PR Description updated to latest commit (8ed98c8)

• Copy walkthrough table to "Files Changed" Tab

PR Review

/review --pr_reviewer.some_config1=... --pr_reviewer.some_config2=...

[pr_reviewer]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

[pr_reviewer] # /review #
extra_instructions="""
In the 'possible issues' section, emphasize the following:
- Does the code logic cover relevant edge cases?
- Is the code logic clear and easy to understand?
- Is the code logic efficient?
...
"""

pr_commands = ["/review", ...]

/review auto_approve

[pr_reviewer]
enable_auto_approval = true

[pr_reviewer]
maximal_review_effort = 5

PR Code Suggestions

-from pr_agent.tools.pr_line_questions import PR_LineQuestions
+from pr_agent.tools.pr_line_questions import PRLineQuestions
 

-except:  # '@@ -0,0 +1 @@' case
+except ValueError:  # '@@ -0,0 +1 @@' case
 

-except:
-            pass
+except Exception as e:
+            get_logger().exception(f"Failed to add eyes reaction, error: {e}")
 

+# Example refactoring, detailed implementation depends on the context
+async def extract_line_comment_details(body):
+    # Extract and return details from the body
+    pass
+
 async def handle_line_comments(action, body, comment_body, event):
+    # Use the new helper function
+    details = await extract_line_comment_details(body)
 

 if ask_diff:
         self.patch_with_lines, self.selected_lines = extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(ask_diff,
+else:
+        # Handle the case where ask_diff is not set or does not contain expected data
+        get_logger().error("ask_diff is not available or does not contain expected data.")
+        return
 

/improve --pr_code_suggestions.some_config1=... --pr_code_suggestions.some_config2=...

[pr_code_suggestions]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

pr_commands = ["/improve --pr_code_suggestions.summarize=true", ...]

[pr_code_suggestions] # /improve #
extra_instructions="""
Emphasize the following aspects:
- Does the code logic cover relevant edge cases?
- Is the code logic clear and easy to understand?
- Is the code logic efficient?
...
"""

/ask does this PR contains proper documentation ?

Question: does this PR contain proper documentation ?

Answer:
Yes, this Pull Request (PR) contains proper documentation. The PR includes updates to the docs/ASK.md file to explain the new functionality of asking questions about specific lines of code in the PR. This documentation provides clear instructions on how to use the /ask command on specific lines of code, which enhances the understandability and usability of the new feature.

Moreover, the PR also includes comments in the code, especially in the pr_agent/tools/pr_line_questions.py and pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py files, which explain the purpose and functionality of the new methods and classes. This is a good practice as it makes the code easier to understand and maintain.

However, it's always a good idea to ensure that the documentation is comprehensive and covers all the new features or changes introduced in the PR. It might be helpful to include examples or use-cases in the documentation to provide more context about the new features.

/ask "..."

/improve --pr_code_suggestions.extra_instructions="focus on edge cases"

PR Code Suggestions

 if side.lower() == 'left':
     if not (start1 <= line_start <= start1 + size1):
         skip_hunk = True
         continue
 elif side.lower() == 'right':
     if not (start2 <= line_start <= start2 + size2):
         skip_hunk = True
         continue
+else:
+    # Handle unexpected 'side' value
+    raise ValueError(f"Unexpected side value: {side}")
 

 def reply_to_comment_from_comment_id(self, comment_id: int, body: str):
-    try:
-        headers, data_patch = self.pr._requester.requestJsonAndCheck(
-            "POST", f"https://api.github.com/repos/{self.repo}/pulls/{self.pr_num}/comments/{comment_id}/replies",
-            input={"body": body}
-        )
-    except Exception as e:
-        get_logger().exception(f"Failed to reply comment, error: {e}")
+    for _ in range(3):  # Retry up to 3 times
+        try:
+            headers, data_patch = self.pr._requester.requestJsonAndCheck(
+                "POST", f"https://api.github.com/repos/{self.repo}/pulls/{self.pr_num}/comments/{comment_id}/replies",
+                input={"body": body}
+            )
+            break  # Success, exit loop
+        except requests.exceptions.RequestException as e:
+            get_logger().warning(f"Retry due to network error: {e}")
+            time.sleep(1)  # Wait 1 second before retrying
+        except Exception as e:
+            get_logger().exception(f"Failed to reply comment, error: {e}")
+            break  # Non-retryable error, exit loop
 

-start_line = body["comment"]["start_line"]
-end_line = body["comment"]["line"]
+start_line = body["comment"].get("start_line")
+end_line = body["comment"].get("line")
 start_line = end_line if not start_line else start_line
 question = comment_body.replace('/ask', '').strip()
-diff_hunk = body["comment"]["diff_hunk"]
-path = body["comment"]["path"]
-side = body["comment"]["side"]
-comment_id = body["comment"]["id"]
+diff_hunk = body["comment"].get("diff_hunk")
+path = body["comment"].get("path")
+side = body["comment"].get("side")
+comment_id = body["comment"].get("id")
 

 if self.patch_with_lines:
-    response = await retry_with_fallback_models(self._get_prediction, model_type=ModelType.TURBO)
+    try:
+        response = await retry_with_fallback_models(self._get_prediction, model_type=ModelType.TURBO)
+    except SpecificException as e:
+        get_logger().error(f"Error during prediction: {e}")
+        return "Could not process your request due to an error."
 
     get_logger().info('Preparing answer...')
     if comment_id:
-        self.git_provider.reply_to_comment_from_comment_id(comment_id, response)
+        try:
+            self.git_provider.reply_to_comment_from_comment_id(comment_id, response)
+        except SpecificException as e:
+            get_logger().error(f"Failed to reply to comment: {e}")
     else:
-        self.git_provider.publish_comment(response)
+        try:
+            self.git_provider.publish_comment(response)
+        except SpecificException as e:
+            get_logger().error(f"Failed to publish comment: {e}")
 

-res = list(match.groups())
-for i in range(len(res)):
-    if res[i] is None:
-        res[i] = 0
+hunk_header_values = list(match.groups())
+for i in range(len(hunk_header_values)):
+    if hunk_header_values[i] is None:
+        hunk_header_values[i] = 0
 try:
-    start1, size1, start2, size2 = map(int, res[:4])
+    start1, size1, start2, size2 = map(int, hunk_header_values[:4])
 except:  # '@@ -0,0 +1 @@' case
-    start1, size1, start2 = map(int, res[:3])
+    start1, size1, start2 = map(int, hunk_header_values[:3])
     start2 = 0
 

/improve --pr_code_suggestions.some_config1=... --pr_code_suggestions.some_config2=...

[pr_code_suggestions]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

pr_commands = ["/improve --pr_code_suggestions.summarize=true", ...]

[pr_code_suggestions] # /improve #
extra_instructions="""
Emphasize the following aspects:
- Does the code logic cover relevant edge cases?
- Is the code logic clear and easy to understand?
- Is the code logic efficient?
...
"""

/analyze

PR Analysis

• This screen contains a list of code components that were changed in this PR.
• You can initiate specific actions for each component, by checking the relevant boxes.
• After you check a box, the action will be performed automatically by PR-Agent.
• Results will appear as a comment on the PR, typically after 30-60 seconds.

/analyze

Generated tests for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'

extract_hunk_lines_from_patch (function) ^[+52/-0]



Component signature:

def extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(patch: str, file_name, line_start, line_end, side) -> tuple[str, str]:


Tests for code changes in extract_hunk_lines_from_patch function:

[happy path] extract_hunk_lines_from_patch should correctly extract lines from a patch for the 'right' side when the line range is within a single hunk test_code: import pytest def test_extract_lines_right_side_single_hunk(): patch = """@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -old line +new line""" file_name = "example.py" line_start = 1 line_end = 1 side = "right" expected_patch_with_lines = "\n\n## file: 'example.py'\n\n@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@\n -old line\n +new line" expected_selected_lines = " +new line" result = extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(patch, file_name, line_start, line_end, side) assert result == (expected_patch_with_lines, expected_selected_lines), "The extracted lines do not match the expected output for the right side."

[edge case] extract_hunk_lines_from_patch should handle patches with 'no newline at end of file' without including this line in the output test_code: import pytest def test_handle_no_newline_at_end_of_file(): patch = """@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -old line +new line \ No newline at end of file""" file_name = "example.py" line_start = 1 line_end = 1 side = "right" expected_patch_with_lines = "\n\n## file: 'example.py'\n\n@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@\n -old line\n +new line" expected_selected_lines = " +new line" result = extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(patch, file_name, line_start, line_end, side) assert result == (expected_patch_with_lines, expected_selected_lines), "The function did not correctly handle patches with 'no newline at end of file'."

[edge case] extract_hunk_lines_from_patch should return an empty string for both outputs when the specified line range does not exist within any hunk for the specified side test_code: import pytest def test_line_range_outside_hunks(): patch = """@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -old line +new line""" file_name = "example.py" line_start = 3 line_end = 4 side = "right" expected_patch_with_lines = "\n\n## file: 'example.py'\n\n@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@\n -old line\n +new line" expected_selected_lines = "" result = extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(patch, file_name, line_start, line_end, side) assert result == (expected_patch_with_lines, expected_selected_lines), "The function should return empty strings when the line range is outside the hunks."

---

✨ Usage guide:

---

The test tool generate tests for a selected component, based on the PR code changes.
It can be invoked manually by commenting on any PR:

/test component_name

where 'component_name' is the name of a specific component in the PR. To get a list of the components that changed in the PR, use the analyze tool.
Language that are currently supported: Python, Java, C++, JavaScript, TypeScript.

Configuration options:

• num_tests: number of tests to generate. Default is 3.
• testing_framework: the testing framework to use. If not set, for Python it will use pytest, for Java it will use JUnit, for C++ it will use Catch2, and for JavaScript and TypeScript it will use jest.
• avoid_mocks: if set to true, the tool will try to avoid using mocks in the generated tests. Note that even if this option is set to true, the tool might still use mocks if it cannot generate a test without them. Default is true.
• extra_instructions: Optional extra instructions to the tool. For example: "use the following mock injection scheme: ...".
• file: in case there are several components with the same name, you can specify the relevant file.
• class_name: in case there are several components with the same name in the same file, you can specify the relevant class name.

See more information about the test tool in the docs.

Generated docstring for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'

extract_hunk_lines_from_patch (function) ^[+52/-0]

Component signature:



def extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(patch: str, file_name, line_start, line_end, side) -> tuple[str, str]:

Docstring:


"""
Extracts the lines from a patch that correspond to a specific hunk.

Args:
    patch (str): The patch string.
    file_name: The name of the file in the patch.
    line_start: The starting line number of the hunk.
    line_end: The ending line number of the hunk.
    side: The side of the hunk to extract ('left' or 'right').

Returns:
    tuple[str, str]: A tuple containing the patch string with line numbers and the selected lines from the hunk.

Raises:
    None
"""

Generated code suggestions for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'

extract_hunk_lines_from_patch (function) ^[+52/-0]



Component signature:

def extract_hunk_lines_from_patch(patch: str, file_name, line_start, line_end, side) -> tuple[str, str]:


Suggestions and improvements for code changes in extract_hunk_lines_from_patch function:

	Suggestions
best practice	Use specific exception handling instead of a bare except.                     Replace the bare except: with a more specific exception handling to avoid catching unexpected exceptions. Use ValueError to catch invalid integer conversion. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py -except: # '@@ -0,0 +1 @@' case +except ValueError: # '@@ -0,0 +1 @@' case
performance	Refactor repeated lowercasing of the side variable.              Refactor the repeated side.lower() checks into a single check at the beginning of the function to improve performance and readability. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py -if side.lower() == 'left': +side = side.lower() +if side == 'left': Use join() for string concatenation for better performance.      Instead of manually concatenating strings with newlines, use '\n'.join() for building patch_with_lines_str and selected_lines for better performance and readability. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py -patch_with_lines_str += f'\n{header_line}\n' -selected_lines += line + '\n' +patch_with_lines_str_lines = [f'\n{header_line}'] +selected_lines_list = [line] +# At the end of the function, before return: +patch_with_lines_str = '\n'.join(patch_with_lines_str_lines).rstrip() +selected_lines = '\n'.join(selected_lines_list).rstrip()
enhancement	Use list comprehension for more Pythonic code.                                Use a more Pythonic way to replace None values in res with 0 using list comprehension. pr_agent/algo/git_patch_processing.py -for i in range(len(res)): - if res[i] is None: - res[i] = 0 +res = [0 if r is None else r for r in res]

/config

Possible Configurations:

pr_description.publish_labels = True
pr_description.publish_description_as_comment = False
pr_description.add_original_user_description = True
pr_description.keep_original_user_title = True
pr_description.use_bullet_points = True
pr_description.extra_instructions = ''
pr_description.enable_pr_type = True
pr_description.final_update_message = True
pr_description.enable_help_text = True
pr_description.enable_semantic_files_types = True
pr_description.collapsible_file_list = 'adaptive'
pr_description.inline_file_summary = False
pr_description.use_description_markers = False
pr_description.include_generated_by_header = True

pr_questions.enable_help_text = True

pr_custom_suggestions.prompt = 'The suggestions should focus only on the following:\n- ...\n- ...\n...\n'
pr_custom_suggestions.num_code_suggestions = 4
pr_custom_suggestions.enable_help_text = True

pr_add_docs.extra_instructions = ''
pr_add_docs.docs_style = 'Sphinx'
pr_add_docs.file = ''
pr_add_docs.class_name = ''

pr_update_changelog.push_changelog_changes = False
pr_update_changelog.extra_instructions = ''

pr_analyze.enable_help_text = True

pr_test.extra_instructions = ''
pr_test.testing_framework = ''
pr_test.num_tests = 3
pr_test.avoid_mocks = True
pr_test.file = ''
pr_test.class_name = ''
pr_test.enable_help_text = True

pr_improve_component.num_code_suggestions = 4
pr_improve_component.extra_instructions = ''
pr_improve_component.file = ''
pr_improve_component.class_name = ''

pr_similar_issue.skip_comments = False
pr_similar_issue.force_update_dataset = False
pr_similar_issue.max_issues_to_scan = 500
pr_similar_issue.vectordb = 'pinecone'

pr_reviewer.require_focused_review = False
pr_reviewer.require_score_review = False
pr_reviewer.require_tests_review = True
pr_reviewer.require_estimate_effort_to_review = True
pr_reviewer.require_soc2_ticket = False
pr_reviewer.soc2_ticket_prompt = 'Does the PR description include a link to ticket in a project management system (e.g., Jira, Asana, Trello, etc.) ?'
pr_reviewer.num_code_suggestions = 4
pr_reviewer.inline_code_comments = False
pr_reviewer.ask_and_reflect = False
pr_reviewer.remove_previous_review_comment = False
pr_reviewer.persistent_comment = True
pr_reviewer.extra_instructions = ''
pr_reviewer.enable_review_labels_security = True
pr_reviewer.enable_review_labels_effort = True
pr_reviewer.require_all_thresholds_for_incremental_review = False
pr_reviewer.minimal_commits_for_incremental_review = 0
pr_reviewer.minimal_minutes_for_incremental_review = 0
pr_reviewer.enable_help_text = True
pr_reviewer.enable_auto_approval = True
pr_reviewer.maximal_review_effort = 5

pr_code_suggestions.max_context_tokens = 8000
pr_code_suggestions.num_code_suggestions = 4
pr_code_suggestions.summarize = True
pr_code_suggestions.extra_instructions = ''
pr_code_suggestions.rank_suggestions = False
pr_code_suggestions.enable_help_text = True
pr_code_suggestions.auto_extended_mode = True
pr_code_suggestions.num_code_suggestions_per_chunk = 5
pr_code_suggestions.max_number_of_calls = 3
pr_code_suggestions.parallel_calls = True
pr_code_suggestions.rank_extended_suggestions = False
pr_code_suggestions.final_clip_factor = 0.8

🔍 Finding similar code for 'reply_to_comment_from_comment_id'

🔍 Finding similar code for 'reply_to_comment_from_comment_id'

🔍 Finding similar code for 'reply_to_comment_from_comment_id'

Finding similar code for 'reply_to_comment_from_comment_id'

Work in progress ...

Finding similar code for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'

Work in progress ...

🔍 Finding similar code for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'

🔍 Finding similar code for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'

🔍 Finding similar code for 'extract_hunk_lines_from_patch'