feat: use detect-port v2 #275
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@fengmk2 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 1 minutes and 43 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve the deletion of a CodeQL analysis workflow, updates to a Node.js CI configuration, enhancements to the Changes
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
fengmk2
force-pushed
the
use-detect-port-v2
branch
from
faac2ff to
bf888f3
Compare
|
New and removed dependencies detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎
🚮 Removed packages: npm/@types/[email protected] |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🛑 Comments failed to post (2)
package.json (1)
45-45: 💡 Codebase verification
Node.js version compatibility issues detected with several dependencies
Several dependencies require Node.js versions higher than the current engines field (>= 16.19.0):
c8: requires Node.js >= 18globby: requires Node.js >= 18mocha: requires Node.js >= 18.18.0cpy: requires Node.js >= 18esbuild: requires Node.js >= 18eslint-config-egg: requires Node.js >= 18.19.0The project needs to either:
- Upgrade the engines field to Node.js >= 18.19.0 to satisfy all dependencies
- Or downgrade these dependencies to versions compatible with Node.js 16.19.0
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify Node.js version compatibility
The @types/node upgrade to ^22.10.1 aligns with the engines field requiring Node.js >= 16.19.0. However, we should verify that all dependencies support this Node.js version range.
Also applies to: 89-91
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check package.json files of direct dependencies for Node.js version requirements for pkg in $(jq -r '.dependencies,.devDependencies|keys[]' package.json); do echo "Checking $pkg..." npm view $pkg engines.node doneLength of output: 5411
.github/workflows/nodejs.yml (1)
16-16:
⚠️ Potential issueReconsider including Node.js 22
Node.js 22 is currently in development/alpha stage and not recommended for production use. Consider waiting for its stable release before including it in the test matrix.
Suggested change:
- version: '16.19.0, 16, 18, 20, 22' + version: '16.19.0, 16, 18, 20'📝 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.version: '16.19.0, 16, 18, 20'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
README.md (1)
220-220: Consider enhancing the attribution textWhile the contrib.rocks integration is a great improvement for maintainability, consider making the attribution text more descriptive:
-Made with [contributors-img](https://contrib.rocks). +Made with [contrib.rocks](https://contrib.rocks) - a tool for visualizing GitHub contributors.Also applies to: 222-222
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml(0 hunks).github/workflows/nodejs.yml(1 hunks)README.md(3 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- .github/workflows/nodejs.yml
- package.json
🔇 Additional comments (1)
README.md (1)
8-8: LGTM: Node.js version badge addition is well-structured!
The badge follows the existing pattern and style conventions, providing valuable information about Node.js version compatibility.
Also applies to: 20-21
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #275 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 7 13 +6
Lines 49 95 +46
Branches 11 19 +8
=========================================
+ Hits 49 95 +46 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
test/cmd/dev.test.ts (1)
194-194: LGTM! Consider centralizing version check logic.The version check modification correctly limits the
egg.reverttest to Node.js versions 18-20. However, this logic is duplicated across test files.Consider creating a shared helper:
+// test/helpers/version.ts +export const NODE_VERSION = Number(process.version.substring(1, 3)); +export const isNodeVersionSupported = () => NODE_VERSION >= 18 && NODE_VERSION <= 20; + +// In test files -if (version < 18 || version > 20) return; +if (!isNodeVersionSupported()) return;test/ts.test.ts (1)
83-83: Consider keeping the debug statement commented outUncommenting the
.debug()statement seems unrelated to the PR's objective of updating detect-port. Unless this debug output is specifically needed for troubleshooting issues with the new detect-port version, consider keeping it commented out to maintain cleaner test output.This test case is already properly handling platform-specific behavior by skipping on darwin due to a known issue (as noted in the comment above).
- .debug() + // .debug()
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
test/cmd/cov.test.ts(1 hunks)test/cmd/dev.test.ts(1 hunks)test/cmd/test.test.ts(1 hunks)test/ts.test.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
test/cmd/cov.test.ts (1)
192-192: LGTM! Consider centralizing version check logic.
The version check modification correctly limits the egg.revert test to Node.js versions 18-20. However, this logic is duplicated across test files.
test/cmd/test.test.ts (1)
311-311: LGTM! Consider centralizing version check logic.
The version check modification correctly limits the egg.revert test to Node.js versions 18-20. However, this logic is duplicated across test files.
[skip ci] ## [6.11.0](v6.10.0...v6.11.0) (2024-12-08) ### Features * use detect-port v2 ([#275](#275)) ([4816db4](4816db4))
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores