-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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.
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
add publish test result #5
base: base-sha/147c0875cfae590961d50b085a8b392f41233474
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This is a benchmark review for experiment This pull request was cloned from Experiment configurationreview_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: []
|
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request updates the CI workflow by adding permissions for checks and pull-requests, upgrading the Codecov action to v4, and integrating a new action to publish test results. The changes are implemented in the '.github/workflows/ci.yml' file. File-Level Changes
Tips
|
There was a problem hiding this 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: all looks good
- 🟡 Security: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.
checks: write | ||
pull-requests: write |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🚨 issue (security): Permissions scope might be too broad
The added permissions for 'checks' and 'pull-requests' are set to 'write'. Ensure that this level of access is necessary, as it could pose a security risk if not properly managed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this comment correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this comment helpful?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Summary by Sourcery
This pull request updates the CI workflow by adding permissions for checks and pull-requests, upgrading the Codecov action to v4, and integrating a new step to publish test results using the mikepenz/action-junit-report@v4 action.