Docs #4
Docs #4
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@NSFatalError has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 36 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)
WalkthroughThis pull request restructures several workflows and updates configuration, package, and source files. The pull request workflow now renames the initial job to "prepare" and adds a dependent "build-and-test" job with a matrix strategy to run across multiple platforms. Additionally, minor YAML formatting tweaks were made to the release workflow. The lint configuration now ignores comments for line lengths and has an updated regex. Package files were updated to support newer Swift tools and platform versions. Source files received syntax formatting improvements, and new test suites and naming enhancements were introduced throughout the test modules. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant PR as Pull Request Event
participant Prepare as Prepare Job
participant BuildTest as Build & Test Job
PR->>Prepare: Trigger workflow
Note over Prepare: Set XCODE_VERSION and extract platforms/scheme
Prepare-->>BuildTest: Pass outputs (platforms, scheme)
BuildTest->>BuildTest: Run build and test matrix across platforms
Poem
🪧 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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (14)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/release.yml(1 hunks).swiftlint.yml(2 hunks)Package.resolved(1 hunks)Package.swift(2 hunks)README.md(1 hunks)Sources/PrincipleMacros/Builders/Expressions/SwitchExprBuilder.swift(2 hunks)Sources/PrincipleMacros/Imports.swift(1 hunks)Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/EnumCaseCallExprBuilderTests.swift(1 hunks)Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/SwitchExprBuilderTests.swift(1 hunks)Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Parameters/ParameterExtractorTests.swift(1 hunks)Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/ClosureExprSyntaxTests.swift(3 hunks)Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/ExprSyntaxTests.swift(1 hunks)Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/TypeSyntaxTests.swift(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Definitions (2)
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/TypeSyntaxTests.swift (1)
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/ExprSyntaxTests.swift (2)
testArrayLiteral(46-50)testDictionaryLiteral(52-56)
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/SwitchExprBuilderTests.swift (2)
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/EnumCaseCallExprBuilderTests.swift (1)
makeEnumCase(14-18)Sources/PrincipleMacros/Builders/Expressions/SwitchExprBuilder.swift (1)
build(27-33)
🪛 SwiftLint (0.57.0)
Package.swift
[Warning] 6-6: Top-level declarations should specify Access Control Level keywords explicitly
(explicit_top_level_acl)
[Warning] 1-1: Header comments should be consistent with project patterns
(file_header)
[Warning] 6-6: Top-level constants should be prefixed by k
(prefixed_toplevel_constant)
🔇 Additional comments (35)
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/ExprSyntaxTests.swift (1)
109-111: Good improvement to function signatureChanging from a tuple parameter to named parameters makes the test function more readable and self-documenting. This change aligns with Swift's best practices for API design and improves code maintainability.
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/TypeSyntaxTests.swift (2)
18-19: Improved variable naming for better semanticsRenaming from
exprtotypeis a good change that better represents the variable's purpose as aTypeSyntaxinstance rather than an expression. This enhances code readability and makes the intention clearer.Also applies to: 24-25, 30-31, 36-37, 42-43, 48-49, 54-55, 60-61, 66-67
85-87: Good signature improvement, consistent with ExprSyntaxTestsSimilar to the change in ExprSyntaxTests, this improves the function signature by using named parameters instead of a tuple. The change maintains consistency between test files and follows Swift best practices.
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Parameters/ParameterExtractorTests.swift (8)
14-17: Well-structured helper method!This helper method is nicely designed, efficiently converting an expression into a
ParameterExtractorinstance. Using the#requiremacro for unwrapping is a good practice for tests as it clearly indicates the requirement and will fail with a descriptive message if not met.
19-25: Good test for named parameter extraction.This test properly validates that the
ParameterExtractorcan correctly extract a named expression from a macro. The test case is clear and the assertion verifies the expected output matches the actual output.
27-33: Good test for unnamed parameter extraction.The test correctly handles the extraction of an unnamed expression by passing
nilto thewithLabelparameter. This demonstrates that theParameterExtractorsupports both named and unnamed parameters, which is important for flexibility in macro usage.
35-41: Comprehensive trailing closure extraction test.This test validates that trailing closures can be extracted correctly, which is a crucial feature for macros that accept closure parameters. The test properly checks that the extracted closure matches the expected syntax.
43-49: Good test for function reference in trailing closure.This test validates that the
ParameterExtractorcan extract function references as trailing closures. This is an important case to cover since Swift allows passing function references directly as closures.
51-56: Clear validation of raw string extraction.The test effectively validates that the
ParameterExtractorcan extract raw string values from macro parameters, which is a common use case in macros.
58-64: Great error handling test for unexpected syntax type.This test properly validates that the
ParameterExtractorthrows the expected error when attempting to extract a raw string from a reference expression. Error handling tests are crucial for robust API design.
66-72: Good test for parameter not found scenario.This test ensures that the
ParameterExtractorthrows the appropriate error when attempting to extract a parameter that doesn't exist in the macro expression. Proper error handling for this case will provide clear feedback to users of the API.Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Syntax/ClosureExprSyntaxTests.swift (3)
23-23: Improved test method naming.Renaming from
testInterpolationtotestExpansionbetter reflects what the test is actually doing - testing the expansion of a closure expression rather than string interpolation. This change improves code clarity and makes the test's purpose more obvious.
56-56: Improved test method naming.Renaming from
testInterpolationtotestExpansionbetter reflects what the test is actually doing - testing the expansion of a closure expression rather than string interpolation. This makes the test's purpose clearer, especially when dealing with closures that have signatures.
97-97: Improved test method naming.Renaming from
testInterpolationtotestExpansionbetter reflects what the test is actually doing - testing the expansion of a multi-line closure expression. This consistent naming convention across all test methods improves the overall clarity of the test suite.Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/SwitchExprBuilderTests.swift (2)
20-30: Well-structured test for switch expression.The test is well-organized, preparing test data by creating enum cases of varying complexity and then validating the output of the
SwitchExprBuilder. The approach of providing a closure that returns the count of associated values is a good way to test the builder's capabilities.
32-44: Good validation against expected output.The test properly validates that the built switch expression matches the expected output, including pattern matching for the cases with associated values. The expected output includes formatting with proper indentation, which is important for readability of the generated code.
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/EnumCaseCallExprBuilderTests.swift (4)
14-18: Clean and reusable helper method.This helper method effectively creates an
EnumCaseinstance from a declaration syntax. It's designed to be reused across multiple test methods, which is a good practice for test code organization.
20-28: Good test for enum case without associated values.This test correctly validates that the
EnumCaseCallExprBuildercan build a call expression for an enum case without associated values. The test includes anIssue.record()call, which might be recording information for debugging or metrics.
30-37: Good test for enum case with unnamed associated value.This test properly validates that the
EnumCaseCallExprBuildercan build a call expression for an enum case with an unnamed associated value. The builder correctly formats the call with the provided expression.
39-50: Comprehensive test for enum case with multiple associated values.This test effectively validates that the
EnumCaseCallExprBuildercan build a call expression for an enum case with multiple associated values, including both named and unnamed parameters. The conditionally provided expressions based on the parameter name demonstrate how the builder can handle different types of parameters.Sources/PrincipleMacros/Builders/Expressions/SwitchExprBuilder.swift (3)
28-32: Great improvement to the switch expression formatting!The changes to the
SwitchExprSyntaxinitialization properly handle spacing around the subject expression and ensure the left brace has a trailing newline. This will produce more readable and consistently formatted code in the generated output.
39-42: Good switch to multi-line string literal formatConverting to triple-quote string literals for the switch case syntax improves code readability and maintenance. The explicit formatting with newlines between the case statement and its implementation follows standard Swift style conventions and will produce cleaner generated code.
68-68: Proper spacing for let bindingAdding trailing space to the let keyword ensures consistent spacing in the generated pattern binding. This is a small but important detail for code formatting consistency.
README.md (1)
3-19: Great documentation additions!The README now provides clear information about the package purpose, compatibility, status, and installation instructions. This will be very helpful for potential users.
.github/workflows/release.yml (1)
20-20: Minor YAML formatting improvementThis formatting change ensures the file ends with a newline, which is a good practice for text files.
Package.resolved (1)
2-2: Dependency update to stable versionThe update to the
principledependency from version 0.0.3 to 1.0.0 suggests it has reached a stable state. This is a good practice for version management.Also applies to: 9-10
.swiftlint.yml (2)
169-170: Good SwiftLint configuration improvementConfiguring line length checks to ignore comments allows for more detailed documentation without triggering warnings, which is a common best practice.
198-198: Improved regex pattern for custom ruleChanging the pattern from
(?!\\n*\\})to(?!\\s*\\})makes the rule more flexible by accepting any whitespace characters before a closing brace, not just newlines.Package.swift (1)
25-25: Major dependency version upgradeUpdating the Principle dependency from 0.0.1 to 1.0.0 suggests a stable API with potential breaking changes. Ensure your code accommodates any breaking changes in the Principle 1.0.0 API.
Sources/PrincipleMacros/Imports.swift (1)
9-13: Documentation visibility improvementAdding
@_documentation(visibility: private)to these exported imports is a good practice that keeps your public API documentation clean while still allowing internal code to use these modules freely.Note that the
@_prefix indicates a compiler-internal attribute that may change in future Swift versions..github/workflows/pull-request.yml (5)
4-5: Good practice using environment variablesDefining
XCODE_VERSIONas an environment variable centralizes this configuration and makes future updates easier to manage.
8-12: Well-structured job organization with outputsRenaming the job to "prepare" and adding structured outputs improves workflow organization and readability. The outputs for platforms and scheme enable the matrix strategy in the dependent job.
27-52: Clever dynamic extraction of platforms and schemeThis approach dynamically determines which platforms to test on by parsing the package manifest, and intelligently selects the appropriate scheme. This makes the workflow more maintainable and adaptable to changes in package configuration.
53-91: Excellent cross-platform testing strategyThe matrix strategy ensures comprehensive testing across all supported platforms with platform-specific configurations. The conditional steps and destination mapping are well-implemented.
92-110: Appropriate build and test commands for each platformThe workflow correctly differentiates between using Swift Package Manager for macOS and Xcode for other platforms, using the appropriate commands and parameters for each.
Tests/PrincipleMacrosTests/Builders/SwitchExprBuilderTests.swift
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -1,17 +1,17 @@ | |||
| // swift-tools-version: 6.0 | |||
| // swift-tools-version: 6.1 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Swift Tools Version Upgrade Impact
Upgrading from Swift 6.0 to 6.1 will require contributors and users to update their Swift toolchain. Ensure this aligns with your adoption timeline and that any new Swift 6.1 features you're using are documented.
🧰 Tools
🪛 SwiftLint (0.57.0)
[Warning] 1-1: Header comments should be consistent with project patterns
(file_header)
| .macOS(.v15), | ||
| .macCatalyst(.v18), | ||
| .iOS(.v18), | ||
| .tvOS(.v18), | ||
| .watchOS(.v11), | ||
| .visionOS(.v2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very restrictive platform requirements
The platform requirements have increased significantly - most by 2 major versions. This will exclude users on older OS versions and potentially reduce your user base considerably.
Consider whether these high minimum requirements are necessary for your functionality, or if you could support a wider range of devices with lower minimums.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
.github/workflows/release.yml (2)
23-35: Verify changes step – Error handling and robustness.
The new "Verify changes" step compares the current and previous major versions to decide on running diagnostics for API-breaking changes. Note that the extraction ofprevious_tagusinggit tag --sort=-v:refname | head -n 2 | tail -n 1may produce an empty result if there aren’t at least two tags available. Consider adding a check for an empty
previous_tagto avoid running diagnostics with an invalid value.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 33-33: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
33-33: Remove trailing whitespace.
There appear to be trailing spaces on line 33. Removing them will clean up the YAML format and satisfy YAML linting rules.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 33-33: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (3)
18-24: Installation of mise tool.
The "Setup mise" step downloads and installs themisetool using curl. Consider pinning to a specific version or verifying the installation hash to improve reproducibility and security.
34-52: Scheme extraction logic.
The logic to select a scheme by listing schemes viaxcodebuild -listand then checking for patterns is effective. If there are multiple matching schemes or if the naming convention evolves, consider making this more robust (for example, by adding more detailed logging or handling ambiguous cases).
65-91: Destination mapping for various platforms.
The "Map destinations" step effectively uses a case statement to specify simulator destinations for non-macos platforms. It covers common platforms (iOS, macOS Catalyst, tvOS, visionOS, watchOS). Consider logging additional context if an unknown platform is encountered, or providing a fallback rather than merely exiting, depending on your desired behavior. Also, ensure that the matrix platform names match exactly what the case statement expects.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/release.yml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
.github/workflows/release.yml
[error] 33-33: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
.github/workflows/release.yml (2)
12-12: Using the latest checkout action version.
The step usingactions/checkout@v4is correctly placed and ensures the repository is checked out before other steps run.
17-21: Draft release step review.
The extraction ofcurrent_tagusing parameter expansion and the use ofgh release createwith the--draftflag look correct. Please verify that your GitHub CLI version supports the--draftflag and that the command behaves as intended in all tag scenarios..github/workflows/pull-request.yml (8)
4-6: Define explicit Xcode version.
SettingXCODE_VERSION: "16.3"in the environment helps ensure consistency across jobs. This explicit declaration is clear and appropriate.
8-12: Outputs declaration in the 'prepare' job.
The outputsplatformsandschemeare well defined from the respective steps. Ensure that the steps referenced here reliably provide the expected outputs for downstream jobs.
15-16: Xcode setup in the 'prepare' job.
The step correctly usessudo xcode-selectto point to the specified Xcode version. Make sure that the Xcode version directory matches the runner’s installed versions.
27-33: Extract platforms step verification.
Extracting platforms usingswift package dump-packagepiped tojqis a neat solution. Just ensure that if the package has no defined platforms, the step handles such cases gracefully.
53-60: Matrix configuration in 'build-and-test' job.
The job correctly depends onprepareand uses a matrix strategy based on dynamically extracted platforms. This modular and dynamic configuration is well executed.
61-64: Consistent setup in separate jobs.
Repeating the checkout and Xcode setup steps in thebuild-and-testjob is acceptable due to job isolation. This ensures a clean environment for building and testing.
92-102: Build steps differentiation.
The separation between building with Swift Package Manager (for macos) and using Xcode (for other platforms) is clear and well structured. The use ofxcbeautifyfor cleaner logs is a nice touch.
103-113: Test steps differentiation.
Similarly, the test steps are split based on the platform. This conditional execution ensures that the correct build tool is used without mixing concerns.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Chores
Tests
Documentation