General: Update pull request template test coverage section
#9870
Conversation
florian-glombik
changed the title
Development: Update test coverage sectionGeneral: Update test coverage section
florian-glombik
changed the title
General: Update test coverage sectionGeneral: Update pull request template test coverage section
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on enhancing the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md (1)
114-117: LGTM! Clear and well-structured test coverage documentation.The enhanced test coverage section provides clear and comprehensive guidance:
- Automated script option for generating coverage tables
- Alternative methods for obtaining coverage data
- Clear requirements for line coverage thresholds
- Emphasis on meaningful assertions/expect statements
- Well-formatted example table
Consider adding a link to the script's documentation or usage examples, as new developers might need more guidance on using
generate_code_cov_table.py.
florian-glombik
dismissed stale reviews from JohannesStoehr, cremertim, az108, and coderabbitai[bot]
via
8bca0b2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
supporting_scripts/generate_code_cov_table/README.md (2)
Line range hint
1-24: Enhance security guidance for token handlingWhile the documentation includes a brief security warning, consider strengthening the security guidance:
- Specify the minimum required token scope to follow the principle of least privilege
- Add recommendations for token expiration
- Consider removing the
.envexample entirely to discourage storing tokens in filesHere's a suggested addition after the token section:
+ ### Token Security Best Practices + + 1. **Minimum Required Scope**: Only enable the "public_repo" scope for the token + 2. **Token Expiration**: Set an expiration date of 30 days or less + 3. **Token Storage**: Never commit the token or store it in any files + 4. **Token Rotation**: Regularly rotate your tokens, especially if you suspect they've been compromised
Line range hint
67-71: Fix inconsistency in branch specification exampleThe example command for generating a coverage report for a specific branch doesn't show the
--branch-nameparameter.- python3 generate_code_cov_table.py + python3 generate_code_cov_table.py --branch-name feature/my-branch
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md(1 hunks)supporting_scripts/generate_code_cov_table/README.md(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md
🔇 Additional comments (1)
supporting_scripts/generate_code_cov_table/README.md (1)
49-49: LGTM! Good UX improvement
Adding the hyperlink to the GitHub token settings page makes it easier for new developers to find the correct location for token creation.
Checklist
General
Motivation and Context
During a discussion within the last "All-hands" developer meeting it was mentioned that for new developers the
Test Coveragesection description is not formulated optimally. This PR aims to improve it and makes it easier for new developers to understand the Artemis development lifecycle.Description
Improves the description in the PR template to make it easier for new developers to understand how to create the coverage table.
Reordering, rephrasing, and updating of the description.
Steps for Testing
Testserver States
Note
These badges show the state of the test servers.
Green = Currently available, Red = Currently locked
Click on the badges to get to the test servers.
Review Progress
Code Review
Summary by CodeRabbit