Ignore the sample code for Node.js #97
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a change to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
README.md (1)
Line range hint
77-81: Consider removing or clearly marking the Node.js section as unsupportedAdding
ignoreto the code block doesn't effectively communicate that Node.js is not supported. If@hono/node-serveris not utilized in the project, consider either:
- Removing the entire Node.js section to prevent confusion, or
- Clearly marking the section as unsupported with a warning note
If you decide to keep the section but mark it as unsupported, consider adding a warning note like this:
- [🐢 Node.js](https://nodejs.org) + + > [!WARNING] + > Node.js is currently not supported as this project doesn't utilize @hono/node-server. + > Please use Deno or Bun instead. ```js ignore import { serve } from "@hono/node-server";
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- .github/pr-labeler.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/tagpr.ini (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/release.yml (1 hunks)
- README.md (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/tagpr.ini (1)
6-6:⚠️ Potential issueVerify the template configuration with disabled changelog.
The template includes
{{ .Changelog }}butchangelog = falseis set above. This might result in empty changelog sections in the release notes.Consider either:
- Enabling changelog generation:
- changelog = false + changelog = true
- Or removing the changelog from template:
- templateText = Release: {{ .NextVersion }}\n{{ .Changelog }} + templateText = Release: {{ .NextVersion }}.github/pr-labeler.yml (3)
24-25: LGTM: Dependencies label addition follows existing pattern.The new dependencies label follows the established format and uses consistent emoji styling.
Line range hint
1-26: Note: PR objectives and changes mismatch.The PR objectives mention ignoring Node.js sample code, but this file contains changes related to PR labeling configuration. This suggests either:
- The PR description needs updating to reflect all changes, or
- These changes might be unintentional or part of a different PR
Let's verify if there are any Node.js-related changes in the repository:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Look for Node.js-related changes # Search for Node.js-related files and content echo "Checking for Node.js-related changes..." rg -l "node|nodejs|@hono/node-server"
26-26: Verify the release label format change impact.The release label text has been updated from "Release for v" to "Release: v". While the change is syntactically correct, we should verify this change aligns with other tooling.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different search strategy to verify the release label format usage.
This script will:
- Search for any release-related patterns with version mentions
- Show the complete PR labeler configuration for context
- List any release-related workflow files that might be using these labels
This should give us a better picture of how release labels are used across the repository's GitHub configurations.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response:
Release label format change is consistent with existing tooling
The change from "Release for v" to "Release: v" is aligned with the repository's release-related configurations:
- The new format "Release: v" in
pr-labeler.ymlmatches the release template format intagpr.iniwhich uses a similar colon-based format- The release workflow (
release.yml) uses tagpr action which is compatible with this label format- No other conflicting formats were found in the GitHub workflows or configurations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the release label format consistency across workflow files # Check if the new format is used consistently in release-related files echo "Checking release format consistency..." rg -l "Release: v|Release for v" .github/Length of output: 232
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for release-related patterns in workflow files and PR configuration echo "Searching for release label patterns in workflow files..." rg -i "release.*v" .github/ -A 2 -B 2 echo -e "\nChecking PR labeler configuration..." cat .github/pr-labeler.yml echo -e "\nChecking release-related workflow files..." fd "release" .github/Length of output: 1943
Because the `@hono/node-server` is not used on this project.
5ouma
force-pushed
the
docs-readme-test
branch
from
1ff1dc5 to
4bbdf53
Compare
close #
🔄 Type of the Change
✏️ Description
Because the
@hono/node-serveris not used in this project.Code of Conduct.