Add WORKFLOW.md, issue templates, and PR template (#7)#48
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 59 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdds GitHub issue templates for bug, feature, and task requests, a pull request template, and ChangesGitHub Workflow Setup
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Overall, this looks great, thanks! Let's remove the redundant label metadata for now. |
![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
♻️ Duplicate comments (2)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml (1)
4-5: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winRemove redundant
labelsfield.The
type: Featureat Line 6 already classifies this issue; theenhancementlabel duplicates that metadata. A previous review explicitly requested removing this redundancy.-labels: - - enhancement🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml around lines 4 - 5, The feature request template contains a redundant labels entry that duplicates the issue type metadata. Remove the labels field from the feature_request YAML so the template relies on the existing type setting, and keep the rest of the ISSUE_TEMPLATE content unchanged..github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml (1)
4-5: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick winRemove redundant
labelsfield.The
type: Bugat Line 6 already classifies this issue; thebuglabel duplicates that metadata. A previous review explicitly requested removing this redundancy.-labels: - - bug🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml around lines 4 - 5, The issue is a redundant issue-template label definition in the bug report template. Remove the `labels` field from the bug report YAML so the template relies on `type: Bug` alone, and update the `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml` configuration accordingly without changing the rest of the template metadata.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md:
- Line 8: The PR checklist item contains a typo in the command name. Update the
text in the pull request template to use the correct tool name, changing the
`prek` reference in the checklist entry to `pre-commit` so the documented
validation command matches the actual workflow.
---
Duplicate comments:
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml:
- Around line 4-5: The issue is a redundant issue-template label definition in
the bug report template. Remove the `labels` field from the bug report YAML so
the template relies on `type: Bug` alone, and update the
`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml` configuration accordingly without
changing the rest of the template metadata.
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml:
- Around line 4-5: The feature request template contains a redundant labels
entry that duplicates the issue type metadata. Remove the labels field from the
feature_request YAML so the template relies on the existing type setting, and
keep the rest of the ISSUE_TEMPLATE content unchanged.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 90dffa80-1830-4984-85b9-7a6a675692f7
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/task.yml.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdWORKFLOW.md
Co-authored-by: Brylie Oxley <brylie@protonmail.com>
brylie
force-pushed
the
doc-7-project-workflow
branch
from
21dae43 to
c0c0039
Compare
|
@BiswasNehaa, I've rebased this branch on |
Test Coverage Report✅ 87% coverage (required: ≥80%) Coverage meets the project threshold. 🎉 |
Co-authored-by: Brylie Oxley <brylie@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Brylie Oxley <brylie@protonmail.com>
|
BiswasNehaa
left a comment
BiswasNehaa
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
appiled the suggestions
2 participants
Closes #7
This PR closes issue #7 by adding proper workflow documentation and templates that were missing. I added a WORKFLOW.md covering the project board fields, label structure, and noted that issue types aren’t strictly consistent yet. Also included three GitHub issue templates (bug, feature, task) using YAML forms to match the current workflow. A PR template was added too, aligning with the checks already defined in CONTRIBUTING.md. All files were validated (YAML + markdownlint), so everything is clean and working as expected.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation