Do not process stack configs when executing command atmos vendor pull and the --stack flag is not specified
#740
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@aknysh has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 28 minutes and 16 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
haitham911
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (1)
Line range hint
67-73: LGTM: Improved error handling for conflicting flagsThe addition of error handling for conflicting flags is a great improvement. It prevents invalid combinations of flags, making the command more robust and user-friendly. The error messages are clear and informative.
For consistency, consider using the same error formatting style:
-if component != "" && stack != "" { - return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--stack' flag can to be provided, but not both") -} +if component != "" && stack != "" { + return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--stack' flag can be provided, but not both") +} -if component != "" && len(tags) > 0 { - return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--tags' flag can to be provided, but not both") -} +if component != "" && len(tags) > 0 { + return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--tags' flag can be provided, but not both") +}This change corrects a minor grammatical error and ensures consistency in the error messages.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- cmd/vendor_pull.go (0 hunks)
- internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- cmd/vendor_pull.go
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (2)
29-30: LGTM: Good addition for flag handlingThe introduction of the
processStacksvariable is a good practice. It allows the function to determine if the "stack" flag was explicitly set by the user, which can be used to control the behavior of the command based on the presence of this flag.
Line range hint
1-1024: Overall assessment: Changes align well with PR objectivesThe modifications to
ExecuteVendorPullCommandeffectively implement the intended behavior changes for theatmos vendor pullcommand. The introduction of theprocessStacksflag, its integration withInitCliConfig, and the additional error handling for conflicting flags all contribute to streamlining the command's functionality. These changes ensure that stack configurations are not processed when thestackflag is not provided, aligning perfectly with the PR objectives.The code quality is good, with clear logic and informative error messages. The suggested minor improvements in error handling and message consistency will further enhance the robustness and user-friendliness of the command.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (2)
Line range hint
70-72: Correct grammatical error in error messageThe error message contains a grammatical mistake and could be clearer. It currently reads:
return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--stack' flag can to be provided, but not both")Apply this diff to correct the error message:
- return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--stack' flag can to be provided, but not both") + return fmt.Errorf("only one of '--component' or '--stack' flag can be provided, but not both")
Line range hint
75-77: Correct grammatical error in error messageSimilarly, there's a grammatical error in this error message:
return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--tags' flag can to be provided, but not both")Apply this diff to correct the error message:
- return fmt.Errorf("either '--component' or '--tags' flag can to be provided, but not both") + return fmt.Errorf("only one of '--component' or '--tags' flag can be provided, but not both")
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
internal/exec/vendor_utils.go (1)
40-40: LGTM: Improved error handling with contextThe error message now wraps the original error, providing better context for debugging.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- cmd/cmd_utils.go (2 hunks)
- cmd/vendor_pull.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
cmd/vendor_pull.go (1)
18-21: Verify validation behavior with WithCheckStack optionWhile the change aligns with making stack validation conditional, we should verify how
WithCheckStackaffects other important validations.✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the validation behavior by checking the
ValidateConfigstructure andcheckAtmosConfigimplementation.
Let me check how the
CheckStackflag is used in the validation flow to understand its impact on other validations.
Now I have enough context to provide the final response about the validation behavior.
The validation implementation is correct and safe
The changes appropriately handle stack validation while maintaining other essential checks:
- The
checkAtmosConfigfunction:
- Initializes CLI configuration regardless of the stack flag
- Only skips stack-specific validation when
CheckStackis false- Still performs basic CLI configuration validation through
InitCliConfigThe implementation aligns with both the PR objectives and previous review concerns because:
- It maintains essential config validation via
InitCliConfig- Only the stack-specific directory validation is conditional
- Default behavior (when flag is not provided) skips stack validation, matching PR goals
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for WithCheckStack implementation and its impact on config validation ast-grep --pattern 'func WithCheckStack($_) $_' rg -A 10 'WithCheckStack'Length of output: 1415
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for ValidateConfig structure and checkAtmosConfig implementation ast-grep --pattern 'type ValidateConfig struct { $$$ }' rg -A 10 'func checkAtmosConfig'Length of output: 736
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of CheckStack in validation logic rg -A 10 'CheckStack' # Search for validation related code in the package ast-grep --pattern 'func ($_) InitCliConfig($$$)'Length of output: 2356
cmd/cmd_utils.go (3)
26-30: LGTM!The
WithCheckStackfunction correctly implements the functional options pattern and follows Go naming conventions.
338-357: LGTM!The changes correctly implement configurable stack checking while maintaining backward compatibility with the default
truevalue.
338-361: Verify all callers of checkAtmosConfig.Let's ensure all callers have been updated to handle the new parameter signature.
Additionally, let's verify that the changes align with the PR objectives of not processing stack configurations when using
atmos vendor pullwithout the stack flag.✅ Verification successful
Let me analyze the results and generate additional verification scripts to get a complete picture.
The first script will help us understand the option type definition and implementation. The second script will check documentation for stack flag usage in vendor pull command. The third script will look for related tests to ensure the behavior is properly tested.
Let me generate one final verification script to understand the vendor pull command implementation better.
These scripts will help us understand how the stack flag is implemented in the vendor pull command and verify the ValidateConfig structure that holds the CheckStack option.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Changes to
checkAtmosConfigare properly implementedThe verification shows that:
- Only
vendor_pull.gouses the new optional parameterWithCheckStack(checkStack), which is correct as it's the only command that needs this flexibility- All other 19 callers use the default behavior (no parameters) which maintains the default
CheckStack: truesetting- The
ValidateConfigstruct and option pattern are properly implementedThe changes align with the PR objectives by allowing the vendor pull command to optionally skip stack validation while maintaining the default behavior for all other commands.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all calls to checkAtmosConfig rg "checkAtmosConfig\(" --type goLength of output: 1005
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for the vendor pull command implementation rg "func.*[Vv]endor.*[Pp]ull" --type go -A 10Length of output: 2005
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the definition of WithCheckStack and AtomsValidateOption rg "WithCheckStack|type AtomsValidateOption" --type go -A 5Length of output: 730
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the vendor pull command implementation to understand how checkStack is used rg "vendor pull.*--stack" --type mdLength of output: 37
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's verify if there are any tests for the vendor pull command rg "TestVendorPull|test.*vendor.*pull" --type go -A 10Length of output: 56
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check the vendor pull command implementation and its flags rg "vendor.*pull.*flags" -B 5 -A 10 --type goLength of output: 47
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the ValidateConfig struct definition ast-grep --pattern 'type ValidateConfig struct { $$$ }'Length of output: 218
… of AtomsValidateOption
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- cmd/cmd_utils.go (2 hunks)
- cmd/vendor_pull.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
cmd/vendor_pull.go (1)
18-20: Verify core config validation.While making stack validation optional is correct, we should ensure that essential core config validations (e.g., vending options) are still performed regardless of the
--stackflag.Let's verify how
checkAtmosConfigis implemented:✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response since I have enough information about how
checkAtmosConfigand core config validation work.Core config validation is properly maintained independent of stack validation
The implementation shows that core config validation is indeed preserved:
- Core config validation happens in
InitCliConfigwhich is called unconditionally before any stack validation- The
checkConfigfunction (shown in pkg/config/utils.go) validates essential configs like base paths and is called duringInitCliConfig- Stack validation is properly isolated in a conditional block (
if vCfg.CheckStack) and doesn't interfere with core validation- The order of operations ensures core validation occurs first, then optional stack validation follows
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if core config validation exists in checkAtmosConfig # Look for the checkAtmosConfig implementation and its validation logic ast-grep --pattern 'func checkAtmosConfig($_) { $$$ }' # Search for any core validation patterns rg -A 5 'validateConfig|checkConfig|configValidation'Length of output: 1745
cmd/cmd_utils.go (1)
26-30: LGTM! Clean implementation of functional option.The function follows Go's functional options pattern correctly and is well-named.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- cmd/cmd_utils.go (2 hunks)
- cmd/vendor_pull.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
cmd/vendor_pull.go (2)
18-19: LGTM! Clear and descriptive comments.The comments effectively explain the purpose of WithStackValidation and its relationship to the --stack flag.
20-20: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Consider maintaining core config validation.
While making stack validation conditional is correct, we should ensure that essential core configurations (like vending options) are still validated regardless of the --stack flag. This maintains necessary safety checks while addressing the specific stack-related requirement.
Let's verify the current validation behavior:
cmd/cmd_utils.go (1)
28-32: LGTM! Clean implementation of the functional option.The function follows the functional options pattern correctly and has a clear, descriptive name.
osterman
requested review from
aknysh
and removed request for
hans-d and
nitrocode
aknysh
changed the title
atmos vendor pull and the --stack flag is not specified
aknysh
added
minor
aknysh
added
no-release
|
These changes were released in v1.97.0. |
what
atmos vendor pulland the--stackflag is not specifiedwhy
stackflag is not providedreferences
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores