feat: add read tool - #6
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 31 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: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughChangesRead tool integration
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant ReadTool
participant RunnerContext
participant FileSystem
participant SessionState
Caller->>ReadTool: call with file path and range options
ReadTool->>RunnerContext: resolve path relative to cwd
ReadTool->>FileSystem: read metadata and contents
ReadTool->>SessionState: append FileReadEntry
ReadTool-->>Caller: return formatted text or multipart image output
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4✅ Passed checks (4 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
crates/dch-tools/src/registry.rs (1)
9-10: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueDoc comment phrasing is slightly misleading.
"Each concrete tool registers itself here" implies tools self-register, but
builtin_registryactively registers them. Consider rewording to "Each builtin tool is registered here" for clarity.🤖 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 `@crates/dch-tools/src/registry.rs` around lines 9 - 10, Update the doc comment above builtin_registry to state that each builtin tool is registered here, avoiding language that implies tools self-register. Preserve the existing description of runner startup invocation and later task registrations.
🤖 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 `@crates/dch-tools/src/read.rs`:
- Around line 285-291: Update the truncation logic in the read flow to check
character boundaries against shown_content, the same string later sliced by
shown_content.get(..cut), rather than the full content. Preserve the
MAX_FILE_READ_BYTES cap for partial views, and add a test covering multibyte
characters with a nonzero offset that verifies the returned content remains
truncated.
- Around line 141-156: After retrieving metadata in the read flow, validate
`metadata.is_file()` before the size check and file read. For directory paths,
return a clear `ToolOutput::error_text` message explaining that the path is a
directory and should reference a file, while preserving the existing handling
for regular files.
- Around line 396-402: Update parse_line_range so a non-empty left side with a
non-empty right side parses and validates the right endpoint, returning the
equivalent inclusive range (for example, 50:100 yields (50, 51)); retain
MAX_FILE_READ_LINES only for open-ended ranges such as 50:, and reject invalid
or non-positive endpoints consistently with the existing dash-range handling.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@crates/dch-tools/src/registry.rs`:
- Around line 9-10: Update the doc comment above builtin_registry to state that
each builtin tool is registered here, avoiding language that implies tools
self-register. Preserve the existing description of runner startup invocation
and later task registrations.
🪄 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: ec32cc07-8c7d-4824-81cb-60897d109f6d
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
Cargo.tomlcrates/dch-tools/Cargo.tomlcrates/dch-tools/src/lib.rscrates/dch-tools/src/read.rscrates/dch-tools/src/registry.rscrates/dch-tools/src/util.rs
No description provided.