Refactor pull request description handling in pullRequests.php

[guibranco]

User description

Closes #

📑 Description

✅ Checks

• [x] My pull request adheres to the code style of this project
• [x] My code requires changes to the documentation
• [x] I have updated the documentation as required
• [x] All the tests have passed

☢️ Does this introduce a breaking change?

• [ ] Yes
• [x] No

ℹ Additional Information

---

Description

• Refactored the checkPullRequestDescription function by removing the unused parameter $pullRequest.
• Updated the call to checkPullRequestDescription in the handleItem function to use the modified signature.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Enhancement	pullRequests.php Refactor pull request handling functions                                  src/pullRequests.php Removed an unused parameter from the function checkPullRequestDescription. Updated the function call in handleItem to reflect the parameter change. +2/-2

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Simplified parameter handling in pull request functions for improved clarity.

• Refactor

  • Updated function signatures to enhance usability while maintaining core functionality.

[coderabbitai[bot]]

[!CAUTION]

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

The changes involve modifications to the handleItem and checkPullRequestDescription functions within the Src/pullRequests.php file. The handleItem function has been simplified by removing the pullRequest parameter when calling checkPullRequestDescription, which now only accepts metadata and pullRequestUpdated as parameters. This streamlining reduces the complexity of parameter handling while maintaining the existing functionality of both functions.

Changes

File	Change Summary
Src/pullRequests.php	Updated handleItem to remove pullRequest parameter; modified checkPullRequestDescription to accept only metadata and pullRequestUpdated.

Possibly related PRs

• #588: This PR modifies the same functions (handleItem and checkPullRequestDescription) in Src/pullRequests.php, specifically updating the parameter handling in a similar manner to the main PR.

Suggested reviewers

• gstraccini

🐇 In the code where changes flow,
Parameters trimmed, now watch them go!
Functions simplified, clear as day,
In the rabbit hole, we leap and play!
With metadata shining bright,
Pull requests handled just right! 🌟

---

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

- [X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I%20just%20used%20%40coderabbitai%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20the%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A&url=https%3A//coderabbit.ai) - [Mastodon](https://mastodon.social/share?text=I%20just%20used%20%40coderabbitai%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20the%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fcoderabbit.ai) - [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/submit?title=Great%20tool%20for%20code%20review%20-%20CodeRabbit&text=I%20just%20used%20CodeRabbit%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A%20https%3A//coderabbit.ai) - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoderabbit.ai&mini=true&title=Great%20tool%20for%20code%20review%20-%20CodeRabbit&summary=I%20just%20used%20CodeRabbit%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20proprietary%20code)

🪧 Tips

### Chat There are 3 ways to chat with [CodeRabbit](https://coderabbit.ai): - Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example: - `I pushed a fix in commit , 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](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/guides/configure-coderabbit) 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](https://coderabbit.ai/docs) for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit. - Join our [Discord Community](http://discord.gg/coderabbit) to get help, request features, and share feedback. - Follow us on [X/Twitter](https://twitter.com/coderabbitai) for updates and announcements.

[penify-dev[bot]]

PR Review 🔍

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	2, because the changes are straightforward and involve a simple parameter removal and function call update.
🧪 Relevant tests	No
⚡ Possible issues	No
🔒 Security concerns	No

[deepsource-io[bot]]

Here's the code health analysis summary for commits 4d80316..68b9a89. View details on DeepSource ↗.

Analysis Summary

Analyzer	Status	Summary	Link
Docker	✅ Success		View Check ↗
PHP	✅ Success		View Check ↗
Secrets	✅ Success		View Check ↗
SQL	✅ Success		View Check ↗

---

💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.

[penify-dev[bot]]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Category	Suggestion	Score
Possible issue	Add validation for the $pullRequestUpdated object to prevent accessing undefined properties ___ **Consider validating the $pullRequestUpdated object to ensure it has the expected structure before accessing its properties to avoid potential runtime errors.** [Src/pullRequests.php [146]](https://github.com/guibranco/gstraccini-bot/pull/588/files#diff-a02ee044998cfd579cf9d812f74b51f079e912308e6ce6d9c1337620894ec463R146-R146) ```diff -+ $bodyLength = strlen($pullRequestUpdated["body"]); ++ if (isset($pullRequestUpdated["body"])) { ++ $bodyLength = strlen($pullRequestUpdated["body"]); ++ } else { ++ $bodyLength = 0; // or handle the error appropriately ++ } ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: This suggestion is valid as it addresses a potential issue with accessing properties of `$pullRequestUpdated` without checking if they exist, which could lead to runtime errors.	8
	Verify the success of setCheckRunInProgress to handle potential errors effectively ___ **The function setCheckRunInProgress should be checked for its return value to ensure that it successfully sets the check run before proceeding.** [Src/pullRequests.php [146]](https://github.com/guibranco/gstraccini-bot/pull/588/files#diff-a02ee044998cfd579cf9d812f74b51f079e912308e6ce6d9c1337620894ec463R146-R146) ```diff + $checkRunId = setCheckRunInProgress($metadata, $pullRequestUpdated->head->sha, "pull request description"); ++ if (!$checkRunId) { ++ // Handle the error appropriately ++ } ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: While the suggestion is relevant, it does not address a critical bug, as the current implementation does not handle the return value of `setCheckRunInProgress`, which could lead to unhandled errors.	7
Maintainability	Rename the function to better reflect its purpose for improved readability ___ **Consider using a more descriptive name for the function checkPullRequestDescription to clarify its purpose and improve code readability.** [Src/pullRequests.php [144]](https://github.com/guibranco/gstraccini-bot/pull/588/files#diff-a02ee044998cfd579cf9d812f74b51f079e912308e6ce6d9c1337620894ec463R144-R144) ```diff -+function checkPullRequestDescription($metadata, $pullRequestUpdated) ++function validatePullRequestDescription($metadata, $pullRequestUpdated) ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: Renaming functions for clarity is a good practice, but this suggestion does not address a functional issue or bug, making it a lower priority for scoring.	5

[sonarcloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[github-actions[bot]]

Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked!

💻 Scan logs

```txt 10:06AM INF scanning for exposed secrets... 10:06AM INF 512 commits scanned. 10:06AM INF scan completed in 137ms 10:06AM INF no leaks found ```