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.

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

Testing #8

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Testing #8

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

DhruvK1184
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@@ -112,7 +121,6 @@ def lambda_handler(event, context):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The function get_context_for_individual_line is very similar to get_context. Consider refactoring to reduce duplication.

# print(i,openai_review_concatenated[i].path)
# print(i,openai_review_concatenated[i].position)
# post_review_comment(body=openai_review_concatenated, pr_number=pr_number, repo_name=repo_name)
print("openai comment",openai_review_concatenated)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Commented-out code should be removed to maintain code cleanliness and readability.

# print("side: ", side)
# print("pr_number", pr_number)
# print("repo_name", repo_name)
# print("diff_hunk", diff_hunk)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Uncomment the authenticate_request function call to enable request authentication.

Copy link
Contributor

@ankurlucknowi ankurlucknowi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of recommendations:

  1. Unnecessary code duplication and redundancy should be addressed to minimize code bloat and potential errors.
  2. Commented-out code should either be removed or retained based on future requirements to maintain clarity.
  3. There should be error handling to manage potential failures gracefully.
  4. Efficiency in file handling and processing should be improved for better performance.

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 60-68 - Suggestions - There is duplicate code for reading 'linePrompt.txt' in the functions get_context_for_individual_line and generate_openai. This redundancy can be problematic if the file location or structure changes, leading to errors across multiple code locations.
Suggestion: Consider refactoring the file reading operation into a separate helper function to avoid redundancy:

def read_line_prompt():
    with open('linePrompt.txt', 'r') as file:
        return file.read()

# In both functions, replace the file reading logic
prompt = read_line_prompt()

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 109-111 - Blocker - The critical section of code for authentication (authenticate_request) has been commented out. This is a security risk, as unauthenticated access can lead to data leaks or unauthorized operations.
Suggestion: Re-enable or refactor the authentication logic to ensure requests are validated before further processing:

authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
if not authenticated:
    return response

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 128-138 - Suggestions - The code section for posting comments can potentially be optimized by enabling it instead of using placeholders or commented-out code. This can help in maintaining clarity about what the code would execute.
Suggestion: Uncomment the post_review_comment logic to integrate it or ensure the functionality is up to date for future implementations.

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 262-266 - Major - The generate_openai function contains commented-out lines that define 'system' messages for the model. If not likely to be used in the future, this should be removed to reduce distractions and maintain code cleanliness, or it should be completed and enabled.
Suggestion: Evaluate the relevance of these comments and either integrate them properly or remove them for clarity.

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 63-65, 271-275 - Suggestions - It is beneficial to use libraries like os or pathlib for file operations to increase the reliability and portability of file handling code.
Suggestion: Consider using pathlib for more robust file handling:

from pathlib import Path

def read_line_prompt():
    return Path('linePrompt.txt').read_text()

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 142-146 - Suggestions - The function signature for generate_openai includes parameters that may be combined or structured differently if they signify similar types or values. Evaluating this will make the function easier to understand and call.
Suggestion: If both context and linePrompt serve similar purposes, consider passing a single data structure or refactoring to simplify.

Copy link
Contributor

@ankurlucknowi ankurlucknowi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of recommendations

pr_reviewer.py - Line 58 - Category of comment [Must Fix] - The get_context_for_individual_line function unnecessarily duplicates the logic for reading the linePrompt.txt file. This function should reuse the logic from get_context or centralize file reading to avoid potential inconsistencies and improve maintainability.
Suggestion: Extract the file-reading logic into a separate function and use it in both places to avoid code duplication.

def read_prompt_file(filename):
    with open(filename, 'r') as file:
        return file.read()

# Then use it in both functions
def get_context(patch):
    prompt = read_prompt_file('somePromptFile.txt')
    return prompt + patch

def get_context_for_individual_line(patch):
    prompt = read_prompt_file('linePrompt.txt')
    return prompt + patch

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 196-202 - Category of comment [Good To Have] - Consider using a reliable external logging library instead of print statements for tracing logs and errors. This will provide more control over log levels, formatting, and output destinations, enhancing debuggability without cluttering the code.
Suggestion: Use the logging library to replace the print statements.

import logging

logging.basicConfig(level=logging.INFO)

def some_function():
    logging.info("Info level log message with openai response data")

# Replace print statements with logging
logging.info("stream", stream)

pr_reviewer.py - Lines 106-109 - Category of comment [Must Fix] - The authentication portion in lambda_handler is commented out. This poses a security risk since any request can bypass authentication checks. This must be fixed to ensure requests are properly authenticated before processing.
Suggestion: Uncomment and verify the functionality of the authentication logic.

authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
if not authenticated:
    return response

pr_reviewer.py - Line 244 - Category of comment [Good To Have] - Consider adding error-handling logic around the requests.post method to catch potential exceptions and handle them gracefully. This will enhance the robustness of your function and prevent it from failing silently.
Suggestion: Add try-except block to capture requests.exceptions.RequestException.

try:
    response = requests.post(url, headers=get_headers(), data=json.dumps(data))
    response.raise_for_status()  # To raise an exception for HTTP error responses
except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
    logging.error("Failed to post comment: %s", e)
    return {}

Copy link
Contributor

@ankurlucknowi ankurlucknowi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of Recommendations:
The code diff demonstrates changes with several improvements and areas needing attention. Key issues include re-enabling authentication for secure endpoints, ensuring backward compatibility, managing potential errors and empty values, improving batch processing logic, and properly handling comment positions. Matched functions should be reused wherever possible to avoid redundancy.

Code Review Comments:

File Name - Around Line Number 106 - [Category: Blocker]
Review Comment: Authentication is commented out, which poses a major security risk. Disabling authentication leaves the endpoint exposed to unauthorized access.
Suggested Fix:

authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
if not authenticated:
    return response

File Name - Around Line Number 149 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: The function post_line_level_comment has been removed. If this is intentional, ensure its functionality is covered elsewhere. Not posting line-level comments could impact behavior if the API expects such calls.
Suggested Fix: Reintroduce or refactor to make sure line-based comments are processed as needed by your logic.

File Name - Around Line Number 109-121 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: Commenting out portions of the code without replacement could result in loss of functionality, especially for lines still impacting the expected outcome.
Suggested Fix: If there is a specific reason for commenting out code, refactor it to provide the original feature's intent with more robust code or remove it entirely if it’s redundant.

File Name - Around Line Number 175 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: The batch processing logic could be optimized to prevent redundancy. Instead of checking len(files) >= 10 and splitting, consider using existing libraries like itertools to handle batching.
Suggested Fix:

from itertools import islice

def batch(iterable, size):
    iterator = iter(iterable)
    for first in iterator:  
        yield list(islice(iterator, size - 1))

for batch in batch(files, 10):
    # Existing batch processing logic here

File Name - Around Line Number 302 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: Ensure that trailing empty string appending logic or unnecessary print debugging statements are cleaned up before deployment. This keeps logs clean and avoids unnecessary noise.
Suggested Fix:
Regularly sweep debug prints or use a logging mechanism with levels (INFO, DEBUG, ERROR).

File Name - Around Line Number 237 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: The generate_openai function modifies openai_response via string concatenation which might affect the memory footprint when handling large responses.
Suggested Fix:
Use a list for accumulating responses and join when returning:

openai_response = []
# Append to list
for chunk in stream:
    if chunk.choices[0].delta.content is not None:
        openai_response.append(chunk.choices[0].delta.content)
return ''.join(openai_response)

Copy link
Contributor

@ankurlucknowi ankurlucknowi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of Recommendations:

  1. Address potential security risks by handling file and network operations carefully.
  2. Consider improving code structure by reusing existing code functions and defining clear boundaries between functionality.
  3. Manage inactive or commented-out code sections to ensure clarity and maintenance ease.
  4. Simplify some operations and improve error handling, ensuring robustness of the application.

Code Review Comments:

File Name - Around Line Number 43-25 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: The function get_context_for_individual_line introduces duplicate logic similar to get_context in terms of reading a prompt from a file. Consider abstracting this functionality into a separate utility file to promote code reuse and enhance code maintainability.
Code to Improve:

def get_context_for_individual_line(patch):
    prompt = ''
    with open('linePrompt.txt', 'r') as file:
        prompt = file.read()
    print("prompt: ",prompt,"patch: ",patch)
    return prompt + patch

Suggested Fix:

def read_prompt_from_file(filename):
    with open(filename, 'r') as file:
        return file.read()

def get_context_for_individual_line(patch):
    prompt = read_prompt_from_file('linePrompt.txt')
    print("prompt: ", prompt, "patch: ", patch)
    return prompt + patch

File Name - Around Line Number 97-106 - [Category: Blocker]
Review Comment: The comments in this section disable critical authentication logic, presenting a significant security risk. It is crucial to ensure that the lambda_handler function continues to authenticate requests to prevent unauthorized access.
Code to Improve:

# authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
# if not authenticated:
#     return response

Suggested Fix:

authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
if not authenticated:
    return response

File Name - Around Line Number 106-121 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: The variables pr_number and repo_name are initialized but not used until the payload check, which can lead to undefined behavior if the payload is not validated. Consider moving initialization after validation.
Code to Improve:

pr_number = ''
repo_name = ''
...
if 'pull_request' not in payload:
    return {
        'statusCode': 400,
        'body': json.dumps('Invalid payload format')
    }

Suggested Fix:

pr_number = payload.get('pull_request', {}).get('number')
repo_name = payload.get('pull_request', {}).get('head', {}).get('repo', {}).get('name')
...
if pr_number is None or repo_name is None:
    return {
        'statusCode': 400,
        'body': json.dumps('Invalid payload format')
    }

File Name - Around Line Number 149-134 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: Function post_review_comment_on_line seems to have removed crucial parameters (commit_id, side) that are vital for accurate positioning of comments. Ensure that all relevant context is passed to maintain correct functionality.
Code to Improve:

# Original function with unused parameters
def post_review_comment_on_line(body, pr_number, repo_name, path, position):

Suggested Fix:

def post_review_comment_on_line(body, pr_number, repo_name, path, position, side, commit_id):

File Name - Around Line Number 43-265 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: The current version of the generate_openai function suffers from overly complex commented-out code, especially with the use of redundant function tools. Streamlining this section could enhance readability.
Code to Improve:

def generate_openai(context,linePrompt):
    openai_response = ''
    functions = [ ... ]
    stream = openai_client.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-4o",
        ...
    )
    print("stream",stream)

Suggested Fix:

def generate_openai(context, linePrompt):
    openai_response = ''
    functions = [...]  # Define once if needed
    stream = openai_client.chat.completions.create(
        model="gpt-4o",
        messages=[
            {"role": "user", "content": context},
            {"role": "user", "content": linePrompt}
        ],
        tools=functions,
        stream=True,
    )
    for chunk in stream:
        if chunk.choices[0].delta.content is not None:
            openai_response += chunk.choices[0].delta.content
    return openai_response

Review considerations should include restoring necessary logic, such as authentication, removing or properly managing commented-out code, sharing utility functions for common operations, and ensuring that refactoring doesn't lead to breaking changes.

Copy link
Contributor

@ankurlucknowi ankurlucknowi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of Recommendations:
The code diff contains several areas that need improvement, primarily around ensuring backward compatibility, handling potential security risks, and opportunities for abstraction. Unnecessary commented-out code should be cleaned up to improve readability, and error handling needs to be reconsidered to avoid potential runtime failures.

Code Review Comments:

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Number 106 - [Category: Blocker]
Review Comment: The authentication check is commented out, which poses a significant security risk as it leaves the application vulnerable to unauthorized access. Authentication logic should be restored to maintain security.
Code to Improve:

# authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
# if not authenticated:
#     return response

Suggested Fix:

authenticated, response = authenticate_request(event, context)
if not authenticated:
    return response

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Number 70 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: The function get_context_for_individual_line(patch) has a verbose print statement that may not be necessary for the production environment. Consider logging at an appropriate level instead of using print statements.
Code to Improve:

print("prompt: ",prompt,"patch: ",patch)

Suggested Fix:

import logging
logging.debug("prompt: %s patch: %s", prompt, patch)

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Numbers 112-128 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: The function lambda_handler contains a lot of commented-out code, making it difficult to discern the current logic path. It’s best practice to remove commented code that is no longer needed.
Code to Improve:

#print(payload)
# post_review_comment(body=openai_review_concatenated, pr_number=pr_number, repo_name=repo_name)
# print("individual comment")
# review_comments_on_lines(files)
# print(f'comment posted on #{pr_number} in repository {repo_name}')

Suggested Fix:
Remove the above lines if they are not needed.

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Number 145 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: The function post_line_level_comment is entirely commented out. If it's not needed, it should be removed to avoid clutter. If needed, it should be properly integrated and refactored.
Code to Improve:

# def post_line_level_comment(pr_number, repo_name, commit_id, openai_review_concatenated):
# ...

Suggested Fix:
Decide whether this function should be part of the logic. If not, remove it; otherwise, properly integrate and refactor as necessary.

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Numbers 191-224 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: The generate_openai function has a lot of duplicate and commented-out lines. This negatively affects readability and maintenance. Instead, abstract the repeated logic into functions or utilize configuration files.
Code to Improve:

# with open('system.txt', 'r') as file:
# ...
print("stream", stream)

Suggested Fix:
Abstract reading configuration files into dedicated functions and remove unnecessary print statements; utilize a logging framework instead.

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Number 322 - [Category: Major]
Review Comment: The function post_review_comment_on_line uses hard-coded values for the URL. Consider using configuration files or environment variables to manage these URLs for better code portability and maintainability.
Code to Improve:

url = f'https://api.github.com/repos/{REPO_OWNER}/{repo_name}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments'

Suggested Fix:

import os

url = f'https://api.github.com/repos/{os.getenv("REPO_OWNER")}/{repo_name}/pulls/{pr_number}/comments'

File Name: pr_reviewer.py - Around Line Number 470 - [Category: Suggestions]
Review Comment: Using # if __name__ == '__main__': block hints at the script being run as a standalone program. This is good for testability, but ensure there's proper error handling when loading files, and it should respect module if the file is imported elsewhere in code.
Code to Improve:

if __name__ == '__main__':
    with open('sample.json', 'r') as fileVariable:
        event_text = json.load(fileVariable)

Suggested Fix:

if __name__ == '__main__':
    try:
        with open('sample.json', 'r') as fileVariable:
            event_text = json.load(fileVariable)
    except FileNotFoundError:
        print("Sample file not found.")
    except json.JSONDecodeError:
        print("Error decoding JSON from the sample file.")

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.

None yet

2 participants