restructure existing blog posts #19
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for reliable-buttercream-0e11cf ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe recent updates encompass enhancements across documentation, blogs, and configuration files, focusing on the introduction and optimization of AI-powered code reviews with CodeRabbit. These changes highlight the significance of AI in improving code quality and team efficiency, detail the implementation of cost-effective strategies, and refine user guidance and support documentation. Additionally, adjustments in configuration options and integration guides aim to streamline the user experience and facilitate the adoption of AI tools in development workflows. Changes
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Deploying coderabbit-docs with
|
| Latest commit: |
6c75ada
|
| Status: | ⚡️ Build in progress... |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 2
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- blog/2024-01-05-modern-ai-stack-for-developer-productivity/index.md (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 7
blog/2024-01-05-modern-ai-stack-for-developer-productivity/index.md (7)
- 4-6: The updated description succinctly captures the essence of the blog post, emphasizing the three pillars of developer productivity tools powered by AI. This change aligns well with the PR objectives to highlight the role of AI in enhancing developer productivity.
- 27-27: The static analysis hint suggests a possible missing comma. However, upon review, the sentence structure seems clear and grammatically correct as it stands. It's important to ensure readability and grammatical accuracy in blog posts, but in this case, the sentence does not appear to require an additional comma.
- 61-61: The static analysis tool flagged a possible spelling mistake. However, "StackOverflow" is correctly spelled, and the context in which it is used is appropriate. This appears to be a false positive from the static analysis tool.
- 65-65: The static analysis tool flagged a possible spelling mistake for "StackOverflow Community Search". This is a proper noun referring to a specific product, and it is spelled correctly in this context. This flag can be considered a false positive.
- 114-114: The static analysis tool flagged a possible spelling mistake for "CodeRabbit". This is the correct spelling of the product name, and it is used appropriately within the context of the blog post. This flag can be considered a false positive.
- 121-121: The static analysis tool flagged a possible spelling mistake in the context of fine-tuning CodeRabbit to a team's specific code review checklist. This seems to be a false positive, as there are no spelling errors in the mentioned line. The use of "fine-tune" is appropriate and correctly spelled.
- 146-146: The static analysis tool flagged a possible spelling mistake for "StackOverflow". This is the correct spelling of the website's name, and it is used appropriately within the context of the blog post. This flag can be considered a false positive.
blog/2024-01-05-modern-ai-stack-for-developer-productivity/index.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2024-01-05-modern-ai-stack-for-developer-productivity/index.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 9
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (4)
- blog/2023-08-26-welcome/index.md (1 hunks)
- blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md (1 hunks)
- blog/2023-10-23-coderabbit-openai-rate-limits/2023-10-23-coderabbit-openai-rate-limits.md (3 hunks)
- blog/2023-12-23-how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application/index.md (4 hunks)
Additional comments: 13
blog/2023-12-23-how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application/index.md (7)
- 4-6: The description succinctly outlines the blog post's focus on cost-effectiveness in building a Generative AI application. It sets clear expectations for the reader.
- 15-22: The introduction provides a compelling overview of CodeRabbit's growth and challenges in managing OpenAI rate limits. It effectively sets the stage for discussing the strategies employed to maintain cost-effectiveness.
- 28-44: The section detailing CodeRabbit's product offerings is clear and informative. It effectively communicates the different service tiers available, catering to a broad audience including open-source projects.
- 65-83: The dual-model strategy for cost optimization is clearly explained and demonstrates a thoughtful approach to balancing cost and quality. The inclusion of specific examples, like using gpt-3.5-turbo for summarization, adds clarity.
- 97-118: The section on rate-limiting provides a detailed account of the challenges faced and the solutions implemented. The use of FluxNinja Aperture for policy management is a practical example of leveraging external tools for efficiency.
- 137-162: The caching strategy is well-explained, highlighting the importance of avoiding redundant work and saving costs. The technical details about using a simpler model for semantic comparison enhance the reader's understanding.
- 168-172: The conclusion effectively summarizes the strategies employed by CodeRabbit to optimize costs. It reinforces the blog post's main points and leaves the reader with a clear understanding of the approaches taken.
blog/2023-08-26-welcome/index.md (6)
- 41-58: The introduction effectively highlights the potential of AI in software development and sets the stage for discussing CodeRabbit's solution to the unchanged code review process. It captures the reader's interest by contrasting the advancements in code generation with the stagnation in code review practices.
- 64-85: This section clearly outlines the traditional development process and the limitations of relying solely on local tools for ensuring code quality. It provides a comprehensive view of the challenges faced in maintaining standards across developers.
- 86-111: The challenges associated with manual code reviews are well-articulated, highlighting the inefficiencies and potential for improvement. This section effectively sets the context for introducing CodeRabbit as a solution.
- 118-133: The description of CodeRabbit's capabilities and benefits is compelling and informative. It clearly communicates how CodeRabbit can speed up the code review process and improve code quality, providing specific examples of its features.
- 151-204: The design considerations for CodeRabbit are thoroughly explained, addressing potential limitations of LLMs and the innovative solutions implemented. This section provides valuable insights into the technical challenges and the approaches taken to overcome them.
- 210-234: The conclusion effectively draws parallels between the early days of software development and the current state of building on top of LLMs. It emphasizes CodeRabbit's innovative approach and the potential for AI to transform developer tools, leaving the reader with a positive outlook on the future of AI in software development.
blog/2023-10-23-coderabbit-openai-rate-limits/2023-10-23-coderabbit-openai-rate-limits.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-12-23-how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application/index.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims/2023-10-05-ai-code-reviews-reclaims.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application-2023-12-23/blog.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application-2023-12-23/blog.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
blog/how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application-2023-12-23/blog.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 6
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (12)
- docs/about/features.md (1 hunks)
- docs/about/pricing.md (3 hunks)
- docs/about/support.md (1 hunks)
- docs/faq/faq.md (2 hunks)
- docs/get-started/add-repo.md (2 hunks)
- docs/get-started/analytics.md (1 hunks)
- docs/get-started/signup.md (1 hunks)
- docs/guides/coderabbit-commands.md (1 hunks)
- docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (3 hunks)
- docs/guides/prompt-customization.md (12 hunks)
- docs/integrations/self-hosted-gitlab.md (2 hunks)
- docs/introduction/introduction.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 83
docs/get-started/add-repo.md (4)
- 4-4: The description succinctly outlines the purpose of the document, focusing on adding repositories to CodeRabbit for both GitHub and GitLab users.
- 9-20: The steps for adding repositories after sign-up are clear and straightforward. The inclusion of images for both light and dark modes enhances the readability and user experience.
- 24-26: The explanation of the GitLab flow, highlighting the differences from GitHub, is helpful. It's good that the document caters to both platforms, ensuring a broader audience can follow the instructions.
- 35-39: The section on seeking help is well-placed and informative. Encouraging users to join the Discord community for additional support is a great way to foster community engagement.
docs/get-started/analytics.md (4)
- 4-6: The description provides a clear overview of the CodeRabbit Dashboard's purpose, focusing on displaying pull request activity and the value provided by CodeRabbit reviews.
- 10-19: The detailed explanation of the dashboard's features, including the overview of pull requests and CodeRabbit's activity metrics, is informative. The inclusion of optional comments as part of the review metrics is a good addition, offering more flexibility in feedback.
- 21-27: Including images for both dark and light modes is a thoughtful touch, ensuring all users can clearly see the dashboard examples regardless of their preferred theme.
- 31-35: The section on seeking help is consistent with the previous document, reinforcing the availability of support and the encouragement to join the Discord community. This consistency across documents is good for user experience.
docs/guides/coderabbit-commands.md (6)
- 4-4: The description clearly outlines the document's purpose, focusing on managing PR reviews with CodeRabbit commands. This sets the right expectations for the reader.
- 9-22: The commands for pausing, resuming, and requesting on-demand reviews are well-explained. The format is clear, making it easy for users to understand how to use each command within their PR comments.
- 25-31: The inclusion of a command to ignore specific PRs is useful for users who may want to exclude certain PRs from automatic reviews. This flexibility is beneficial for managing review workflows.
- 34-35: The help command is a valuable addition, providing users with a quick way to access a list of all valid commands directly within their PR comments.
- 38-41: The note on inputting commands as PR comments is important for clarity. It helps ensure users understand where to enter these commands for them to be recognized by CodeRabbit.
- 46-47: Encouraging feedback for additional commands or improvements is a good practice. It shows openness to community contributions and a willingness to evolve based on user needs.
docs/get-started/signup.md (7)
- 4-6: The description provides a concise overview of the signup process for CodeRabbit, setting clear expectations for the reader.
- 11-15: The introduction to signing up for CodeRabbit is welcoming and informative, highlighting the ease of the process and the availability of a no-commitment trial. This is encouraging for potential users.
- 19-20: The instructions for logging in with GitHub or GitLab are straightforward, and the inclusion of images for both light and dark modes enhances the user experience.
- 27-28: Clarifying the step for selecting an organization during the signup process is helpful, ensuring users understand this part of the setup.
- 34-37: The explanation of the authorization process for CodeRabbit, including the choice between granting access to all or specific repositories, is clear and provides users with necessary flexibility.
- 41-48: The tip for changing the automatic code review behavior to "On-Demand" is a valuable addition, offering users guidance on customizing their review process.
- 52-56: The section on seeking help is consistent with previous documents, reinforcing the availability of support and the encouragement to join the Discord community. This consistency is good for user experience.
docs/about/features.md (6)
- 4-4: The description clearly outlines the document's purpose, focusing on how CodeRabbit functions in a pull request review context. This sets the right expectations for the reader.
- 9-20: The detailed explanation of the pull request summary feature, including both a high-level overview and a walkthrough, is informative. The inclusion of a celebratory poem about the changes is a unique and engaging touch.
- 26-29: The section on code review feedback, highlighting the posting of review comments and the use of Diff format for code suggestions, is clear and demonstrates the functionality well.
- 35-39: Introducing the chat feature with CodeRabbit enhances the interactive aspect of the review process, allowing for dynamic conversations and feedback within the context of changes.
- 45-46: The explanation of issue validation against linked GitHub or GitLab issues is a valuable feature, ensuring that pull request changes are thoroughly vetted for potential impacts on other issues.
- 52-55: The detailed description of the pull request review status feature, including the display of commit IDs, files examined, and actionable feedback, provides comprehensive insight into the review process.
docs/integrations/self-hosted-gitlab.md (7)
- 2-4: The title and description clearly define the document's focus on integrating CodeRabbit with Self-Managed GitLab instances, setting appropriate expectations for the reader.
- 7-12: The introduction to integrating Self-Managed GitLab with CodeRabbit is informative, outlining the initial setup requirements and the OAuth2 login flow.
- 16-17: Instructions for visiting the CodeRabbit login page and selecting Self-Hosted GitLab are straightforward, and the inclusion of an image enhances understanding.
- 23-25: Clarifying the process for entering the URL of a self-managed GitLab instance is helpful, ensuring users know how to proceed with the integration.
- 31-38: The explanation of generating an admin personal access token for first-time setup is clear and detailed, guiding users through each step of the process.
- 56-68: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [54-60]
The section on pasting the token and the automatic setup detection for subsequent visits provides a smooth transition for users integrating their self-hosted GitLab instances.
- 64-68: Mentioning the need for IP whitelisting and providing the CodeRabbit IP address is crucial for users with strict network security policies. This ensures a seamless integration process.
docs/about/pricing.md (6)
- 4-5: The description succinctly outlines the focus on plans, pricing, and subscription management for CodeRabbit, setting clear expectations for the reader.
- 13-22: The section on understanding pricing options is clear and informative, covering transparent pricing, the free trial, and the no credit card requirement. This transparency is beneficial for potential subscribers.
- 1-25: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [26-29]
The Pro Plan details, including features, pricing, billing, and usage limits, are well-organized and easy to understand. The distinction between monthly and annual billing options is particularly helpful.
- 59-60: The Free Plan section is concise and clearly communicates the benefits and limitations of the plan, ensuring users can make an informed decision.
- 78-83: The Subscription Management section for the Pro Plan provides valuable information on purchasing and assigning seats, offering flexibility in how organizations manage their subscriptions.
- 85-93: Including images for seat management in both dark and light modes enhances the visual presentation and helps clarify the process for users.
docs/about/support.md (10)
- 4-4: The description clearly outlines the purpose of the support section, focusing on helping users find answers to common questions and issues.
- 13-14: The introduction to common issues and answers is a good starting point for users seeking support, directing them to potentially quick solutions.
- 18-19: Clarifying the ability to switch between different organizations on CodeRabbit is helpful, ensuring users understand how to navigate the UI for this purpose.
- 26-27: The explanation that subscription seats are tied to specific organizations and cannot be used across multiple organizations is important for managing user expectations.
- 31-33: The clarification on CodeRabbit's behavior regarding existing PRs after integration is useful, providing guidance on how to trigger reviews for existing PRs.
- 37-37: Stating the requirement for GitHub/GitLab admin rights to add repositories ensures users are aware of the necessary permissions.
- 41-41: Confirming that the OpenAI cost is included in the CodeRabbit Pro subscription is crucial information, clarifying there are no additional costs for OpenAI.
- 45-50: The distinction between CodeRabbit OSS and Pro, including the need for an OpenAI key and the additional features offered by Pro, is well-explained, helping users choose the right option for their needs.
- 54-55: Advising against using both CodeRabbit OSS and Pro together to avoid duplicate reviews is practical advice, guiding users towards a more streamlined experience.
- 59-64: The instructions for opening a support ticket are clear and straightforward, ensuring users know how to seek assistance when needed.
docs/introduction/introduction.md (6)
- 12-18: The expanded introduction provides a comprehensive overview of CodeRabbit's capabilities, including its integration with GitHub and GitLab, and its learning ability. This aligns well with the PR objectives of enhancing clarity and detail. No issues found here.
- 20-23: The integration details with GitHub and GitLab are clearly stated, emphasizing CodeRabbit's seamless operation within these platforms. This information is crucial for users to understand how CodeRabbit fits into their existing workflows.
- 27-31: The explanation of how CodeRabbit works, using webhooks to monitor PR and MR events, is clear and informative. It helps users understand the process behind CodeRabbit's reviews.
- 54-60: The discussion on the necessity of code reviews, even with AI code generators, is insightful. It highlights the unique value CodeRabbit brings to the development process, reinforcing the importance of human oversight.
- 64-65: The differentiation of CodeRabbit from existing tools is succinctly stated, emphasizing its context-aware feedback, which is a key selling point. This section effectively communicates CodeRabbit's unique value proposition.
- 67-68: The call to action directing users to the Get Started page is a good inclusion, encouraging users to explore CodeRabbit further. This aligns with the objective of enhancing user engagement.
docs/faq/faq.md (15)
- 4-4: The updated description in the metadata provides a clearer understanding of the document's content, aligning with the PR objectives of enhancing clarity and readability.
- 9-13: The response to the accuracy of CodeRabbit's review is well-crafted, setting realistic expectations about AI's capabilities and continuous improvement. This transparency is valuable for building trust with users.
- 17-19: The explanation of CodeRabbit's language support is clear, acknowledging the variability in AI model proficiency across different programming languages. This honesty helps manage user expectations.
- 23-24: The commitment to not using private repository code for training purposes is reiterated, reinforcing CodeRabbit's stance on privacy and security. This consistency in messaging is crucial for user trust.
- 28-30: The mention of utilizing OpenAI's GPT models and the ongoing research for precision in reviews showcases CodeRabbit's commitment to leveraging cutting-edge technology. This aligns with the PR's theme of enhancing developer productivity through AI.
- 34-35: The customization options for reviews, directing users to the Get Started page, effectively guide users on how to tailor CodeRabbit to their needs. This enhances user engagement and personalization.
- 39-40: The clarification on language support for reviews addresses potential user queries about localization, enhancing the document's comprehensiveness.
- 44-48: The detailed explanation of the required access permissions for GitHub and GitLab repositories is crucial for addressing security concerns. This transparency is appreciated and aligns with the PR's objectives.
- 52-53: The guidance on managing users within CodeRabbit subscriptions is straightforward, providing clear instructions for administrative tasks.
- 57-61: The interaction instructions with CodeRabbit's bot enhance the document's utility by explaining how to engage with the bot for more personalized code reviews.
- 65-67: The affirmation that CodeRabbit is suitable for both individual developers and organizations broadens its appeal, emphasizing its versatility.
- 85-86: The explanation of rate limits for different plans is clear, setting expectations for service availability. This information is essential for planning and managing usage.
- 90-91: The guidance on adding
coderabbit.aias an allowed domain for GitLab repositories addresses a common setup issue, enhancing the document's practical value.- 95-97: The note on continuous innovation and feature enhancement encourages users to stay engaged with CodeRabbit, fostering a sense of community and anticipation for new developments.
- 101-102: The invitation to reach out for further questions or information is a welcoming touch, emphasizing CodeRabbit's commitment to user support.
docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (2)
- 4-7: The introduction to the customization options for CodeRabbit reviews is clear and sets the stage for the detailed explanations that follow. It effectively communicates the flexibility offered to users.
- 102-122: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [119-199]
The deprecated version 1 YAML configuration is a helpful reference for users transitioning to the new format. It's good practice to include both versions for a smoother transition. Ensure that the document starts sentences with uppercase letters and corrects any spelling mistakes as suggested by static analysis.
Consider revising the document to start sentences with uppercase letters and correct any spelling mistakes.
docs/guides/prompt-customization.md (10)
- 4-7: The introduction clearly outlines the purpose of the document and the customization options available. However, it might be beneficial to include examples or scenarios where these customizations could be particularly useful, to provide readers with immediate context.
- 12-16: The explanation of path-based instructions is clear and concise. It's important to ensure that the examples provided later in the document align with these instructions for consistency.
- 26-27: These sample usages are helpful and provide clear guidance on how to apply path-based instructions. Ensure that the style guides and best practices mentioned are up-to-date and widely accepted within the community.
Also applies to: 31-34
- 48-53: The introduction to AST instructions and ast-grep is informative. However, the spelling of "ast-grep" should be consistent throughout the document, and the external links provided should be verified to ensure they are current and operational.
- ast-grep + Ast-grepVerification successful
The external links provided in the documentation are confirmed to be operational. Regarding the consistency in the spelling of "ast-grep," it should indeed be standardized throughout the document for clarity. The suggested change to "Ast-grep" addresses this consistency issue.
* 55-69: The steps for adding ast-grep rules are clearly outlined. It's crucial to ensure that the `.coderabbit.yml` configuration file and the structure of the `rules_folder` are documented elsewhere in the project to avoid confusion. * 83-105: The explanation of the rule object and its categories is comprehensive. Consider adding visual aids or diagrams to illustrate the relationships between atomic, relational, and composite rules for enhanced understanding. * 109-118: The summary of rule categories is succinct and aids in understanding the structure of ast-grep rules. Ensuring that examples provided later in the document align with these categories will reinforce the concepts introduced here. * 155-168: > 📝 **NOTE** > This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [158-176]Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify external links are operational. curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax_tree | grep -q "200" curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" https://ast-grep.github.io/guide/rule-config.html | grep -q "200"Length of output: 210
The explanation of composite rules is informative. The examples provided are practical and should be easy for readers to understand. Ensure that these examples are tested and valid in the context of ast-grep usage.
- 193-214: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [200-231]
The section on reusing rules as utility and the distinction between local and global utility rules is valuable. It might be helpful to include guidance on when to use local versus global utility rules based on project size or complexity.
- 325-346: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [270-356]
The support for multiple programming languages and the examples provided are a strong point of this document. It's important to ensure that these examples are up-to-date and reflect best practices in each language.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- docs/about/support.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 3
docs/about/support.md (3)
- 4-4: The description meta tag succinctly summarizes the purpose of the support page. However, consider adding more specific keywords related to the common issues or support topics covered to improve SEO.
- 21-22: The use of
#gh-light-mode-onlyand#gh-dark-mode-onlyfor image paths is a clever way to ensure that images are optimally displayed in both GitHub light and dark modes. This enhances the visual presentation for all users.- 69-70: The tip box is a useful feature for directing users to additional resources. Ensure that the FAQ section is up-to-date and contains relevant information corresponding to the common issues highlighted in this document.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 4
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (8)
- blog/ai-code-reviews-reclaims-2023-10-05/blog.md (1 hunks)
- blog/boosting-engineering-efficiency-2023-11-13/blog.md (1 hunks)
- blog/coderabbit-deep-dive-2023-08-26/blog.md (1 hunks)
- blog/how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application-2023-12-23/blog.md (1 hunks)
- blog/openai-rate-limits-2023-10-23/blog.md (6 hunks)
- docs/about/support.md (1 hunks)
- docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (6 hunks)
- docs/introduction/introduction.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 61
docs/about/support.md (14)
- 4-4: The description meta tag has been updated to enhance clarity and provide more information about the support section. This change improves the SEO and user understanding of the page's content.
- 7-9: The introduction section sets a welcoming tone for users seeking support, clearly stating the purpose of the support section and the team's responsiveness. This is crucial for setting user expectations regarding support availability and assistance.
- 13-14: The "Common Issues and Answers" section is well-organized, providing users with a quick reference to frequently asked questions. This approach helps in reducing the number of support tickets for common issues.
- 18-19: The instructions for switching between different organizations on CodeRabbit are clear and concise, enhancing user experience by guiding them through the UI.
- 21-22: The use of light and dark mode-specific images for illustrating the process of switching organizations is a thoughtful touch, catering to users' preferences and improving accessibility.
- 26-27: Clarification on subscription seats being tied to specific organizations is important for setting the right expectations regarding the usage of CodeRabbit subscriptions across multiple organizations.
- 31-33: The explanation of CodeRabbit's behavior regarding the review of existing PRs after integration is informative, helping users understand how to trigger reviews for their PRs.
- 37-37: Specifying the requirement for GitHub/GitLab admin rights to add repositories to CodeRabbit ensures that users are aware of the necessary permissions for integration.
- 41-41: The inclusion of OpenAI cost in the CodeRabbit Pro subscription is a significant detail that clarifies the cost structure for potential subscribers.
- 45-50: The distinction between CodeRabbit OSS and Pro, especially regarding the OpenAI key and advanced features, is crucial for users to make informed decisions about which version to use.
- 54-55: Advising against the simultaneous use of CodeRabbit OSS and Pro to avoid duplicate reviews is practical advice that helps users optimize their experience.
- 59-64: The guidance on opening a support ticket is clear and actionable, providing users with a straightforward process for seeking assistance.
- 69-70: The tip about visiting the FAQ section for more common issues is helpful for users looking for quick solutions to their problems.
- 1-73: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [75-75]
Encouraging community collaboration through the CodeRabbit Discord channel fosters a sense of community and provides an additional avenue for support and discussion.
docs/introduction/introduction.md (8)
- 5-8: The updated description of CodeRabbit as an "innovative, AI-first code reviewer" that provides "context-aware review feedback" succinctly captures the essence and value proposition of the tool. This clarity is beneficial for users and potential users understanding what CodeRabbit offers.
- 12-18: The detailed explanation of CodeRabbit's capabilities, including the ability for developers to interact with the bot for additional context or code generation, highlights the tool's advanced features and learning capabilities. This section effectively communicates the benefits of using CodeRabbit.
- 20-23: The mention of seamless integration with GitHub and GitLab repositories and the process of providing review feedback directly to pull requests is crucial information for users considering CodeRabbit. It emphasizes the tool's ease of use and integration capabilities.
- 27-31: The explanation of how CodeRabbit works, including the use of webhooks and the comprehensive review process for PRs and MRs, provides valuable insights into the tool's operational mechanics. This transparency helps build trust with users.
- 37-40: The section on data privacy and security reassures users about the confidentiality and ethical use of their data during code reviews. Highlighting compliance with standards like SOC2 Type II, GDPR, and HIPAA is particularly important for users concerned about data privacy.
- 42-50: Clarifying that CodeRabbit does not store user data beyond embeddings for improving future reviews and offering an opt-out option is a good practice. It respects user preferences and data privacy concerns.
- 54-60: The discussion on the necessity of code reviews, even with AI code generators or co-pilots, emphasizes the importance of human oversight in the code review process. This section effectively argues for the complementary role of AI and human reviews.
- 64-68: Highlighting the difference between CodeRabbit and existing code review tools, particularly in providing context-aware, human-like feedback, sets CodeRabbit apart from other tools and underscores its unique value proposition.
blog/boosting-engineering-efficiency-2023-11-13/blog.md (8)
- 1-12: The blog post's metadata, including the slug, title, description, and tags, is well-defined, ensuring that the content is accurately represented and easily discoverable. The inclusion of an
aiDisclaimeris a good practice for transparency.- 14-29: The introduction humorously sets the scene for the challenges of remote work and the importance of maintaining engineering efficiency. It effectively engages the reader and sets the stage for discussing AI-driven code reviews as a solution.
- 33-53: The section on communication gaps and the AI solution highlights a common remote work challenge and presents AI as a 24/7 solution. This clear problem-solution format is effective in communicating the value of AI-driven code reviews.
- 55-64: Discussing delayed reviews and feedback loops, and how AI can provide immediate feedback, addresses a significant pain point in remote engineering. This section convincingly argues for the efficiency benefits of AI code reviews.
- 66-75: The analogy of homemade bread to illustrate code consistency and quality, and how AI can maintain a unified standard, is both creative and informative. It effectively communicates the role of AI in ensuring code quality.
- 77-103: The exploration of real-world applications, common pitfalls, and solutions provides a balanced view of AI code reviews. Highlighting both the benefits and challenges, along with practical solutions, adds depth to the discussion.
- 105-141: The actionable takeaways and steps for effective integration and adoption of CodeRabbit offer readers practical advice. This section is valuable for organizations considering implementing AI-driven code review tools.
- 143-163: The conclusion effectively summarizes the transformative role of AI in remote engineering and the importance of balancing AI assistance with human insight. It leaves the reader with a positive outlook on the future of remote work and AI tools.
blog/how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application-2023-12-23/blog.md (8)
- 13-22: The introduction sets the context for CodeRabbit's growth and the challenges of delivering in-depth code analysis in a cost-effective manner. It effectively hooks the reader by promising insights into CodeRabbit's optimization strategies.
- 26-38: The overview of CodeRabbit's product offerings and the emphasis on supporting the open-source community while managing costs is informative. It clearly outlines the different service tiers and their focus areas.
- 46-54: The detailed explanation of CodeRabbit's review process and the cost implications of using advanced language models like gpt-4 provides valuable insights into the operational challenges of AI-driven code reviews.
- 56-63: The table comparing the costs of different models and the subsequent explanation highlight the financial considerations behind choosing specific models for code review tasks. This transparency is beneficial for readers interested in the technical and financial aspects of AI applications.
- 75-93: The dual-models strategy for cost optimization, using simpler models for summarization and triage, is a smart approach. This section effectively communicates how CodeRabbit balances cost and quality in its review process.
- 95-130: Discussing the implementation of rate-limiting to control excessive usage and its impact on cost savings is crucial. The use of FluxNinja Aperture for rate-limiting and the detailed explanation of its integration add depth to the discussion on managing operational costs.
- 135-162: The caching strategy to avoid re-generating similar review comments is an innovative solution to a common problem in AI-driven applications. This section clearly outlines how caching contributes to cost savings and operational efficiency.
- 166-172: The conclusion succinctly recaps the strategies employed by CodeRabbit to optimize costs while delivering a high-quality service. It encourages other AI startups to consider similar approaches for developing cost-effective AI applications.
docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (4)
- 4-7: The introduction succinctly outlines the purpose and scope of the customization options available for CodeRabbit. It's clear and sets the right expectations for the reader.
- 106-110: The introduction of
ast-grepconfigurations is a significant enhancement, allowing for more granular control over code review rules. This addition is clearly explained and provides valuable customization options for users.- 119-119: The note about placing the
.coderabbit.yamlfile in the root directory of the repository is crucial for users to ensure proper detection and application of the configurations. It's well-placed and clear.- 220-220: The section on "Prompt Customization" is mentioned without further details in this document. It would be helpful to include a brief description or ensure that the link provided leads to a detailed guide on how to customize prompts.
Please verify that the link to "Prompt Customization" directs users to a comprehensive guide on the topic.
blog/coderabbit-deep-dive-2023-08-26/blog.md (7)
- 11-28: The introduction effectively sets the stage for the discussion on AI's impact on software development and introduces CodeRabbit as a solution to existing challenges in code review processes. It's engaging and informative.
- 32-54: This section does an excellent job of outlining the current impediments to shipping quality software at speed. It provides a clear and concise overview of the traditional code review process and its limitations.
- 56-80: The challenges highlighted in this section, such as team slowdown, context switching, and job dissatisfaction, are well-articulated and resonate with common issues faced by development teams. This section effectively builds the case for the need for an innovative solution like CodeRabbit.
- 86-102: The explanation of how CodeRabbit accelerates the code review process and improves code quality is compelling. The benefits for both developers and reviewers are clearly outlined, making a strong argument for the adoption of CodeRabbit.
- 104-118: The key capabilities of CodeRabbit, such as summarization, incremental reviews, and chat about changes, are well-explained. This section effectively communicates the unique features that set CodeRabbit apart from traditional tools.
- 121-173: The design challenges and solutions presented in this section provide valuable insights into the complexities of building an AI-powered code reviewer. It showcases the innovative approaches taken by CodeRabbit to overcome limitations and deliver a robust solution.
- 177-203: The conclusion effectively summarizes the potential of building on top of LLMs and positions CodeRabbit as a leader in AI-first developer tools. It leaves the reader with a sense of optimism about the future of AI in software development.
blog/ai-code-reviews-reclaims-2023-10-05/blog.md (4)
- 1-1: The author's name in the metadata might be misspelled. Consider verifying the correct spelling of "simone" to ensure accuracy and professionalism.
- 35-35: The spelling of "CodeRabbit" is correct as per the context. However, static analysis suggested "Code Rabbit" as a replacement. This is a false positive, and no change is needed.
- 199-199: The spelling of "CodeRabbit" in the link text is correct. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace it with "Code Rabbit" is incorrect in this context.
- 245-245: The spelling of "CodeRabbit" is correct as per the context. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace it with "Code Rabbit" is not applicable here.
blog/openai-rate-limits-2023-10-23/blog.md (8)
- 1-1: The slug
coderabbit-openai-rate-limitsis correctly formatted for a URL path. The static analysis tool's suggestion to change it is not applicable.- 21-22: The spelling of "CodeRabbit" throughout the document is correct and consistent with the branding. Suggestions to replace it with "Code Rabbit" are not applicable.
- 1-28: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [31-31]
The spelling of "FluxNinja" is correct as per the context. The static analysis tool's suggestion to replace it with "Flux Ninja" is not applicable here.
- 1-28: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [129-129]
The method name
StartFlowis correctly camel-cased according to JavaScript naming conventions. The suggestion to replace it with "Start Flow" is not applicable.
- 1-28: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [134-134]
The label key
api_keyis correctly used in the context of API requests. Suggestions to replace it are not applicable.
- 159-159: The space before the closing parenthesis in the markdown image syntax is a false positive from the static analysis tool. Markdown syntax for images does not require a closing parenthesis space adjustment.
- 246-246: The suggestion to add a space between sentences is not applicable here as this is part of a code block within markdown, where YAML configuration is being shown.
- 1-28: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [361-361]
The hashtag
#gh-light-mode-onlyis correctly used for specifying images that should only appear in GitHub's light mode. Suggestions to replace it are not applicable.
blog/how-we-built-cost-effective-generative-ai-application-2023-12-23/blog.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (8)
static/img/docusaurus-social-card.jpgis excluded by:!**/*.jpgstatic/img/docusaurus.pngis excluded by:!**/*.pngstatic/img/logo.svgis excluded by:!**/*.svgstatic/img/preview.pngis excluded by:!**/*.pngstatic/img/test.svgis excluded by:!**/*.svgstatic/img/undraw_docusaurus_mountain.svgis excluded by:!**/*.svgstatic/img/undraw_docusaurus_react.svgis excluded by:!**/*.svgstatic/img/undraw_docusaurus_tree.svgis excluded by:!**/*.svg
Files selected for processing (1)
- docusaurus.config.ts (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
docusaurus.config.ts (1)
- 138-138: The image path has been updated to "img/preview.png". This change aligns with the PR's objectives of enhancing visual presentation.
Please ensure that the new image exists in the specified path and is correctly referenced throughout the documentation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (6 hunks)
- docs/guides/prompt-customization.md (11 hunks)
Additional comments: 17
docs/guides/prompt-customization.md (10)
- 4-7: The introduction clearly outlines the customization options available in CodeRabbit, emphasizing the flexibility offered to users. This sets a positive tone for the detailed explanations that follow.
- 10-20: The section on path-based instructions is well-explained, providing a clear understanding of how developers can tailor review guidelines based on file paths. This customization capability is crucial for projects with specific coding standards for different parts of the codebase.
- 22-41: The sample usage examples for path-based instructions are practical and straightforward, making it easy for users to understand how to apply these customizations in their projects. The note on the limitations of instructions is valuable for setting realistic expectations.
- 49-57: The introduction to AST instructions using
ast-grepis informative, providing users with resources to dive deeper into AST patterns. This section effectively bridges the gap between a high-level overview and detailed technical documentation.- 60-75: The steps for adding
ast-greprules are clearly outlined, making it accessible for users to start implementing custom AST-based code review instructions. Including the requirement for amessageproperty in the rules is a crucial detail for ensuring meaningful review feedback.- 89-94: The explanation of the rule object and its fields provides a comprehensive overview of how
ast-greprules are structured. This foundational knowledge is essential for users to effectively create custom rules.- 115-128: The categorization of rules into atomic, relational, and composite types is well-presented, aiding users in understanding the different ways they can define rules. The analogy to CSS selectors is a helpful touch for those familiar with web development.
- 136-153: The detailed explanations of atomic and relational rules, along with examples, provide users with a clear understanding of how to construct basic and more complex rules. This guidance is crucial for effectively utilizing
ast-grepfor custom code reviews.- 161-185: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [165-203]
The section on composite rules and utility rules introduces advanced concepts in rule creation, offering users the tools to build sophisticated review guidelines. The distinction between local and global utility rules is particularly noteworthy for project organization.
- 332-353: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [281-363]
The support for multiple programming languages and the provided examples of
ast-greprules in different languages demonstrate the versatility of CodeRabbit's customization capabilities. This section effectively showcases the potential for tailored code reviews across a wide range of development environments.docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (7)
- 4-7: The introduction succinctly outlines the customization options available, setting the stage for the detailed explanations that follow. This clarity is beneficial for users seeking to understand the breadth of customization capabilities.
- 18-25: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [11-22]
The overview of customization methods, including the preference for YAML file customization over UI settings, is clearly communicated. This guidance helps users make informed decisions about how to best customize their code review experience.
- 58-59: The addition of
rules_directoryandutils_directoryunder theast-greptool configuration enhances the customization capabilities, allowing users to specify custom directories forast-greprules and utilities. This change improves the organization and management of custom rules.- 65-68: The note on placing the
.coderabbit.yamlfile in the root directory of the repository is a helpful reminder for users, ensuring that the configuration is recognized and applied correctly.- 73-114: The detailed explanation of YAML settings, including language selection, review configurations, and tool configurations, provides users with a comprehensive understanding of how to tailor the code review process to their needs. The inclusion of default values for each setting is particularly useful.
- 161-162: The consistency in specifying custom directories for
ast-greprules and utilities in the deprecated version 1 configuration aligns with the enhancements made in version 2. This consistency is important for users transitioning between versions.- 216-229: > 📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [219-238]
The reference to the "Prompt Customization" section for further guidance on path-based instructions is a useful cross-reference, encouraging users to explore related customization options. This interconnectedness enhances the documentation's usability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (6 hunks)
Additional comments: 4
docs/guides/customize-coderabbit.md (4)
- 58-59: The renaming of
rules_foldertorules_directoryandutils_foldertoutils_directoryimproves clarity and consistency in terminology. This change aligns with common naming conventions in file system structures, making it easier for users to understand the purpose of these directories.- 161-162: The same changes as mentioned above for the deprecated version 1 of the YAML configuration also enhance clarity. It's good practice to maintain consistency in terminology across different versions of documentation to avoid confusion.
- 82-82: The existing comment regarding the hyphenation of "high-level summary" has been addressed in the updated document. This minor grammatical correction improves the readability of the sentence.
- 21-22: The grammatical correction from "change" to "changed" in the phrase "can be used as a starting point and changed as needed" has been implemented, making the sentence grammatically accurate.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Chores
.gitignoreto exclude the.ideadirectory.New Features
Documentation