remove flags #6
Open
remove flags #6
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
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 refactors the code by removing bitwise flag operations and replacing them with individual boolean member variables. This change improves code readability and maintainability. Corresponding tests have been updated to reflect these changes. File-Level Changes
Tips
|
SourceryAI
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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: 6 issues found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 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.
| @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static const char* CONFIG_SHARED_FILE_LIST = "shared_file_list"; | |||
| * 类构造函数. | |||
| */ | |||
| ProgramData::ProgramData(shared_ptr<IptuxConfig> config) | |||
| : palicon(NULL), font(NULL), config(config), flags(0) { | |||
| : palicon(NULL), font(NULL), config(config), need_restart_(0) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: Consider initializing need_restart_ as a boolean.
The variable need_restart_ is being initialized to 0, which is an integer. Since it is used as a boolean, it would be clearer to initialize it as false.
Suggested change
| : palicon(NULL), font(NULL), config(config), need_restart_(0) { | |
| : palicon(NULL), font(NULL), config(config), need_restart_(false) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Comment on lines
+62
to
+69
| config->SetBool("open_chat", open_chat); | ||
| config->SetBool("hide_startup", hide_startup); | ||
| config->SetBool("open_transmission", open_transmission); | ||
| config->SetBool("use_enter_key", use_enter_key); | ||
| config->SetBool("clearup_history", clearup_history); | ||
| config->SetBool("record_log", record_log); | ||
| config->SetBool("open_blacklist", open_blacklist); | ||
| config->SetBool("proof_shared", proof_shared); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: Check for consistency in naming conventions.
Ensure that the new variable names (e.g., open_chat, hide_startup) are consistent with the rest of the codebase. This helps maintain readability and uniformity.
Suggested change
| config->SetBool("open_chat", open_chat); | |
| config->SetBool("hide_startup", hide_startup); | |
| config->SetBool("open_transmission", open_transmission); | |
| config->SetBool("use_enter_key", use_enter_key); | |
| config->SetBool("clearup_history", clearup_history); | |
| config->SetBool("record_log", record_log); | |
| config->SetBool("open_blacklist", open_blacklist); | |
| config->SetBool("proof_shared", proof_shared); | |
| config->SetBool("open_chat", openChat); | |
| config->SetBool("hide_startup", hideStartup); | |
| config->SetBool("open_transmission", openTransmission); | |
| config->SetBool("use_enter_key", useEnterKey); | |
| config->SetBool("clearup_history", clearupHistory); | |
| config->SetBool("record_log", recordLog); | |
| config->SetBool("open_blacklist", openBlacklist); | |
| config->SetBool("proof_shared", proofShared); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Comment on lines
+136
to
+143
| open_chat = config->GetBool("open_chat"); | ||
| hide_startup = config->GetBool("hide_startup"); | ||
| open_transmission = config->GetBool("open_transmission"); | ||
| use_enter_key = config->GetBool("use_enter_key"); | ||
| clearup_history = config->GetBool("clearup_history"); | ||
| record_log = config->GetBool("record_log", true); | ||
| open_blacklist = config->GetBool("open_blacklist"); | ||
| proof_shared = config->GetBool("proof_shared"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: Consider adding default values for GetBool calls.
For robustness, consider providing default values for the GetBool calls, similar to how it's done for record_log.
Suggested change
| open_chat = config->GetBool("open_chat"); | |
| hide_startup = config->GetBool("hide_startup"); | |
| open_transmission = config->GetBool("open_transmission"); | |
| use_enter_key = config->GetBool("use_enter_key"); | |
| clearup_history = config->GetBool("clearup_history"); | |
| record_log = config->GetBool("record_log", true); | |
| open_blacklist = config->GetBool("open_blacklist"); | |
| proof_shared = config->GetBool("proof_shared"); | |
| open_chat = config->GetBool("open_chat", false); | |
| hide_startup = config->GetBool("hide_startup", false); | |
| open_transmission = config->GetBool("open_transmission", false); | |
| use_enter_key = config->GetBool("use_enter_key", false); | |
| clearup_history = config->GetBool("clearup_history", false); | |
| record_log = config->GetBool("record_log", true); | |
| open_blacklist = config->GetBool("open_blacklist", false); | |
| proof_shared = config->GetBool("proof_shared", false); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
| @@ -207,43 +207,35 @@ void ProgramData::Unlock() { | |||
| mutex.unlock(); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| bool ProgramData::IsAutoOpenCharDialog() const { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (typo): Typo in method name.
The method name was corrected from IsAutoOpenCharDialog to IsAutoOpenChatDialog. Ensure that all references to this method are updated accordingly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Comment on lines
+33
to
+36
| compatible = 0; | ||
| online = 0; | ||
| changed = 0; | ||
| in_blacklist = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: Consider using boolean type for flags.
The variables compatible, online, changed, and in_blacklist are being initialized to 0. Since these are used as boolean flags, it would be clearer to use the boolean type and initialize them to false.
Suggested change
| compatible = 0; | |
| online = 0; | |
| changed = 0; | |
| in_blacklist = 0; | |
| compatible = false; | |
| online = false; | |
| changed = false; | |
| in_blacklist = false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
Comment on lines
+68
to
77
| this->compatible = value; | ||
| return *this; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| PalInfo& PalInfo::setOnline(bool value) { | ||
| if (value) { | ||
| FLAG_SET(this->flags, 1); | ||
| } else { | ||
| FLAG_CLR(this->flags, 1); | ||
| } | ||
| this->online = value; | ||
| return *this; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| PalInfo& PalInfo::setChanged(bool value) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpick: Avoid using 'this' pointer unnecessarily.
Using 'this' pointer is redundant in this context. Consider removing it for cleaner code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
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 Sourcery
This pull request refactors the code by removing the use of bitwise flag operations and replacing them with individual boolean member variables. This change improves code readability and maintainability. Corresponding updates have been made to the unit tests to reflect these changes.