fix: fixed dashboard scripts #3304
Conversation
akshatnema
requested review from
derberg,
magicmatatjahu,
anshgoyalevil,
Mayaleeeee and
asyncapi-bot-eve
as code owners
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the GitHub Actions workflow file and the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for asyncapi-website ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
asyncapi-bot
requested review from
devilkiller-ag,
sambhavgupta0705,
BhaswatiRoy,
J0SAL,
TRohit20 and
VaishnaviNandakumar
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3304 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 53.17% 52.30% -0.88%
==========================================
Files 21 21
Lines 598 608 +10
==========================================
Hits 318 318
- Misses 280 290 +10 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
⚡️ Lighthouse report for the changes in this PR:
Lighthouse ran on https://deploy-preview-3304--asyncapi-website.netlify.app/ |
![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 (2)
.github/workflows/regenerate-meetings-and-videos.yml (1)
48-48: Consider a more descriptive branch naming conventionThe change to use
github.shain the branch name provides a unique identifier for each run, which is good for tracking. However, it might make it less obvious what the branch is for at a glance.Consider using a combination of a descriptive prefix and the SHA for better clarity, e.g.:
branch: update-meetings-${{ github.sha }}This way, you maintain uniqueness while also conveying the purpose of the branch.
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (1)
66-110: Ensure Batching Logic Effectively Manages Rate LimitsThe introduction of batching in
getHotDiscussionsenhances control over API call rates, which is beneficial. Ensure that the chosen batch size (5) and pause durations (1000ms between batches) align with GitHub's API rate limiting policies to prevent the script from exceeding rate limits.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 66-67: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-71: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L71
Added line #L71 was not covered by tests
[warning] 73-76: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L73-L76
Added lines #L73 - L76 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-80: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L80
Added line #L80 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
[warning] 84-84: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L84
Added line #L84 was not covered by tests
[warning] 87-87: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L87
Added line #L87 was not covered by tests
[warning] 89-89: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L89
Added line #L89 was not covered by tests
[warning] 101-102: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101-L102
Added lines #L101 - L102 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-108: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L108
Added line #L108 was not covered by tests
[warning] 110-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L110
Added line #L110 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/regenerate-meetings-and-videos.yml (4 hunks)
- scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js
[warning] 7-8: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L7-L8
Added lines #L7 - L8 were not covered by tests
[warning] 14-14: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L14
Added line #L14 was not covered by tests
[warning] 32-32: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L32
Added line #L32 was not covered by tests
[warning] 34-34: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L34
Added line #L34 was not covered by tests
[warning] 39-39: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L39
Added line #L39 was not covered by tests
[warning] 43-43: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
[warning] 48-48: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L48
Added line #L48 was not covered by tests
[warning] 59-59: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L59
Added line #L59 was not covered by tests
[warning] 64-64: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L64
Added line #L64 was not covered by tests
[warning] 66-67: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-71: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L71
Added line #L71 was not covered by tests
[warning] 73-76: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L73-L76
Added lines #L73 - L76 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-80: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L80
Added line #L80 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
[warning] 84-84: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L84
Added line #L84 was not covered by tests
[warning] 87-87: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L87
Added line #L87 was not covered by tests
[warning] 89-89: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L89
Added line #L89 was not covered by tests
[warning] 101-102: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101-L102
Added lines #L101 - L102 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-108: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L108
Added line #L108 was not covered by tests
[warning] 110-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L110
Added line #L110 was not covered by tests
[warning] 112-114: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L114
Added lines #L112 - L114 were not covered by tests
[warning] 117-117: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L117
Added line #L117 was not covered by tests
[warning] 120-120: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L120
Added line #L120 was not covered by tests
[warning] 129-129: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L129
Added line #L129 was not covered by tests
[warning] 135-136: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L135-L136
Added lines #L135 - L136 were not covered by tests
[warning] 140-140: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L140
Added line #L140 was not covered by tests
[warning] 142-143: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L142-L143
Added lines #L142 - L143 were not covered by tests
[warning] 160-160: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L160
Added line #L160 was not covered by tests
[warning] 166-166: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L166
Added line #L166 was not covered by tests
🪛 Biome
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js
[error] 136-136: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
.github/workflows/regenerate-meetings-and-videos.yml (5)
Line range hint
3-7: LGTM: Cron schedule added for daily executionThe addition of a daily cron schedule at 00:10 UTC aligns well with the PR objective of addressing the nightly execution of the dashboard script. This change ensures regular and automated execution of the workflow.
Line range hint
26-30: LGTM: Improved Node.js version managementThe update to use the Node.js version from the package-lock.json file is a good practice. It ensures consistency between the development and CI environments, reducing potential issues caused by version mismatches.
57-57: LGTM: Improved YAML formattingThe correction of the indentation for the
SLACK_WEBHOOK_URLenvironment variable improves readability and ensures proper YAML syntax. While this doesn't affect functionality, it contributes to better overall code quality.
Line range hint
1-57: Overall assessment: Changes align well with PR objectivesThe modifications to this workflow file effectively address the PR objectives:
- The addition of a daily cron schedule ensures regular execution of the dashboard script.
- The use of
GH_TOKENinstead ofGITHUB_TOKENmay help with API rate limit issues.- Improved Node.js version management ensures consistency across environments.
These changes, along with the modifications in other files not shown here, should help resolve the intermittent 403 RequestError issue mentioned in the linked bug report.
To further improve the PR:
- Verify the permissions of the
GH_TOKENas suggested earlier.- Consider the suggestion for a more descriptive branch naming convention.
Once these points are addressed, the PR looks good to merge.
Line range hint
15-15: Verify permissions for GH_TOKENThe change from
GITHUB_TOKENtosecrets.GH_TOKENis noted. This modification could potentially address the API rate limit issues mentioned in the PR objectives.Please confirm that the
GH_TOKENhas the necessary permissions for the workflow tasks, particularly for API calls that might have been hitting rate limits previously. Run the following script to check the permissions of the token:scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (1)
6-9: Implementation of 'pause' Function is CorrectThe
pausefunction is properly implemented to introduce delays using Promises andsetTimeout. This helps in managing API call rates effectively.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 7-8: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L7-L8
Added lines #L7 - L8 were not covered by tests
| } catch (e) { | ||
| console.error(e); | ||
|
|
||
| return Promise.reject(e); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify Error Handling by Throwing Errors Directly
In async functions, instead of returning Promise.reject(e);, it's cleaner to throw the error directly using throw e;. This makes the code more idiomatic and easier to read.
Apply this diff:
// In the getDiscussions function
- return Promise.reject(e);
+ throw e;
// In the getDiscussionByID function
- return Promise.reject(e);
+ throw e;Also applies to: 59-59
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 43-43: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will improve this readiness of the code in another PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@akshatnema, understood. Would you like me to open a new GitHub issue to track this improvement?
🐰😔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure 👍 . Please do it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@akshatnema, I've opened a new GitHub issue to track this improvement: Issue #3305.
🐰😊
🔗 Analysis chain
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a new GitHub issue to track the requested improvement.
gh issue create \
--title "Simplify error handling in build-dashboard.js" \
--body "As discussed in [PR #3304](https://github.com/asyncapi/website/pull/3304) ([comment](https://github.com/asyncapi/website/pull/3304#discussion_r1807819750)), @akshatnema agreed to improve the error handling by throwing errors directly instead of using \`Promise.reject(e);\` in the \`build-dashboard.js\` script.
We should update the error handling code to throw errors directly, making the asynchronous functions more idiomatic and easier to read." \
--assignee akshatnema
Length of output: 597
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js
Outdated
| const result = issue.labels.nodes.find((label) => label.name.startsWith(filter)); | ||
| return result && result.name.split('/')[1]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify Property Access Using Optional Chaining
To handle cases where result might be undefined, you can simplify the return statement using optional chaining for better readability.
Apply this diff:
- return result && result.name.split('/')[1];
+ return result?.name.split('/')[1];📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const result = issue.labels.nodes.find((label) => label.name.startsWith(filter)); | |
| return result && result.name.split('/')[1]; | |
| const result = issue.labels.nodes.find((label) => label.name.startsWith(filter)); | |
| return result?.name.split('/')[1]; |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 135-136: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L135-L136
Added lines #L135 - L136 were not covered by tests
🪛 Biome
[error] 136-136: Change to an optional chain.
Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.
(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (3)
6-9: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc for clarity.The
pausefunction is a good addition for managing API rate limits. To improve maintainability, consider adding a JSDoc comment explaining its purpose and usage.Add a JSDoc comment above the function:
/** * Introduces a delay in the execution flow. * @param {number} ms - The number of milliseconds to pause. * @returns {Promise<void>} A promise that resolves after the specified delay. */ async function pause(ms) { // ... existing implementation }🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 7-8: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L7-L8
Added lines #L7 - L8 were not covered by tests
63-114: Excellent restructuring for API rate limit management.The changes in the
getHotDiscussionsfunction significantly improve API call management:
- Processing discussions in batches of 5 helps prevent hitting secondary rate limits.
- Adding pauses between batches further mitigates API limit issues.
These changes directly address the PR objectives and should resolve the intermittent 403 RequestError.
Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider extracting the batch processing logic into a separate function for better readability.
- Justify or remove the eslint disable comments if possible.
- Add comments explaining the batching strategy and its purpose.
Consider refactoring the batch processing logic:
async function processBatch(batch) { return Promise.all(batch.map(async (discussion) => { // ... existing processing logic })); } async function getHotDiscussions(discussions) { const result = []; const batchSize = 5; for (let i = 0; i < discussions.length; i += batchSize) { const batch = discussions.slice(i, i + batchSize); const batchResults = await processBatch(batch); result.push(...batchResults); await pause(1000); } // ... existing sorting and filtering logic }This refactoring improves readability and maintainability of the function.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 64-64: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L64
Added line #L64 was not covered by tests
[warning] 66-67: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-71: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L71
Added line #L71 was not covered by tests
[warning] 73-76: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L73-L76
Added lines #L73 - L76 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-80: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L80
Added line #L80 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
[warning] 84-84: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L84
Added line #L84 was not covered by tests
[warning] 87-87: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L87
Added line #L87 was not covered by tests
[warning] 89-89: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L89
Added line #L89 was not covered by tests
[warning] 101-102: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101-L102
Added lines #L101 - L102 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-108: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L108
Added line #L108 was not covered by tests
[warning] 110-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L110
Added line #L110 was not covered by tests
[warning] 112-114: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L114
Added lines #L112 - L114 were not covered by tests
Test Coverage Insufficient for
build-dashboard.jsThe current implementation of
build-dashboard.jslacks adequate test coverage. No related test files or coverage reports were found, which poses a risk given the significant changes introduced, such as the new batching logic and API rate limit handling.To ensure robustness and maintainability, please add the following tests:
- Test the
pausefunction- Test the batching logic in
getHotDiscussions- Test error handling with mocked API responses
- Test rate limit handling and pauses between API calls
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-166: Overall improvements with a note on test coverage.The changes made in this PR effectively address the issue of hitting API rate limits, particularly through the restructuring of the
getHotDiscussionsfunction. The introduction of batching and pauses should resolve the intermittent 403 RequestError.However, it's important to note that many of the new lines are not covered by tests, according to the static analysis. Given the significant changes to the behavior of key functions, it would be beneficial to add or update tests to ensure the new batching logic and API call management work as expected.
To assess the current test coverage and identify areas needing additional tests, you can run the following command:
This script will help identify existing tests, coverage reports, and suggest areas where new tests might be needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check test coverage for the dashboard script # Find test files related to the dashboard script echo "Related test files:" fd -e test.js -e spec.js dashboard # Check for existing test coverage reports echo "Existing coverage reports:" fd -e lcov -e info coverage # If a coverage script exists in package.json, you might want to run it if grep -q "\"test:coverage\"" package.json; then echo "Consider running the test coverage script defined in package.json" fi # Suggest areas that might need new tests based on the changes echo "Suggestions for new tests:" echo "1. Test the 'pause' function" echo "2. Test the batching logic in 'getHotDiscussions'" echo "3. Test error handling with mocked API responses" echo "4. Test rate limit handling and pauses between API calls"Length of output: 700
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 32-32: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L32
Added line #L32 was not covered by tests
[warning] 34-34: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L34
Added line #L34 was not covered by tests
[warning] 39-39: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L39
Added line #L39 was not covered by tests
[warning] 43-43: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
[warning] 48-48: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L48
Added line #L48 was not covered by tests
[warning] 59-59: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L59
Added line #L59 was not covered by tests
[warning] 64-64: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L64
Added line #L64 was not covered by tests
[warning] 66-67: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-71: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L71
Added line #L71 was not covered by tests
[warning] 73-76: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L73-L76
Added lines #L73 - L76 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-80: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L80
Added line #L80 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
[warning] 84-84: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L84
Added line #L84 was not covered by tests
[warning] 87-87: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L87
Added line #L87 was not covered by tests
[warning] 89-89: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L89
Added line #L89 was not covered by tests
[warning] 101-102: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101-L102
Added lines #L101 - L102 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-108: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L108
Added line #L108 was not covered by tests
[warning] 110-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L110
Added line #L110 was not covered by tests
[warning] 112-114: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L114
Added lines #L112 - L114 were not covered by tests
[warning] 117-117: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L117
Added line #L117 was not covered by tests
[warning] 120-120: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L120
Added line #L120 was not covered by tests
[warning] 129-129: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L129
Added line #L129 was not covered by tests
[warning] 135-136: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L135-L136
Added lines #L135 - L136 were not covered by tests
[warning] 140-140: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L140
Added line #L140 was not covered by tests
[warning] 142-143: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L142-L143
Added lines #L142 - L143 were not covered by tests
[warning] 160-160: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L160
Added line #L160 was not covered by tests
[warning] 166-166: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L166
Added line #L166 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js
[warning] 7-8: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L7-L8
Added lines #L7 - L8 were not covered by tests
[warning] 14-14: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L14
Added line #L14 was not covered by tests
[warning] 32-32: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L32
Added line #L32 was not covered by tests
[warning] 34-34: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L34
Added line #L34 was not covered by tests
[warning] 39-39: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L39
Added line #L39 was not covered by tests
[warning] 43-43: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
[warning] 48-48: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L48
Added line #L48 was not covered by tests
[warning] 59-59: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L59
Added line #L59 was not covered by tests
[warning] 64-64: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L64
Added line #L64 was not covered by tests
[warning] 66-67: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-71: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L71
Added line #L71 was not covered by tests
[warning] 73-76: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L73-L76
Added lines #L73 - L76 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-80: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L80
Added line #L80 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
[warning] 84-84: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L84
Added line #L84 was not covered by tests
[warning] 87-87: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L87
Added line #L87 was not covered by tests
[warning] 89-89: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L89
Added line #L89 was not covered by tests
[warning] 101-102: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101-L102
Added lines #L101 - L102 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-108: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L108
Added line #L108 was not covered by tests
[warning] 110-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L110
Added line #L110 was not covered by tests
[warning] 112-114: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L114
Added lines #L112 - L114 were not covered by tests
[warning] 117-117: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L117
Added line #L117 was not covered by tests
[warning] 120-120: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L120
Added line #L120 was not covered by tests
[warning] 129-129: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L129
Added line #L129 was not covered by tests
[warning] 135-136: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L135-L136
Added lines #L135 - L136 were not covered by tests
[warning] 140-140: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L140
Added line #L140 was not covered by tests
[warning] 142-143: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L142-L143
Added lines #L142 - L143 were not covered by tests
[warning] 160-160: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L160
Added line #L160 was not covered by tests
[warning] 166-166: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L166
Added line #L166 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (5)
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (5)
14-14: LGTM! Good improvements for API management.The changes in the
getDiscussionsfunction are well-implemented:
- Using
constforresultimproves code quality.- Adding a pause after the API call helps manage rate limits.
- Destructuring
hasNextPageenhances readability.These changes align well with the PR objectives of addressing API limit issues.
Note: The error handling remains unchanged. As mentioned in a previous review comment, consider throwing errors directly in async functions instead of using
Promise.reject(e).Also applies to: 32-34, 39-39, 43-43
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 14-14: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L14
Added line #L14 was not covered by tests
48-52: Minor improvements noted.The changes in the
getDiscussionByIDfunction are mostly cosmetic and improve code formatting.As mentioned in a previous review comment and similar to the
getDiscussionsfunction, consider throwing errors directly in this async function instead of usingPromise.reject(e).Also applies to: 59-59
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 48-48: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L48
Added line #L48 was not covered by tests
116-118: LGTM! Improved readability.The use of template literals for path construction in the
writeToFilefunction enhances code readability.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 117-117: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L117
Added line #L117 was not covered by tests
119-132: LGTM! Enhanced code formatting.The changes in the
mapGoodFirstIssuesfunction improve code readability through better formatting and the use of template literals.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 120-120: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L120
Added line #L120 was not covered by tests
[warning] 129-129: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L129
Added line #L129 was not covered by tests
134-137: Great job implementing the suggested improvement!The
getLabelfunction has been simplified using optional chaining, as suggested in a previous review. This change improves code readability and handles potential undefined values more elegantly.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 135-136: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L135-L136
Added lines #L135 - L136 were not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (3)
27-35: Consider adjusting the rate limit warning threshold.The current warning threshold of 100 remaining requests might be too low for early detection of potential rate limit issues. Consider increasing this threshold to provide more time for preventive actions.
- if (result.rateLimit.remaining <= 100) { + if (result.rateLimit.remaining <= 1000) {🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 27-28: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L27-L28
Added lines #L27 - L28 were not covered by tests
101-101: Improve error logging structure.Consider using a structured error format for better parsing and monitoring:
- console.error(`there was some issues while parsing this item: ${JSON.stringify(discussion)}`); + console.error('Error parsing discussion:', { + error: e.message, + discussion: JSON.stringify(discussion), + stack: e.stack + });🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 101-101: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101
Added line #L101 was not covered by tests
96-98: Document the score calculation formula.The interaction score calculation formula needs documentation explaining the rationale behind the weights and the power of 1.8.
+ // Score formula: (total interactions) / (months since last update + 2)^1.8 + // This formula prioritizes recent discussions with high engagement + // The power of 1.8 was chosen to balance between recency and interaction count
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js
[warning] 12-13: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
[warning] 18-19: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L18-L19
Added lines #L18 - L19 were not covered by tests
[warning] 27-28: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L27-L28
Added lines #L27 - L28 were not covered by tests
[warning] 37-37: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L37
Added line #L37 was not covered by tests
[warning] 39-39: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L39
Added line #L39 was not covered by tests
[warning] 41-42: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L41-L42
Added lines #L41 - L42 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-44: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
[warning] 46-46: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L46
Added line #L46 was not covered by tests
[warning] 48-48: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L48
Added line #L48 was not covered by tests
[warning] 52-53: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
[warning] 60-60: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L60
Added line #L60 was not covered by tests
[warning] 62-62: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L62
Added line #L62 was not covered by tests
[warning] 64-64: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L64
Added line #L64 was not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 75-75: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L75
Added line #L75 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
[warning] 87-87: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L87
Added line #L87 was not covered by tests
[warning] 101-101: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L101
Added line #L101 was not covered by tests
[warning] 109-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L109-L110
Added lines #L109 - L110 were not covered by tests
[warning] 112-113: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L113
Added lines #L112 - L113 were not covered by tests
[warning] 115-115: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L115
Added line #L115 was not covered by tests
[warning] 118-118: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L118
Added line #L118 was not covered by tests
[warning] 120-120: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L120
Added line #L120 was not covered by tests
[warning] 123-123: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L123
Added line #L123 was not covered by tests
[warning] 127-127: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L127
Added line #L127 was not covered by tests
[warning] 139-139: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L139
Added line #L139 was not covered by tests
[warning] 145-146: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L145-L146
Added lines #L145 - L146 were not covered by tests
[warning] 170-170: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L170
Added line #L170 was not covered by tests
[warning] 176-176: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L176
Added line #L176 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (3)
scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js (3)
108-125: Effective implementation of batch processing for rate limit management.The batched processing with pauses effectively addresses the secondary rate limit issues mentioned in issues #2894 and #3132. The implementation maintains the original functionality while adding necessary rate control.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 109-110: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L109-L110
Added lines #L109 - L110 were not covered by tests
[warning] 112-113: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L113
Added lines #L112 - L113 were not covered by tests
[warning] 115-115: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L115
Added line #L115 was not covered by tests
[warning] 118-118: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L118
Added line #L118 was not covered by tests
[warning] 120-120: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L120
Added line #L120 was not covered by tests
[warning] 123-123: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L123
Added line #L123 was not covered by tests
176-176: Add test coverage for exported functions.The static analysis shows that the new and modified code lacks test coverage. Consider adding unit tests for the exported functions:
getLabelmonthsSincemapGoodFirstIssuesgetHotDiscussionsgetDiscussionByIDLet's check for existing test files:
#!/bin/bash # Search for test files related to dashboard fd -g '*dashboard*.test.{js,ts}'Would you like me to help generate unit tests for these functions?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 176-176: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L176
Added line #L176 was not covered by tests
6-15: Well-implemented delay function with good documentation.The
pausefunction is a clean implementation for managing API rate limits. However, it lacks test coverage.Let's verify if similar implementations exist in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the existence of similar implementations and test coverage.
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Unique implementation with no duplication concerns
The
pausefunction appears to be the only implementation of its kind in the codebase, which is appropriate as it serves a specific purpose in handling GitHub API rate limits. While there's no test coverage, this is a simple utility function with minimal complexity, making it less critical for immediate test coverage.
- The function follows Promise-based delay pattern which is a standard approach
- No duplicate implementations found in the codebase
- No existing test files for the dashboard functionality
Note: While the lack of test coverage is noted, it doesn't impact the correctness of this implementation as it's a straightforward utility function using standard JavaScript Promise and setTimeout patterns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for similar delay/pause implementations rg -g '!node_modules' -g '*.{js,ts}' 'setTimeout.*Promise.*resolve'Length of output: 128
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for similar delay/pause/sleep implementations with different patterns rg -g '!node_modules' -g '*.{js,ts}' 'new Promise.*setTimeout' # Check for test files related to the dashboard fd -g '*dashboard*.test.{js,ts}' # Search for any test files that might contain pause/delay testing rg -g '!node_modules' -g '*.test.{js,ts}' 'pause|delay|setTimeout.*Promise'Length of output: 177
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 12-13: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
| const batchSize = 5; | ||
|
|
||
| for (let i = 0; i < discussions.length; i += batchSize) { | ||
| const batch = discussions.slice(i, i + batchSize); | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop | ||
| const batchResults = await processHotDiscussions(batch); | ||
|
|
||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop | ||
| await pause(1000); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider making batch parameters configurable.
The batch size and pause duration are currently hardcoded. Consider making these configurable through environment variables for easier tuning:
+const BATCH_SIZE = parseInt(process.env.GITHUB_API_BATCH_SIZE, 10) || 5;
+const BATCH_PAUSE_MS = parseInt(process.env.GITHUB_API_BATCH_PAUSE_MS, 10) || 1000;
- const batchSize = 5;
+ const batchSize = BATCH_SIZE;
- await pause(1000);
+ await pause(BATCH_PAUSE_MS);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const batchSize = 5; | |
| for (let i = 0; i < discussions.length; i += batchSize) { | |
| const batch = discussions.slice(i, i + batchSize); | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop | |
| const batchResults = await processHotDiscussions(batch); | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop | |
| await pause(1000); | |
| const BATCH_SIZE = parseInt(process.env.GITHUB_API_BATCH_SIZE, 10) || 5; | |
| const BATCH_PAUSE_MS = parseInt(process.env.GITHUB_API_BATCH_PAUSE_MS, 10) || 1000; | |
| for (let i = 0; i < discussions.length; i += batchSize) { | |
| const batch = discussions.slice(i, i + batchSize); | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop | |
| const batchResults = await processHotDiscussions(batch); | |
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-await-in-loop | |
| await pause(BATCH_PAUSE_MS); |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 112-113: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L112-L113
Added lines #L112 - L113 were not covered by tests
[warning] 115-115: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L115
Added line #L115 was not covered by tests
[warning] 118-118: scripts/dashboard/build-dashboard.js#L118
Added line #L118 was not covered by tests
|
/rtm |
|
@asyncapi/bounty_team |
|
Related to #3247. |
Description
Fixed dashboard script to remove secondary rate limits in the flow of script.
Related issue(s)
Fixes #2894 #3132
Testing of workflow
Test runs in forked repo - https://github.com/akshatnema/website/actions/runs/11426503184/job/31789495554
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor
Chores