🎯 Test: Line-Specific Review Comments + Clean Code Example #12
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
… human-like reviews - Added comprehensive security pattern matching for SQL injection, XSS, path traversal, etc. - Integrated CVE scanning using Safety database for dependency vulnerabilities - Implemented human-like, concise security reviews with actionable feedback - Enhanced prompt engineering for security-focused analysis - Added visual progress indicators and improved error handling - Updated dependencies: safety, bandit, cve-search-api - Updated README with detailed security scanning capabilities
- Kept enhanced security features from main branch - Resolved conflicts in dependencies section - Maintained comprehensive security scanning documentation
- Removed cve-search-api from requirements.txt (package doesn't exist) - Updated README.md to reflect correct dependencies - Safety package provides sufficient CVE scanning capabilities
- Use GITHUB_REPOSITORY environment variable instead of hardcoded repo name - Updated get_latest_pr(), get_diff(), and post_review() functions - Added GITHUB_REPOSITORY to GitHub Actions workflow environment - This should resolve the 401 Unauthorized error
- Use GITHUB_EVENT_NUMBER from GitHub Actions context instead of API calls - Added better error handling and debugging for authentication issues - Enhanced headers with proper Accept and User-Agent - This should bypass the 401 authentication error by using GitHub's context
- Updated get_diff() to use same enhanced headers as get_latest_pr() - Added proper Accept and User-Agent headers - Added debugging for authentication issues - This should resolve the 401 error when fetching PR diff files
- Added get_diff_from_git() function that uses git command instead of GitHub API - Falls back to GitHub API only if git command fails - This should work even with authentication issues since git diff doesn't need API access - Parses git diff output into GitHub API-compatible format
- Expanded from security-only to full engineering review (security, quality, performance, best practices) - Added comprehensive pattern detection for: * Security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, secrets, etc.) * Code quality issues (long functions, magic numbers, TODOs, etc.) * Performance problems (N+1 queries, inefficient loops, memory leaks) * Best practices (error handling, validation, hardcoded values) - Made reviews EXTREMELY concise (2-3 words when good, 1-2 lines max for issues) - Updated status badges: ✅ GOOD, 🚨 CRITICAL,⚠️ ISSUES, 💡 SUGGESTIONS - Reduced token limit to 80 for ultra-brief responses - Now acts like a real senior engineer doing PR reviews
- Added structured checklist with ✅/❌/⚠️ /💡 status indicators - Covers all review categories: Security, Code Quality, Performance, Best Practices, Dependencies - Clear overall status: 'All checks passed! 🎉' or specific issue counts - Shows critical issues with line numbers when found - Updated status badges: 'ALL CHECKS PASSED', 'CRITICAL ISSUES', 'ISSUES FOUND', 'SUGGESTIONS' - Much clearer and more actionable than previous format
This file contains various code defects to test the CodeReviewer.AI bot: Security Issues: - SQL injection vulnerability - Hardcoded secrets (API keys, passwords) - Unsafe deserialization with pickle - Command injection vulnerability Code Quality Issues: - Very long function with multiple responsibilities - Magic numbers (5000, 1000, etc.) - TODO/FIXME/HACK comments - Print statements in production code - Empty exception handling - Duplicate code blocks Performance Issues: - N+1 database query problem - Inefficient list operations - Using range(len()) instead of enumerate - Appending in loops Best Practice Violations: - Missing error handling - Hardcoded configuration values - Missing input validation - Global variables (memory leak potential) This will help test the comprehensive review capabilities of the bot.
- Bot now exits with error code 1 when critical issues are found - This will fail the GitHub Actions workflow and block PR merges - Only blocks on critical security/quality issues (HIGH severity) - Allows merge for minor issues and suggestions - Provides clear messaging about why merge is blocked This ensures code with critical vulnerabilities cannot be merged!
- Bot now creates precise line-by-line review comments - Each defect gets a specific comment on the exact line where it occurs - Comments include actionable suggestions for fixing the issue - Uses GitHub's review API to request changes on specific lines - Critical issues trigger 'REQUEST_CHANGES' review event - Non-critical issues trigger 'COMMENT' review event - Much more actionable than general PR comments This makes the review process much more precise and actionable!
- Created CODEOWNERS file to make bot a default reviewer for all files - Set up branch protection rules requiring CodeReviewer.AI workflow to pass - Bot will now automatically review every PR and block merges with critical issues - Requires code owner reviews (bot) before merging - Ensures consistent code quality across all contributions This makes the bot an integral part of the review process!
- Fixed line number mapping issue causing 422 errors - Properly maps issue line numbers to actual file line numbers - Uses correct line numbers for GitHub review API - Should resolve the 'Unprocessable Entity' error This fixes the line-specific review comment functionality!
- Temporarily use general comments instead of line-specific reviews - This avoids the GitHub API 422 error while we debug line mapping - Still provides detailed feedback on issues found - Includes file:line references for each issue - Will work on proper line-specific reviews in next iteration This gets the bot working reliably first!
Owner
Author
🔍 Code Review Results🚨 CRITICAL ISSUES FOUND - This PR needs attention before merging! Found 160 issues: • README.md:28 - Avoid global variables, use proper resource management • clean_example.py:19 - Break this function into smaller, focused functions • clean_example.py:51 - Break this function into smaller, focused functions • clean_example.py:81 - Break this function into smaller, focused functions • clean_example.py:61 - Define constants with descriptive names Summary: 🚨 test_defects.py - 4 critical issues found |
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.
🎯 Testing Line-Specific Review Comments
This PR tests the new line-specific review functionality:
✨ New Features:
🧪 Test Files:
🎯 Expected Behavior:
This tests the complete line-specific review system!