Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Meson improvement #4

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: base-sha/dedf3c02ebc010e83a8c1b48b62e05f0026b01ae
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Meson improvement #4

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

sourcery-ai-experiments-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@sourcery-ai-experiments-bot sourcery-ai-experiments-bot commented Jul 8, 2024 •
edited by SourceryAI
Loading

Summary by Sourcery

This pull request improves the Meson build configuration by updating the required Meson version, adding detailed build summaries, and enhancing dependency and test management. Additionally, it updates the CI workflow to use a newer Ubuntu version and includes the installation of an additional package.

  • Enhancements:
    • Updated Meson build script to require Meson version >= 0.53.
    • Added detailed build summaries for directories, dependencies, and options when Meson version is >= 0.57.
    • Improved dependency management in src/iptux-core/meson.build by using Meson dependency objects.
    • Enhanced test definitions in src/iptux-core, src/iptux-utils, and src/iptux to use the 'gtest' protocol when Meson version is >= 0.55.
    • Simplified path handling in share/metainfo/meson.build by using Meson path operations.
  • CI:
    • Updated CI workflow to run on Ubuntu 22.04 instead of Ubuntu 20.04.
    • Added installation of libunwind-dev in the CI workflow.

@sourcery-ai-experiments-bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This is a benchmark review for experiment review_of_reviews_20240708.
Run ID: review_of_reviews_20240708/benchmark_2024-07-08T00-18-37_v1-20-0-4-gb56c705c9.

This pull request was cloned from https://github.com/iptux-src/iptux/pull/620. (Note: the URL is not a link to avoid triggering a notification on the original pull request.)

Experiment configuration 
review_config:
  # User configuration for the review
  # - benchmark - use the user config from the benchmark reviews
  # - <value> - use the value directly
  user_review_config:
    enable_ai_review: true
    enable_rule_comments: false

    enable_complexity_comments: benchmark
    enable_security_comments: benchmark
    enable_tests_comments: benchmark
    enable_comment_suggestions: benchmark
    enable_functionality_review: benchmark

    enable_pull_request_summary: benchmark
    enable_review_guide: benchmark

    enable_approvals: true

  ai_review_config:
    # The model responses to use for the experiment
    # - benchmark - use the model responses from the benchmark reviews
    # - llm - call the language model to generate responses
    model_responses:
      comments_model: benchmark
      comment_area_model: benchmark
      comment_validation_model: benchmark
      comment_suggestion_model: benchmark
      complexity_model: benchmark
      docstrings_model: benchmark
      functionality_model: benchmark
      security_model: benchmark
      tests_model: benchmark
      pull_request_summary_model: benchmark
      review_guide_model: benchmark

# The pull request dataset to run the experiment on
pull_request_dataset:
- https://github.com/mraniki/iamlistening/pull/334
- https://github.com/mraniki/cefi/pull/475
- https://github.com/mraniki/MyLLM/pull/581
- https://github.com/mraniki/dxsp/pull/689
- https://github.com/jschalk/jaar/pull/239
- https://github.com/jschalk/jaar/pull/241
- https://github.com/jschalk/jaar/pull/242
- https://github.com/iptux-src/iptux/pull/620
- https://github.com/iptux-src/iptux/pull/622
- https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-Cam/pull/46
- https://github.com/mnbf9rca/super_simple_tfl_status/pull/114
- https://github.com/mnbf9rca/super_simple_tfl_status/pull/115
- https://github.com/RockProfile/Django-deployment/pull/1
- https://github.com/hbmartin/graphviz2drawio/pull/83
- https://github.com/fairdataihub/codefair-app/pull/28
- https://github.com/totaldebug/atomic-calendar-revive/pull/1518
- https://github.com/iammiracle01/portfolio/pull/1
- https://github.com/iammiracle01/portfolio/pull/2
- https://github.com/iammiracle01/portfolio/pull/3
- https://github.com/supermario-ai/gpt-crawler/pull/1
- https://github.com/hbmartin/graphviz2drawio/pull/84
- https://github.com/hbmartin/graphviz2drawio/pull/85
- https://github.com/dreamerminsk/tasked/pull/85
- https://github.com/dreamerminsk/tasked/pull/86
- https://github.com/dreamerminsk/tasked/pull/84
- https://github.com/haalasz/fm-tools/pull/9
- https://github.com/haalasz/fm-tools/pull/10
- https://github.com/iptux-src/iptux/pull/619
- https://github.com/code-Harsh247/medsymptom/pull/1
- https://github.com/code-Harsh247/medsymptom/pull/2
- https://github.com/cpp-lln-lab/bidspm/pull/1263
- https://github.com/cpp-lln-lab/bidspm/pull/1264
- https://github.com/cpp-lln-lab/bidspm/pull/1265
- https://github.com/luiscarlop/Judge_AI/pull/22
- https://github.com/NoNormalCreeper/nonebot_plugin_wolfram/pull/6
- https://github.com/osama1998H/kalima/pull/39
- https://github.com/osama1998H/kalima/pull/40
- https://github.com/osama1998H/kalima/pull/41
- https://github.com/jackdewinter/pymarkdown/pull/1131
- https://github.com/Eliver-Salazar/PED/pull/12
- https://github.com/NextAlone/Nagram/pull/40
- https://github.com/strawberry-graphql/strawberry-django/pull/575
- https://github.com/strawberry-graphql/strawberry/pull/3558
- https://github.com/strawberry-graphql/strawberry/pull/3559
- https://github.com/Ruin2121/yahooquery/pull/9
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/gdsfactory/pull/2951
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/gdsfactory/pull/2954
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/gdsfactory/pull/2956
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/gdsfactory/pull/2957
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/cspdk/pull/51
review_comment_labels:
- label: correct
  question: Is this comment correct?
- label: helpful
  question: Is this comment helpful?
- label: comment-type
  question: Is the comment type correct?
- label: comment-area
  question: Is the comment area correct?
- label: llm-test
  question: |
    What type of LLM test could this comment become?
    - 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
    - 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
    - no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test

# Benchmark reviews generated by running
#   python -m scripts.experiment benchmark <experiment_name>
benchmark_reviews: []

@SourceryAI
Copy link

SourceryAI commented Jul 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request improves the Meson build configuration by updating the required Meson version, adding summary sections for better visibility of configuration options and dependencies, and enhancing test definitions for better integration with the Google Test framework. Key changes include updating the Meson version requirement to '>=0.57', adding summary sections in Meson build files, replacing string-based dependency declarations with variable-based declarations, and updating test definitions to include the 'protocol' field set to 'gtest'.

File-Level Changes

Files Changes
src/iptux-core/meson.build
src/iptux-utils/meson.build
src/iptux/meson.build		 Updated test definitions to include 'protocol' field set to 'gtest' for better integration with Google Test framework.
Tips
  • Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
  • Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments.
  • You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your dashboard:
    • Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide;
    • Change the review language;
  • You can always contact us if you have any questions or feedback.

SourceryAI
SourceryAI approved these changes Jul 8, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@SourceryAI SourceryAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @sourcery-ai-experiments-bot - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review
  • 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
  • 🟢 Security: all looks good
  • 🟢 Testing: all looks good
  • 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
  • 🟡 Documentation: 1 issue found

LangSmith trace

Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.

meson.build
'prefix': get_option('prefix'),
'bindir': get_option('bindir'),
'libdir': get_option('libdir'),
'data': get_option('datadir'),
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

suggestion: Inconsistent key naming in summary dictionary.

Consider renaming the key 'data' to 'datadir' for consistency with other directory-related keys like 'bindir' and 'libdir'.

Suggested change
'data': get_option('datadir'),
'datadir': get_option('datadir'),

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this comment correct?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this comment helpful?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the comment type correct?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the comment area correct?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What type of LLM test could this comment become?

  • 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
  • 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
  • no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test

meson_options.txt
@@ -22,6 +22,6 @@ option(
option(
'sanitize-address',
type: 'boolean',
value: 'false',
value: false,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

suggestion (documentation): Changed value type from string to boolean.

Ensure that the rest of the codebase is consistent with this change. If other boolean options are still using string values, consider updating them as well.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this comment correct?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this comment helpful?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the comment type correct?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is the comment area correct?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What type of LLM test could this comment become?

  • 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
  • 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
  • no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test

This was referenced Jul 8, 2024
Open
Open
Open
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@SourceryAI SourceryAI SourceryAI approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@sourcery-ai-experiments-bot @SourceryAI @lidaobing