Updating source names for SDK triggers #14638
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ |
WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
components/sdk/sources/python-event-received/python-event-received.mjs (1)
1-2: Consider addressing ESLint rule conflicts properly.Instead of disabling the ESLint rules, consider updating the rules configuration to accommodate the new naming convention if this is an intentional pattern across SDK sources.
components/sdk/sources/nuxtjs-event-received/nuxtjs-event-received.mjs (1)
Line range hint
10-15: Document the expected implementation patternThe component has an empty
run()method and no defined methods. Consider adding:
- JSDoc comments explaining the expected usage
- Example implementation in the description
- Link to SDK documentation for implementation guidelines
Would you like me to help draft the documentation for this component?
components/sdk/sources/nodejs-event-received/nodejs-event-received.mjs (1)
6-9: Consider adding examples in the description.While the description is grammatically correct now, it could be more helpful to include a brief example or use case to improve developer experience.
- description: "Emit a new event via the Node.js Pipedream SDK.", + description: "Emit a new event via the Node.js Pipedream SDK. Use this to trigger workflows when events occur in your Node.js application.",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
components/sdk/package.json(1 hunks)components/sdk/sources/nextjs-event-received/nextjs-event-received.mjs(1 hunks)components/sdk/sources/nodejs-event-received/nodejs-event-received.mjs(1 hunks)components/sdk/sources/nuxtjs-event-received/nuxtjs-event-received.mjs(1 hunks)components/sdk/sources/python-event-received/python-event-received.mjs(1 hunks)components/sdk/sources/reactjs-event-received/reactjs-event-received.mjs(1 hunks)components/sdk/sources/vue-event-received/vue-event-received.mjs(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- components/sdk/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (15)
components/sdk/sources/vue-event-received/vue-event-received.mjs (1)
6-7: Verify consistency of metadata changes across SDK sources
While the changes align with the standardization effort:
- The name change from "New Event Received from the Vue Pipedream SDK" to just "Vue" might be too concise and could lose context
- We should ensure version numbers are consistent across all SDK sources
Also applies to: 9-9
components/sdk/sources/python-event-received/python-event-received.mjs (2)
Line range hint 13-15: Verify if empty methods and run implementation is intentional.
The source component has empty methods object and run function implementation. While this might be intentional for an event receiver, it would be good to verify this is the expected behavior.
Let's check if this is consistent with other SDK trigger implementations:
6-7: LGTM! Source metadata updates are consistent.
The changes to name, version, and description are aligned with the SDK trigger naming updates and maintain consistency with other source files.
Let's verify the consistency across other SDK trigger files:
Also applies to: 9-9
components/sdk/sources/nuxtjs-event-received/nuxtjs-event-received.mjs (2)
6-7: Consider impact of simplified naming convention
While the shorter name "NuxtJS" is more concise, it might be less descriptive than the previous "New Event Received from the Nuxt.js Pipedream SDK". Consider:
- Will this affect discoverability in the Pipedream marketplace?
- Does this align with the naming patterns of other Pipedream components?
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze naming patterns across Pipedream components
# Check component naming patterns in the broader codebase
echo "Checking component naming patterns:"
rg -g '*.mjs' -g '*.js' '"name":.*".*"' components/ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
# Check if there are any documentation references to the old name
echo -e "\nChecking for documentation references:"
rg -i "New Event Received from the Nuxt.js Pipedream SDK" --type=mdAlso applies to: 9-9
1-2: Verify the necessity of ESLint suppressions
The ESLint directives are disabling Pipedream-specific rules for source naming and description. Consider whether these suppressions are still necessary or if the naming changes should conform to the established conventions instead.
✅ Verification successful
Re-run ESLint suppression checks with corrected paths
ESLint suppressions are consistent across SDK sources
The ESLint directives for source-name and source-description are consistently used in multiple SDK source files, validating their necessity in components/sdk/sources/nuxtjs-event-received/nuxtjs-event-received.mjs.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar ESLint suppressions and naming patterns across SDK sources
# Check for ESLint suppressions in other SDK source files
echo "Checking for ESLint suppressions in other SDK sources:"
rg "eslint-disable.*pipedream/(source-name|source-description)" components/sdk/sources/
# Check naming patterns in other SDK source files
echo -e "\nChecking naming patterns in other SDK sources:"
rg '"name":.*".*"' components/sdk/sources/
Length of output: 66513
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Re-verify ESLint suppressions and naming patterns with corrected paths
# Check for ESLint suppressions in other SDK source files
echo "Checking for ESLint suppressions in other SDK sources:"
rg "eslint-disable.*pipedream/(source-name|source-description)" components/sdk/sources/
# Check naming patterns in other SDK source files
echo -e "\nChecking naming patterns in other SDK sources:"
rg '"name":.*".*"' components/sdk/sources/
# Check for documentation references
echo -e "\nChecking for documentation references:"
rg -i 'New Event Received from the Nuxt.js Pipedream SDK' --type=md
Length of output: 1927
components/sdk/sources/nextjs-event-received/nextjs-event-received.mjs (4)
Line range hint 13-15: Implementation missing in run method
The run method is empty which could indicate:
- Incomplete implementation
- Event-driven architecture where implementation isn't needed
Let's check if this is consistent with other SDK sources:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check run method implementations across SDK sources
# Expected: Pattern of run method implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'async run() {
$$$
}'6-7: Version bump requires changelog entry
The version has been bumped from "0.0.1" to "0.0.2". Please ensure:
- This change is documented in the changelog
- The version bump is consistent with semver guidelines
Let's check for a changelog:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for changelog entries
# Expected: Documentation of version changes
fd -g 'CHANGELOG*' -g 'changelog*'1-2: Consider addressing ESLint suppressions
The ESLint suppressions for pipedream/source-description and pipedream/source-name suggest there might be organizational standards that this code isn't meeting. Consider either:
- Documenting why these rules need to be suppressed
- Adjusting the code to comply with the rules
Let's check if these suppressions are common across other SDK sources:
6-9: Verify naming convention consistency across SDK
The simplified name "Next.js" and updated description look good, but let's ensure this naming pattern is consistent across all SDK triggers.
Let's verify the naming patterns:
✅ Verification successful
Naming conventions are consistent across all SDK sources.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check naming patterns across SDK sources
# Expected: Consistent naming and version patterns
# Search for name and version declarations in SDK source files
rg -A 2 'name: ".+?"' "components/sdk/sources/"
Length of output: 2100
components/sdk/sources/nodejs-event-received/nodejs-event-received.mjs (2)
Line range hint 14-15: Verify if empty implementation is intentional.
The run method is empty, and there are no implemented methods. While this might be intentional for an SDK trigger that's purely event-driven, we should verify this is the expected behavior.
✅ Verification successful
Empty run Implementation Verified as Intentional
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if other SDK sources have implemented run methods
echo "Checking run method implementations across SDK sources..."
ast-grep --pattern 'async run() {
$$$
}' components/sdk/sources/
Length of output: 193
6-7: Verify consistency of metadata changes across SDK sources.
The simplified name "Node.js" and version bump to "0.0.2" should be consistent with other SDK sources mentioned in the summary (Next.js, Nuxt.js, Python, React.js, Vue.js).
Also applies to: 9-9
components/sdk/sources/reactjs-event-received/reactjs-event-received.mjs (4)
9-9: LGTM! Improved description grammar
The addition of the article "a" improves the grammatical correctness of the description while maintaining clarity.
7-7: Verify version bump consistency
The version bump to "0.0.2" should be consistent across all SDK source files and properly documented.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify version consistency across SDK sources and check for changelog entries
# Check versions in all SDK source files
echo "Checking versions in SDK source files:"
fd -g "*-event-received.mjs" components/sdk/sources/ -x grep "version:"
# Look for changelog entries
echo -e "\nChecking for changelog entries:"
fd -g "CHANGELOG.md" | xargs rg "0\.0\.2"1-2: Verify if ESLint suppressions are still required
The ESLint suppressions for pipedream/source-name and pipedream/source-description might no longer be necessary with the new naming convention. This could indicate a misalignment between the new simplified names and Pipedream's source naming guidelines.
✅ Verification successful
ESLint suppressions are consistently applied and align with source naming guidelines.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar ESLint suppressions across other SDK source files
# and verify Pipedream's source naming guidelines
# Check for similar ESLint suppressions in other SDK source files
echo "Checking for ESLint suppressions in other SDK source files:"
rg -l "eslint-disable pipedream/source-" components/sdk/sources/
# Look for documentation about source naming conventions
echo -e "\nChecking for source naming documentation:"
fd -g "*.md" | xargs rg -l "source.*naming|naming.*convention"
Length of output: 847
6-6: Verify impact of simplified source name
While the simplified name "React.js" is more concise, we should ensure this change doesn't impact:
- Source discoverability in the Pipedream marketplace
- Existing integrations referencing this source
✅ Verification successful
Impact of simplified source name verified
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for references to the old source name in the codebase
# Search for references to the old source name
echo "Checking for references to old source name:"
rg "New Event Received from the React.js Pipedream SDK" -A 2
# Check marketplace-related files for naming patterns
echo -e "\nChecking marketplace files for naming patterns:"
fd -g "*marketplace*.{js,ts,json,md}" | xargs rg "source.*name"
Length of output: 494
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Corrected script to check for references to the old source name in the codebase
# Search for references to the old source name
echo "Checking for references to old source name:"
rg "New Event Received from the React.js Pipedream SDK" -A 2 || echo "No references found."
# Check marketplace-related files for naming patterns
echo -e "\nChecking marketplace files for naming patterns:"
fd -g "*marketplace*.{js,ts,json,md}" | xargs -I {} rg "source.*name" {} || echo "No marketplace naming patterns found."
Length of output: 400
| /* eslint-disable pipedream/source-description */ | ||
| /* eslint-disable pipedream/source-name */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
ESLint suppressions are redundant and can be removed
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify if ESLint suppressions are still needed
Given the simplified name and updated description format, we should verify if these ESLint rule suppressions are still necessary.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check ESLint rules and their purpose
# Search for ESLint rule definitions
rg -A 5 "pipedream/source-(name|description)" .eslintrc*
# Find other source files with similar suppressions
rg "eslint-disable pipedream/source-(name|description)" components/sdk/sources/
Length of output: 1860
| /* eslint-disable pipedream/source-description */ | ||
| /* eslint-disable pipedream/source-name */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Remove unnecessary ESLint disable directives.
The ESLint configuration files were not found, making the ESLint disable directives redundant.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify if ESLint disable directives are still necessary.
The ESLint directives are disabling rules for source naming and description. Given that this PR is specifically about updating source names, we should verify if these rules are still relevant or if the new changes actually comply with the rules.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for similar ESLint directives across other SDK sources
echo "Checking for ESLint disable patterns across SDK sources..."
rg "eslint-disable.*source-(name|description)" components/sdk/sources/
# Check ESLint configuration for these rules
echo "Checking ESLint rules configuration..."
fd -t f "eslint" -x cat {} \; | rg "source-(name|description)"
Length of output: 1754
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Locate ESLint configuration files
echo "Locating ESLint configuration files..."
eslint_configs=$(fd -t f -e .eslintrc,.eslintrc.js,.eslintrc.json,.eslintrc.yaml,.eslintrc.yml)
# Check if any ESLint configuration files were found
if [ -z "$eslint_configs" ]; then
echo "No ESLint configuration files found."
exit 0
fi
# Search for source-name and source-description rules in ESLint configs
echo "Searching for 'source-name' and 'source-description' rules in ESLint configuration..."
for config in $eslint_configs; do
echo "Checking in $config..."
rg '"source-(name|description)"' "$config"
done
Length of output: 293
WHY
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes