feat: configure option

[mattzcarey]

with @fabienzucchet

[github-actions]

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/args.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The getYargs function is quite long and does multiple things. Consider breaking it down into smaller, more manageable functions. For example, you could have a separate function for handling the case where argv.ci && !argv._[0] is true, and another for when !argv._[0] is true.

2. The getYargs function is also not very testable because it has side effects (console logging and importing modules). Consider passing in dependencies as arguments to make the function pure and easier to test.

Example:

export const getYargs = async (inquirer = import("inquirer")) => {
  // ...
  if (!argv._[0]) {
    const { default: inquirerModule } = await inquirer;
    // ...
  }
  // ...
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/config.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The openAIApiKey and getGitHubEnvVariables functions both throw an error if certain environment variables are not set. This is a good practice, but it would be even better if you could provide more information in the error message about how to set these variables.

Example:

if (!process.env.OPENAI_API_KEY) {
  throw new Error("OPENAI_API_KEY is not set. Please set it in your .env file or in your environment variables.");
}

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/configure/index.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The configure function is quite long and does multiple things. Consider breaking it down into smaller, more manageable functions. For example, you could have a separate function for creating the GitHub Actions workflow, and another for handling the OpenAI API key.

2. The configure function is also not very testable because it has side effects (console logging and executing shell commands). Consider passing in dependencies as arguments to make the function pure and easier to test.

Example:

export const configure = async (fs = require("fs"), execSync = require("child_process").execSync) => {
  // ...
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/index.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The main function could be improved by using a switch statement or an object lookup instead of multiple if-else statements. This would make the code more readable and easier to extend in the future.

Example:

const commands = {
  configure: async () => {
    const { configure } = await import("./configure");
    await configure();
  },
  review: async () => {
    const { review } = await import("./review");
    await review(argv);
  },
};

const main = async () => {
  const argv = await getYargs();
  const command = commands[argv._[0]];

  if (command) {
    await command();
  } else {
    console.error("Unknown command");
    process.exit(1);
  }
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/review/askAI.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The askAI function is quite long and does multiple things. Consider breaking it down into smaller, more manageable functions. For example, you could have a separate function for collecting and logging feedback, and another for creating the summary.

2. The askAI function is also not very testable because it has side effects (console logging). Consider passing in dependencies as arguments to make the function pure and easier to test.

Example:

export const askAI = async (prompts: string[], console = global.console) => {
  // ...
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/review/commentOnPR.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The commentOnPR function could be improved by using a try-catch block to handle errors. This would make the code more robust and easier to debug.

Example:

export const commentOnPR = async (comment: string) => {
  try {
    // ...
  } catch (error) {
    console.error(`Failed to comment on PR: ${error}`);
    throw error;
  }
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/review/constants.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The instructionPrompt string is quite long and hard to read. Consider breaking it down into smaller strings and concatenating them. This would make the code more readable.

Example:

const instruction1 = "As a senior developer, your task is to review a set of pull requests.";
const instruction2 = "You are given a list of filenames and their partial contents, but note that you might not have the full context of the code.";
// ...
export const instructionPrompt = instruction1 + "\n" + instruction2 + "\n" + // ...

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/review/constructPrompt.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The constructPromptsArray function could be improved by using a try-catch block to handle errors. This would make the code more robust and easier to debug.

Example:

export const constructPromptsArray = async (fileNames: string[]) => {
  try {
    // ...
  } catch (error) {
    console.error(`Failed to construct prompts array: ${error}`);
    throw error;
  }
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/review/getFileNames.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The getFileNames function could be improved by using a try-catch block to handle errors. This would make the code more robust and easier to debug.

Example:

export const getFileNames = async (isCi: boolean) => {
  try {
    // ...
  } catch (error) {
    console.error(`Failed to get file names: ${error}`);
    throw error;
  }
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/src/review/index.ts

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The review function could be improved by using a try-catch block to handle errors. This would make the code more robust and easier to debug.

Example:

export const review = async (yargs: ReviewArgs) => {
  try {
    // ...
  } catch (error) {
    console.error(`Failed to review: ${error}`);
    throw error;
  }
};

LOGAF Level 3 - /home/runner/work/code-review-gpt/code-review-gpt/utils/build.js

This code is generally good, but there are areas for potential improvement.

1. The build function could be improved by using a try-catch block to handle errors. This would make the code more robust and easier to debug.

Example:

build(sharedConfig).then(() => {
  try {
    // ...
  } catch (error) {
    console.error(`Failed to build: ${error}`);
    throw error;
  }
});

---

🔨💡🧪

---

Powered by Code Review GPT