adding the content eval back #916
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@sbvegan has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 21 minutes and 33 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. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new section called "Content evaluation" in 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
Documentation and Community
|
✅ Deploy Preview for docs-optimism ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
![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
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs_audit_results.md (1)
38-44: Approve the addition of Content evaluation sectionThe new "Content evaluation" section is a valuable addition to the template, providing a structured way to assess content quality. This aligns well with the PR objectives.
Consider adding brief descriptions for each label, similar to the existing priority and size labels, to provide more context for users. For example:
<details> <summary>Content evaluation</summary> - - `a-delete`: don't need this page - - `a-duplicate`: some content lives elsewhere - - `a-minor`: needs small revisions - - `a-moderate`: needs moderate revisions - - `a-critical`: needs a lot of work + - `a-delete`: Content that is no longer needed or relevant and should be removed. + - `a-duplicate`: Content that is redundant and exists elsewhere in the documentation. + - `a-minor`: Content requiring small revisions or updates for clarity or accuracy. + - `a-moderate`: Content needing significant revisions but not a complete rewrite. + - `a-critical`: Content requiring extensive work or a complete overhaul. </details>
Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs_audit_results.md (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/docs_audit_results.md (1)
Line range hint
1-35: Verify the removal ofp-criticaldescriptionThe description for the
p-criticalpriority label has been removed from the template. This removal was not mentioned in the PR objectives or summary.Please clarify if this removal was intentional. If not, consider restoring the description to maintain consistency in the template.
To verify the change, you can run the following script:
|
no worries, I realized why it was there when I actually started the audit |
Description
Okay I remember why this is here, its not to inform the amount of work required to update, but to take account of the docs state when we ran the audit.