feat: command specific configuration #13
Conversation
|
Seems you are using me but didn't get OPENAI_API_KEY seted in Variables/Secrets for this repo. you could follow readme for more information |
|
Thanks @2lambda123 for opening this PR! For COLLABORATOR only :
|
|
Unable to locate .performanceTestingBot config file |
|
Processing PR updates... |
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request introduces a new feature that allows for command-specific configuration in File-Level Changes
Tips
|
Their most recently public accepted PR is: #11 |
WalkthroughThis update enhances the Changes
Poem
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
PR Details of @2lambda123 in npm-rfcs :
|
labels-and-badges
bot
added
NO JIRA
PR summaryThis Pull Request introduces a new feature that allows for command-specific configurations in the Suggestion
Disclaimer: This comment was entirely generated using AI. Be aware that the information provided may be incorrect. Current plan usage: 34.77% Have feedback or need help? |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @2lambda123 - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
Overall Comments:
- Consider providing comprehensive documentation on configuration precedence, including how command-specific configurations interact with other configuration levels (e.g., CLI arguments, project/user/global configs). This will be crucial for user understanding and adoption of the feature.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟢 General issues: all looks good
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟡 Documentation: 2 issues found
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| Implement a mechanism to scope configuration to commands explicitely. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (documentation): Typo in 'explicitely'.
The word 'explicitely' should be corrected to 'explicitly'.
|
|
||
| ## Rationale and Alternatives | ||
|
|
||
| Currently, the only alternative strategy users have is to manual pass arguments to `npm`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (documentation): Typo in 'manual pass'.
The phrase 'manual pass' should be corrected to 'manually pass'.
![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
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- accepted/0000-command-specific-config.md (1 hunks)
Additional context used
LanguageTool
accepted/0000-command-specific-config.md
[grammar] ~53-~53: It appears that a preposition is missing after ‘Prior’.
Context: ...y` [npm-publish] loglevel=silly ``` ## Prior Art - N/A ## Unresolved Questions and Bik...(MISSING_PREPOSITION)
Additional comments not posted (8)
accepted/0000-command-specific-config.md (8)
1-5: Summary is clear and concise.The summary section accurately introduces the purpose of the document.
7-9: Motivation is well-articulated.The motivation section clearly explains the need for the change and the issues it aims to resolve.
11-15: Detailed explanation is comprehensive and clear.The detailed explanation section outlines the specific changes and their intended effects effectively.
17-19: Rationale and alternatives are logical and well-considered.The rationale and alternatives section appropriately discusses the current alternatives and why the proposed change is preferred.
21-25: Implementation details are clear and feasible.The implementation section provides specific and feasible details on how the changes will be implemented.
26-51: Examples are correct and clear.The example
.npmrcsection provides clear and correct sample configurations to illustrate the proposed changes.
57-59: Unresolved questions and bikeshedding section is clear.The section accurately indicates there are no unresolved questions.
53-55: Fix grammatical error in 'Prior Art'.A preposition is missing after 'Prior'.
- ## Prior Art + ## Prior WorkLikely invalid or redundant comment.
Tools
LanguageTool
[grammar] ~53-~53: It appears that a preposition is missing after ‘Prior’.
Context: ...y` [npm-publish] loglevel=silly ``` ## Prior Art - N/A ## Unresolved Questions and Bik...(MISSING_PREPOSITION)
![gitginie[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/712912?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@2lambda123
Thank you for your contribution to this repository! We appreciate your effort in closing pull request.
Happy coding!
Description
Related Issue
Types of changes
Checklist:
Summary by Sourcery
Implement command-specific configuration in
.npmrcfiles to allow users to define settings for individual npm commands, enhancing flexibility and resolving issues with global configuration.New Features:
.npmrcfiles, allowing users to scope configuration to individual npm commands.Documentation:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
.npmrcfile, allowing users to set configurations unique to individualnpmcommands..npmrcfiles.Documentation