Skip to content

Conversation

@christerswahn
Copy link
Collaborator

@christerswahn christerswahn commented Apr 19, 2025

Fixes:

In our previous version bump to 0.4.0 we missed renaming the BetterCommand constructor parameter to messageOutput (it should be the same name as in BetterCommandRunner). This is technically a breaking change.

input.dart was previously omitted from the promts.dart exports file.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Updated parameter naming in command-related classes and tests for improved clarity and consistency.
  • New Features
    • Made additional input functionality available by exporting input features from prompts.
  • Tests
    • Adjusted test code to align with updated parameter names and removed an unnecessary import.

@christerswahn christerswahn requested a review from SandPod April 19, 2025 12:04
@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 19, 2025

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request primarily consists of refactoring and export adjustments. The BetterCommand class and related test code have been updated to rename the output handling field and constructor parameter from passOutput to messageOutput. The prompts.dart file now exports input.dart, making its contents available wherever prompts.dart is imported. Additionally, an import statement for input.dart was removed from its test file, likely due to the new export. No logic or control flow changes are introduced.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
lib/src/better_command_runner/better_command.dart, test/better_command_test.dart Renamed output handling field and constructor parameter from passOutput to messageOutput in BetterCommand and its test subclass. Updated method calls accordingly.
lib/src/prompts/prompts.dart Added an export for input.dart to make its contents available through prompts.dart.
test/prompts/input_test.dart Removed direct import of input.dart due to its inclusion in prompts.dart exports.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • SandPod

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2e22607 and 8234159.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • lib/src/prompts/prompts.dart (1 hunks)
  • test/prompts/input_test.dart (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • test/prompts/input_test.dart
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • lib/src/prompts/prompts.dart

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@christerswahn christerswahn marked this pull request as ready for review April 19, 2025 12:07
Copy link
Contributor

@SandPod SandPod left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice fix!

Is it possible to add a test for the "throw" scenario? Do we have a framework for it already?

Copy link
Contributor

@SandPod SandPod left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! 👍

@christerswahn christerswahn merged commit 71c7738 into main Apr 24, 2025
7 checks passed
@christerswahn christerswahn deleted the 646-errors branch April 24, 2025 09:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants