The conditional execution of the review step adds a nice touch, ensuring that code reviews only happen when necessary.
6. Markdown Formatting: Ensure that the generated output of the AI review maintains a tidy markdown format, assuming consistency in the output.
7. Error Handling: It might be useful to consider error handling in places where commands are executed, to log clear error messages if something goes wrong.

File:

Overview

This workflow handles the build and publish of a Docker image effectively, using the tool.

Review Points

1. Docker Login: The use of for Docker login and build processes is clear and follows best practices for managing secrets.
2. Step Clarity: Each step is well-named, which makes it easy to understand the pipeline's purpose at a glance.
3. Version Control: The usage in the action may be risky since it can lead to unexpected behavior upon updates. Consider pinning a specific version to avoid this issue.
4. Bash Scripting: The workflow does not currently involve any bash scripts; however, if future steps require complex logic, be cautious with quoting and variable expansions.

File:

Overview

The workflow is tasked with handling releases using GoReleaser efficiently.

Review Points

1. Tagging: The event trigger for tags is set up correctly, initiating a release when a new version tag is pushed.
2. Permissions: Granting permission is necessary for creating releases and is appropriately defined.
3. GoReleaser Integration: The integration with GoReleaser is done correctly with the specific commands and environment variables.
4. Error Handling: Consider adding checks after the GoReleaser step to confirm successful execution and appropriate logging.

File:

Overview

The file is standard and appears to be well-configured for a Go project.

Review Points

1. Ignored Patterns: Common patterns for binaries and other build artifacts are included, which is good for managing the repository's cleanliness.
2. Unnecessary Lines: The line could be revisited if this is a purposeful exclusion or if it needs to be committed.

File:

Overview

This configuration file is set up to control how GoReleaser packages the application.

Review Points

1. Hooks: Pre-build hooks ( and ) are great for ensuring the code is properly organized before building.
2. Cross-Platform Support: The specification for multiple OS and architectures is appropriately set.
3. Archives Configuration: Using templates for naming output files is a best practice.
4. Changelog Filtering: Excluding specific prefixes in the changelog is effective for maintaining focus on relevant changes.

File:

Overview

The README file is informative and clearly guides users on setting up and using the CLI tool.

Review Points

1. Structure: The structure follows a logical flow, covering authentication, usage, and examples.
2. Examples: Providing various command examples enhances usability, though sample outputs could be diversified.
3. Formatting: Markdown formatting is appropriately used throughout.
4. Usage Notes: It may be helpful to include a section about troubleshooting common issues with example errors/responses.

File:

Overview

The Magefile defines commands for building and managing Docker images effectively.

Review Points

1. Logging: The use of structured logging with improves the visibility of logs produced during the build process.
2. Error Handling: The function includes error handling, which is a good practice; ensure this is consistently applied in all functions.
3. Comment Clarity: Ensuring comments explain the purpose of each function will improve maintainability.

File:

Overview

This file contains mocks for testing purposes generated by .

Review Points

1. Generated Code: The use of generated mocks is a common practice in unit tests; ensure that generated comments explicitly state which code should not be edited.
2. Contextual Clarity: Including the context for why these mocks are present could enhance the understandability for new developers.

Overall, your project appears to be well-structured and follows good practices for both CI/CD workflows and Go development. Focus on improving error handling and possibly refining logging for a more robust implementation.

[github-actions[bot]]

Code Review for Each File

.github/workflows/check-pr.yml

Review

1. Workflow Trigger: The workflow is set to trigger on , which is suitable for scenarios where the action needs write permission. Make sure this is intentional, as it can introduce security risks if not carefully controlled.

2. Golang Setup: The job correctly sets up Go 1.23, which ensures compatibility with the intended Go version for the project.

3. Linting: Running is a good practice to ensure code quality. Ensure that the linter is properly configured in the project.

4. Fetching Commits: The use of is a clever way to control the number of commits fetched for the PR, which is especially helpful for large PRs.

5. Git Diff: The logic implemented to filter out deleted files in the diff makes sense. It ensures only relevant files are included in the code review.

6. AI Code Review: The embedded query for AI code review is a novel approach. Just ensure that your AI model is accurate and capable of meaningful feedback based on provided queries.

7. PR Commenting: Posting results to the PR comment is a thoughtful feature, indicating strong engagement with code quality feedback mechanisms.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Document the purpose of the workflow and how to interpret its results within the repository for easier onboarding of new contributors.
• Consider adding error handling for actions that may fail (e.g., fetching diffs, running AI reviews).
• Validate the output of the AI review before posting to ensure it is formatted correctly and contains meaningful content.

---

.github/workflows/main.yml

Review

1. Job Definition: The job is clearly defined for building and publishing Docker images, which is a common pattern.

2. Docker Login: Using for Docker login is handy if the tool is already being used in the project. This keeps the workflow clean.

3. Commands Execution: The steps are clear and concise, especially in initiating the build and publish commands.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Ensure that any failure in Docker login or build/publish steps is properly captured and handled, possibly by adding error checks post-commands.
• It may be beneficial to add logs or outputs for key steps (e.g., image tags created or logs from the Docker process).

---

.github/workflows/tag-release.yml

Review

1. Tag Trigger: The workflow is set to trigger on version tags, which is a best practice for release workflows.

2. GoReleaser: Utilizing provides a robust solution for binary releases.

3. Environment Setup: The setup for Go is consistent with other workflows, ensuring compatibility.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Include a changelog or release notes generation within the GoReleaser step if applicable, to better document changes with each release.
• Consider adding notifications (e.g., Slack, email) to inform the team when a release is made.

---

.gitignore

Review

1. General Coverage: The file covers typical artifacts and directories that should not be included in version control.

2. Go Specific Ignores: Including Go-specific ignores (like binaries, test files, coverage, and ) is standard and necessary for Go projects.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Review and ensure all output files from build systems or project-specific generated files are ignored as needed, especially if the project grows.
• It's good practice to keep this file updated as new tools or files are added to the project.

---

.goreleaser.yaml

Review

1. Modelines: Inclusion of modelines can help with editor support but may be unnecessary. This is more of a preference.

2. Build Hooks: The pre-build hooks for and are best practices that can prevent issues later in the build process.

3. Build Configurations: Clear and sections define how binaries and their distributions are handled.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Add comments to explain the reason for each configuration and any peculiarities, especially if others will work on the project.
• Consider adding additional archive formats if targeting diverse environments or distribution methods.

---

README.md

Review

1. Clarity and Accessibility: The README provides clear sections on usage, installation, and examples, making it easy for new users to get started.

2. Badges: Including multiple badges for documentation, Docker pulls, and CI status is excellent for quickly conveying project health.

3. Examples: The examples are relevant and help demonstrate the CLI effectively.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Consider adding a more detailed section on contributing, if applicable, to engage the community further.
• Including a FAQ or Troubleshooting section could enhance the documentation for common issues users might face.

---

magefile.go

Review

1. Use of Mage: Leveraging Mage for build automation is a good choice for Go projects where complex build processes are required.

2. Logging: The use of structured logging is a good practice for production build scripts, aiding in debugging.

3. Modular Approach: Each build function is clearly named, providing clarity on what each command does.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Document commands within the magefile to make it easier for new contributors or team members to understand the setup.
• Ensure that error handling is robust, especially for long-running commands, to gracefully handle failures in build processes.

---

usecase/query/mock_query.go

Review

1. Mock Generation: The file is generated by MockGen, and appropriate comments indicate it should not be edited, which maintains the clarity of the implementation.

2. Interface Implementation: The mock correctly implements the expected interfaces for testing purposes.

Suggestions for Improvement

• Ensure that each generated mock is properly utilized within the tests to guarantee that mocks correctly simulate the interface behavior.
• Document where and how this mock is intended to be used in testing.

---

Overall, the project displays strong adherence to good practices in CI/CD, documentation, and coding structure. The suggestions above aim to enhance clarity, usability, and maintainability as the project develops further.