added git module and logo (#4)

* added git module still testing

* added git score for project

* fix: readme to add git integration

* added logo

feedback-samples/feedback-2.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+Path: src/code-review.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- The rules for the code review are hard-coded in the class constructor which makes it difficult to modify or update them without changing the code.
+- The projectPath property is not used and should be removed.
+- The code should be modularized and separated into smaller, more focused functions to improve organization, readability, and maintenance.
+- There are no tests in place, which makes it difficult to ensure correct functionality and prevent regressions.
+- The method for getting the project configuration is not clear and it's unclear how it's used in the rest of the code.
+- There is no error handling for some critical methods such as getFilesContent and queue, which can cause the entire program to crash.
+
+Recommendations:
+- Move the rules to a separate file or configuration object that can be easily changed or updated.
+- Remove the projectPath property and use the getProjectConfig method instead to get the project path.
+- Refactor the review method to break down the functionality into smaller functions that are easier to test and maintain.
+- Write unit tests to ensure correct functionality and catch errors early.
+- Clarify the getProjectConfig method and how it's used in the rest of the code.
+- Add error handling to critical methods to prevent crashes and improve stability.
+
+

feedback-samples/feedback-3.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Path: src/code-review.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- Lack of documentation for the CodeReviewer class and its methods
+- Unused and outdated rules variable
+- Inconsistent naming convention for the project path in the constructor and getFilesContent method
+- CodeReviewer constructor should not have a projectPath parameter if getProjectConfig method is used
+- Incomplete implementation for reviewing changes in Git projects
+- No implementation for applying the rules to the code and generating feedback
+
+Recommendations:
+- Add JSDoc comments to the CodeReviewer class and its methods to improve readability and maintainability
+- Remove the rules variable and use the rules imported from the rule module instead
+- Use consistent naming convention for the project path parameter in the constructor and getFilesContent method to avoid confusion
+- Remove the projectPath parameter from the constructor and use the getProjectConfig method to retrieve the project config instead
+- Implement the logic for reviewing changes in Git projects and only review the changed files
+- Add the implementation for applying the rules to the code and generating feedback based on violations
+- Consider implementing batching of files for parallel requests if there are more than 10 files in the queue to improve performance
+
+            Path: src/filehandler.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- The naming of the class 'FileHandlers' should be singular, i.e. 'FileHandler'.
+- The code includes repeated logic for checking the existence and parsing of the 'codereview.json' file. This can be refactored into a separate function to avoid redundancy.
+- The use of the process.cwd() method within the FileHandler class tightly couples the class to the file system. It would be better to pass the projectPath as a parameter to the constructor or the functions that require it. This would also make the code more modular and easier to test.
+- The code could benefit from additional comments or function-docstrings to improve its readability and maintainability.
+
+Recommendations:
+- Rename the class to 'FileHandler'.
+- Refactor the code that handles the 'codereview.json' file into a separate function.
+- Pass the projectPath as a parameter to the constructor or the functions that require it.
+- Add comments or function-docstrings to improve the code's clarity and maintainability.
+
+            Path: src/git.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- No major issues detected. However, there are some minor improvements that can be made for better readability and maintenance.
+
+Recommendations:
+- Add JSDoc style comments to document the purpose and inputs/outputs of each function
+- Combine the isGitRepository and getCurrentBranch functions to reduce redundancy and improve performance
+- Use async/await syntax consistently throughout the codebase (e.g., in the isGitRepository function)
+- Consider defining interfaces and types for function inputs and outputs to improve reliability and maintainability
+
+            Path: src/index.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- Import statement for chalk is unused (line 2)
+- CodeReviewer class is initialized with unnecessary argument (line 15)
+- No newline at the end of the file (line 29)
+
+Recommendations:
+- Remove import statement for chalk
+- Remove argument from CodeReviewer initialization
+- Add a newline at the end of the file for consistency
+
+            Path: types/index.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: No issues detected
+
+

feedback-samples/feedback.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+Path: src/code-review.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- The code lacks clear documentation and comments for better readability and maintainability
+- The rules description in the code is redundant and poorly formatted, which makes it hard to read and understand
+- The CodeReviewer constructor accepts a projectPath argument that is not used, but it should rather get the project config using the getProjectConfig method
+- The queue method throws an error if a file can't be read, but it doesn't provide any useful error message to help identify the problem
+- The CodeReviewer review method lacks proper error handling if any exception is thrown during its execution
+- The queue method can potentially cause performance issues if there are too many files to read due to running them all in parallel; it should consider batching them into smaller groups instead
+- The git review feature only reviews the files that are changed in the latest commit, but it should also consider checking for files modified in previous commits since the last review
+- The git review feature doesn't provide any error handling for git commands or errors that may occur during its execution
+
+Recommendations:
+- Add clear and concise documentation and comments to the code to improve its readability and maintainability
+- Refactor the rules description to be easier to read and understand
+- Remove the projectPath argument from the CodeReviewer constructor and use the getProjectConfig method instead to get the project configuration
+- Improve the error handling of the queue method by providing helpful error messages to diagnose the issue
+- Add proper error handling to the CodeReviewer review method to handle any exceptions that may occur during its execution
+- Consider batching the files into smaller groups in the queue method to prevent potential performance issues when there are too many files to read
+- Update the git review feature to include previous commit file changes and provide error handling for git commands and errors.
+
+            Path: src/filehandler.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- The method name getProjectConfig is not clear on what it returns or what it is used for (line 5)
+- The default config object is hardcoded and not defined as a constant (lines 16-21)
+
+Recommendations:
+- Rename getProjectConfig method to something more descriptive like fetchProjectConfig or loadProjectConfig (line 5)
+- Define the default config object as a constant and export it from a separate configuration file to avoid hardcoded values (lines 16-21)
+
+Note: The code provided seems to only contain one file, so it's difficult to fully review the overall organization and separation of concerns.
+
+            Path: src/git.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- No major issues detected.
+
+Recommendations:
+- Consider adding more documentation for better maintainability.
+- Consider adding more unit tests for higher coverage.
+
+            Path: src/index.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: Issues:
+- Unused import of chalk module (line 2).
+- CodeReviewer class constructor does not receive project path as an argument, which contradicts its name (line 15).
+- The projectPath property is assigned with __dirname, which may not always represent the project directory (line 12).
+- There is no handling for errors thrown by ConfigStore constructor (line 13).
+- There is no newline at the end of the file (line 35).
+
+Recommendations:
+- Remove the chalk import to optimize performance (line 2).
+- Change CodeReviewer constructor to receive project path as an argument or rename it to reflect its actual purpose (line 15).
+- Improve project directory discovery using a more reliable method (e.g. process.cwd()) (line 12).
+- Implement error handling for ConfigStore constructor using try-catch (line 13).
+- Add a newline at the end of the file for consistency.
+
+            Path: types/index.ts
+
+
+                Criticism: No issues detected. The provided code only includes interface definitions and follows the provided rules for clear naming conventions and use of interface definitions. However, additional code would need to be reviewed in order to ensure adherence to the other rules such as logic organization, functionality, error handling, testing, and scalability.
+
+

index.ts

@@ -34,11 +34,23 @@ const autoReviewer = new AutoReviewer();
 const config = new ConfigStore();
 
 if (config.get('openai_api_key')) {
-    autoReviewer.codeReview();
+    autoReviewer.codeReview().then(async () => {
+        const score = await autoReviewer.getScore();
+        Utils.sleep(1000);
+        Utils.log(chalk.greenBright.bold('Code Review Completed successfully ☑️'));
+        Utils.log(chalk.greenBright.bold(`Your code score is: ${score} / 10`));
+
+        process.exit(0);
+    });
 } else {
     config.promptUserForApiKey().then(() => {
         Utils.sleep(1000);
-        autoReviewer.codeReview();
+        Utils.log(chalk.greenBright.bold(`API Key saved successfully ☑️ 
+        
+        Please run the command again to start the code review
+
+            `));
+        process.exit(0);
     })
 }