-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. Weβll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Delete .github/workflows/snorkell-auto-documentation.yml #110
Conversation
The files' contents are under analysis for test generation. |
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request deletes the Snorkell auto-documentation workflow file, 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
|
I was unable to write a description for this pull request. This could be because I only found files I can't scan. |
WalkthroughThe pull request involves the removal of a GitHub Actions workflow file responsible for automating documentation generation using an AI documentation tool. The workflow, named "Penify - Revolutionizing Documentation on GitHub", was configured to run on pushes to the main branch or manually trigger documentation generation. The workflow utilized a specific AI client to create documentation and potentially open a pull request with the generated content. Changes
Poem
π Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI π Files selected for processing (1)
π€ Files with no reviewable changes (1)
πͺ§ 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-review
on 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-review
command in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-description
command in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolve
command 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 π or π 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
β
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions β Issue Categories
β
Category Enabled Naming β Database Operations β Documentation β Logging β Error Handling β Systems and Environment β Objects and Data Structures β Readability and Maintainability β Asynchronous Processing β Design Patterns β Third-Party Libraries β Performance β Security β Functionality β Feedback and Support
Note
Korbit Pro is free for open source projects π
Looking to add Korbit to your team? Get started with a free 2 week trial here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @guibranco - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
Overall Comments:
- Please provide context for why the Snorkell documentation workflow is being removed and whether there is an alternative documentation process in place or planned.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- π’ General issues: all looks good
- π’ Security: all looks good
- π’ Testing: all looks good
- π’ Complexity: all looks good
- π’ Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click π or π on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
@gstraccini codacy bypass |
Infisical secrets check: β No secrets leaked! π» Scan logs9:56PM INF scanning for exposed secrets...
9:56PM INF 66 commits scanned.
9:56PM INF scan completed in 74.5ms
9:56PM INF no leaks found
|
Bypassing the Codacy analysis for this pull request! |
Quality Gate passedIssues Measures |
π Description
Delete .github/workflows/snorkell-auto-documentation.yml
β Checks
β’οΈ Does this introduce a breaking change?
Summary by CodeRabbit