Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@italopessoa
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 20, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request focus on enhancing the CI/CD pipeline and application configuration for the Bmb.Production.Api project. Key updates include the introduction of a new build argument API_VERSION in the Docker build process, modifications to the Swagger documentation to reflect dynamic assembly versioning, and improvements to logging and JSON options in the application. Additionally, the workflow now checks for the existence of a VERSION file and creates a .auto.tfvars file for Terraform deployment, ensuring better version management and configuration.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
.github/workflows/build-and-deploy.yaml Added API_VERSION build argument; uncommented installation of dotnet-coverage; updated semantic-release job to check for VERSION file; created .auto.tfvars file in create-app job.
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Dockerfile Added ARG API_VERSION to allow dynamic versioning during the publish stage.
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Extensions/SwaggerExtensions.cs Updated SetupSwagger method to use dynamic assembly version for Swagger documentation.
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Program.cs Enhanced logging with environment name; streamlined JSON options; updated Swagger UI configuration to use dynamic endpoint based on assembly version.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant CI/CD Pipeline
    participant Docker
    participant Swagger
    participant Application

    User->>CI/CD Pipeline: Trigger build
    CI/CD Pipeline->>Docker: Build image with API_VERSION
    Docker->>CI/CD Pipeline: Image built
    CI/CD Pipeline->>Terraform: Create .auto.tfvars with image version
    CI/CD Pipeline->>Swagger: Update documentation with assembly version
    Swagger->>Application: Serve updated API documentation
    Application->>User: Respond with Swagger UI
Loading

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?

❀️ Share
πŸͺ§ Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai or @coderabbitai title anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Dockerfile (2)

21-22: LGTM! Version injection implementation looks correct.

The addition of API_VERSION build argument and its usage in the dotnet publish command is the right approach for injecting the semantic version into the assembly.

Consider adding a comment above the ARG declaration to document its purpose and expected format:

+# API_VERSION: Semantic version (e.g., 1.0.0) injected during build by semantic-release
ARG API_VERSION

Line range hint 9-10: Consider documenting the port change decision.

While not part of this PR's changes, there are commented-out port exposures (8080/8081). If these are meant to be permanently replaced by 80/443, consider removing the commented lines or adding a comment explaining the decision.

src/Bmb.Production.Api/Program.cs (1)

Line range hint 1-97: Well-structured application setup following Clean Architecture

The application configuration demonstrates good practices:

  • Proper separation of concerns using extension methods
  • Comprehensive error handling with global exception handler
  • Health checks integration
  • Structured logging with environment enrichment

Consider adding API versioning middleware (e.g., Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Versioning) to complement the Swagger versioning for proper API version management.

🧰 Tools
πŸͺ› GitHub Check: build-and-test

[warning] 53-53:
The type 'Bmb.Auth.JwtOptions?' cannot be used as type parameter 'TService' in the generic type or method 'ServiceCollectionServiceExtensions.AddSingleton(IServiceCollection, TService)'. Nullability of type argument 'Bmb.Auth.JwtOptions?' doesn't match 'class' constraint.


[warning] 66-66:
Dereference of a possibly null reference.

.github/workflows/build-and-deploy.yaml (1)

169-170: LGTM! Consider adding version validation.

The addition of the API_VERSION build argument is good. However, consider adding validation to ensure the version format is correct before passing it to the Docker build.

 build-args: |
-  API_VERSION=${{ steps.sanitize-version.outputs.version }}
+  API_VERSION=$(echo "${{ steps.sanitize-version.outputs.version }}" | grep -E '^[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+(-[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?(\+[0-9A-Za-z-]+(\.[0-9A-Za-z-]+)*)?$' || echo '0.0.0')
πŸ“œ Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

πŸ“₯ Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dfb469b and 96a5812.

πŸ“’ Files selected for processing (4)
  • .github/workflows/build-and-deploy.yaml (1 hunks)
  • src/Bmb.Production.Api/Dockerfile (1 hunks)
  • src/Bmb.Production.Api/Extensions/SwaggerExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • src/Bmb.Production.Api/Program.cs (4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
πŸ““ Path-based instructions (2)
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Extensions/SwaggerExtensions.cs (1)

Pattern **/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.

src/Bmb.Production.Api/Program.cs (1)

Pattern **/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.

πŸͺ› GitHub Check: build-and-test
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Extensions/SwaggerExtensions.cs

[warning] 16-16:
Dereference of a possibly null reference.

src/Bmb.Production.Api/Program.cs

[warning] 66-66:
Dereference of a possibly null reference.

πŸ”‡ Additional comments (5)
src/Bmb.Production.Api/Extensions/SwaggerExtensions.cs (2)

Line range hint 8-45: LGTM - Clean Architecture and SOLID Principles

The code follows Clean Architecture principles:

  • Properly placed in Extensions namespace
  • Follows Single Responsibility Principle
  • Uses dependency injection via extension methods
  • Correctly scoped as internal infrastructure code
🧰 Tools
πŸͺ› GitHub Check: build-and-test

[warning] 16-16:
Dereference of a possibly null reference.


16-18: Consider semantic versioning format validation

While the version formatting looks good, consider validating if the version follows semantic versioning (SemVer) format since this is being used in the API documentation.

Let's verify the version format in other files:

βœ… Verification successful

Version format follows semantic versioning and is properly sourced

The version format used in the Swagger documentation is correctly following semantic versioning (Major.Minor.Build) and is properly sourced from the executing assembly's version. This is evident from:

  1. The version is obtained from the assembly version: Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version
  2. The version components are properly used in both the Swagger endpoint URL and documentation:
    • Swagger endpoint: $"/swagger/v{version}/swagger.yaml"
    • API Info: Version = $"v{version.Major}.{version.Minor}.{version.Build}"
  3. The version is controlled through the build process as seen in the Dockerfile: /p:Version=$API_VERSION
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for version format in csproj files and other potential version sources
rg -g "*.csproj" -A 2 "<Version>|<AssemblyVersion>" 
rg -g "*.props" -A 2 "<Version>|<AssemblyVersion>"

Length of output: 255


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for project files and version-related patterns
fd -e csproj . 

Length of output: 781


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for version-related code in the entire codebase
rg -g "!{bin,obj}/*" "Version\s*=|AssemblyVersion|FileVersion" 

Length of output: 9381


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Look for the specific version usage in swagger configuration
ast-grep --pattern 'SwaggerDoc($_, new OpenApiInfo { $$$'

Length of output: 59


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the API version configuration and assembly info
cat src/Bmb.Production.Api/Bmb.Production.Api.csproj

# Also check for version configuration in Program.cs or Startup.cs
fd -e cs -x cat {} \; -g "*Program.cs"

Length of output: 4951

🧰 Tools
πŸͺ› GitHub Check: build-and-test

[warning] 16-16:
Dereference of a possibly null reference.

src/Bmb.Production.Api/Program.cs (2)

43-43: LGTM! Good practice using JsonStringEnumConverter

The JSON configuration is properly streamlined and the use of JsonStringEnumConverter ensures proper enum serialization in the API responses.


56-56: LGTM! Proper middleware ordering

The middleware pipeline is correctly ordered for security (HTTPS -> CORS -> Authentication -> Authorization).

Also applies to: 76-76, 80-80, 82-82

.github/workflows/build-and-deploy.yaml (1)

Line range hint 91-112: Review error handling in semantic-release job.

The semantic-release job uses continue-on-error: true and has a fallback mechanism for version retrieval, but there are potential issues:

  1. The error check if [ $? -ne 0 ] might not catch all failure cases since it's after multiple commands
  2. The fallback mechanism assumes the repository has at least one release

Consider restructuring the error handling:

 - name: Release
   id: semantic-release
-  continue-on-error: true
   env:
     GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
   run: |
+    set -e
     npx semantic-release
-    if [ -f VERSION ]; then
-      VERSION=$(cat VERSION)
-    else
-      echo "VERSION file not found, getting latest version from latest release"
-      VERSION=$(curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/${{ github.repository }}/releases/latest | jq -r '.tag_name' | sed 's/v//')
-    fi
-    echo "version=$VERSION" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
-
-    if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
-      echo "Release failed, getting latest version from lates release"	
-      echo "version=$(curl -s https://api.github.com/repos/${{ github.repository }}/releases/latest | jq -r '.tag_name' | sed 's/v//')" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
-    fi
+    VERSION=$(cat VERSION 2>/dev/null || curl -sf https://api.github.com/repos/${{ github.repository }}/releases/latest | jq -r '.tag_name' | sed 's/v//' || echo "0.0.0")
+    echo "version=$VERSION" >> $GITHUB_OUTPUT
βœ… Verification successful

Let me verify the semantic-release configuration to understand the complete setup.


Let me check the actual workflow file to see the complete context of the release job.


Improve error handling in semantic-release job to handle first-time releases

The review comment is correct. The current implementation has several issues:

  1. The repository has no releases yet (confirmed by the API check), which means the fallback mechanism will fail.
  2. The $? check is placed after multiple commands, making it unreliable for error detection.
  3. Using continue-on-error: true without proper error handling can mask critical failures.

The suggested fix in the review is appropriate as it:

  • Removes continue-on-error to prevent masking critical failures
  • Uses set -e to fail fast on any error
  • Provides a safe fallback to "0.0.0" when no releases exist
  • Simplifies the version extraction using a single command chain with proper error handling
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if the repository has any releases
gh api repos/$GITHUB_REPOSITORY/releases/latest -q '.tag_name' 2>/dev/null || echo "No releases found - fallback mechanism will fail"

Length of output: 240


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for semantic-release config files
fd -e json -e yaml -e yml -e js -e cjs -e mjs -e config.js -e config.cjs -e config.mjs -e rc -e rc.js -e rc.json -e rc.yaml -e rc.yml --exec echo "=== {} ===" --exec cat {}

# Check package.json for semantic-release config and dependencies
fd package.json --exec echo "=== {} ===" --exec cat {}

Length of output: 814


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the complete workflow file
cat .github/workflows/build-and-deploy.yaml

Length of output: 8350

{
internal static void SetupSwagger(this IServiceCollection services)
{
var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Add null check for assembly version

The assembly version might be null in some edge cases. Add a null check to prevent potential runtime exceptions.

Apply this diff:

-var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
+var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version 
+    ?? throw new InvalidOperationException("Assembly version is not available");
πŸ“ Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version
?? throw new InvalidOperationException("Assembly version is not available");

Comment on lines +64 to +68
options.SwaggerEndpoint($"/swagger/v{version}/swagger.yaml", $"v{version}");
});
}

app.UseHealthChecks("/healthz", new HealthCheckOptions
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Add null checks for assembly version

The current implementation might throw a NullReferenceException if the assembly version is not set.

Consider adding null checks:

- var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version.Major;
+ var assemblyVersion = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
+ var version = assemblyVersion?.Major ?? 1; // Fallback to version 1 if not set
  options.SwaggerEndpoint($"/swagger/v{version}/swagger.yaml", $"v{version}");
πŸ“ Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
app.UseSwaggerUI(options =>
{
var version = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version.Major;
options.SwaggerEndpoint($"/swagger/v{version}/swagger.yaml", $"v{version}");
});
app.UseSwaggerUI(options =>
{
var assemblyVersion = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetName().Version;
var version = assemblyVersion?.Major ?? 1; // Fallback to version 1 if not set
options.SwaggerEndpoint($"/swagger/v{version}/swagger.yaml", $"v{version}");
});
🧰 Tools
πŸͺ› GitHub Check: build-and-test

[warning] 66-66:
Dereference of a possibly null reference.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

@italopessoa italopessoa merged commit c65f084 into main Nov 20, 2024
7 checks passed
@github-actions
Copy link

πŸŽ‰ This PR is included in version 1.1.6 πŸŽ‰

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot πŸ“¦πŸš€

@github-actions
Copy link

πŸŽ‰ This PR is included in version 1.1.7 πŸŽ‰

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot πŸ“¦πŸš€

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants