feat(python): Introduce Type, Annotation, Variable, and Integrate w/ Class #4919
Conversation
| import { AstNode } from "./core/AstNode"; | ||
| import { Writer } from "./core/Writer"; | ||
|
|
||
| type InternalType = Int | Float | Bool | Str | Bytes | List | Set | Tuple | Dict | None | Optional | Union | Any; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More types will be added here in future PRs. The most notable missing type here is ClassReference.
I'll also generally need to start making use of references to ensure that we import from the typing library for many of these types.
| clazz.addVariable( | ||
| python.variable({ name: "color", type: python.annotation({ type: "str" }), initializer: "'red'" }) | ||
| ); | ||
| expect(clazz.toString()).toMatchSnapshot(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably the most interesting test here in this PR
| import { Type } from "../Type"; | ||
| import { Writer } from "../core/Writer"; | ||
|
|
||
| describe("Type", () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cursor was a big help in generating a set of useful unit tests.
|
|
||
| exports[`class > variables with annotation and initializer 1`] = ` | ||
| "class Car: | ||
| color: str = 'red' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shows that everything worked as expected for our desired usage.
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several changes to the 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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (15)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (1)
7-13: LGTM: New functions added correctly. Minor suggestion for consistency.The
variableandannotationfunctions are well-implemented and align with the existing code structure. They correctly create and return new instances of their respective classes.For consistency with the
class_function, consider renaming these functions tovariable_andannotation_. This would maintain a uniform naming convention across similar factory functions.-export function variable(args: Variable.Args): Variable { +export function variable_(args: Variable.Args): Variable { return new Variable(args); } -export function annotation(args: Annotation.Args): Annotation { +export function annotation_(args: Annotation.Args): Annotation { return new Annotation(args); }generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Class.test.ts (1)
11-19: LGTM! Consider adding more test cases.The new test case effectively demonstrates the ability to add variables with annotations and initializers to a class, which aligns well with the PR objectives. The use of
toMatchSnapshot()is appropriate for verifying the complex string output.To enhance test coverage, consider adding the following test cases:
- A variable with only an annotation (no initializer).
- A variable with only an initializer (no annotation).
- Multiple variables in a single class.
- Edge cases, such as empty strings or special characters in variable names or initializers.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Annotation.ts (2)
4-9: LGTM: Well-structured namespace declaration.The
Annotationnamespace andArgsinterface are well-defined. The union type fortypeprovides flexibility in specifying annotations.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the
Annotationnamespace at the top of the declaration for improved documentation:/** * Namespace for Annotation-related types and interfaces. */ export declare namespace Annotation { // ... rest of the code }
11-27: LGTM with suggestions: Well-structured class with room for improvement.The
Annotationclass is well-structured and correctly implements thewritemethod. However, there are opportunities for improvement in terms of robustness and type safety.Consider the following enhancements:
- Use a type guard to improve type safety in the
writemethod:public write(writer: Writer): void { writer.write(": "); if (this.isAstNode(this.type)) { this.type.write(writer); } else { writer.write(this.type); } } private isAstNode(value: string | AstNode): value is AstNode { return typeof value !== "string" && "write" in value; }
- Add error handling for unexpected types:
public write(writer: Writer): void { writer.write(": "); if (this.isAstNode(this.type)) { this.type.write(writer); } else if (typeof this.type === "string") { writer.write(this.type); } else { throw new Error("Unexpected type in Annotation"); } }
- Consider making the
typeproperty readonly to prevent accidental modifications:private readonly type: string | AstNode;These changes will enhance the robustness and type safety of the
Annotationclass.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Variable.ts (1)
28-36: Consider using consistent null checks.The
writemethod handles all cases well. However, there's a minor inconsistency in the null check for the initializer.Consider using the same null check style for both
typeandinitializer. You could either change line 33 to:- if (this.initializer != null) { + if (this.initializer) {Or change line 30 to:
- if (this.type) { + if (this.type != null) {This would improve consistency throughout the code.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Type.test.ts (3)
11-39: LGTM: Primitive type tests are comprehensive and well-structured.The tests cover all primitive types (int, float, bool, str, bytes) with a consistent and clear structure. The expected outputs correctly match Python's type names.
Consider using a parameterized test to reduce code duplication. For example:
test.each([ ['int', Type.int()], ['float', Type.float()], ['bool', Type.bool()], ['str', Type.str()], ['bytes', Type.bytes()] ])('writes %s type', (expected, type) => { type.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toBe(expected); });This approach can make the tests more maintainable and easier to extend in the future.
41-63: LGTM: Collection type tests are accurate and cover common scenarios.The tests for List, Set, Tuple, and Dict types are well-implemented and cover the common collection types in Python. The expected outputs correctly use square brackets for type parameters, and the Dict test appropriately uses key and value types.
Consider adding a few more test cases to cover edge cases:
- Nested collections (e.g.,
List[List[int]])- Collections with multiple types (e.g.,
Tuple[int, str, float])- Empty collections (e.g.,
Tuple[()])These additional tests would ensure the
Typeclass handles more complex scenarios correctly.
65-87: LGTM: Special type tests are comprehensive and accurate.The tests for None, Optional, Union, and Any types are well-implemented and cover important special types in Python. The expected outputs correctly match Python's type hinting syntax, and the Union test appropriately includes multiple types.
Consider adding a test case for a more complex nested type, such as:
it("writes complex nested type", () => { const complexType = Type.dict( Type.str(), Type.union([ Type.list(Type.int()), Type.optional(Type.dict(Type.str(), Type.any())) ]) ); complexType.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toBe("Dict[str, Union[List[int], Optional[Dict[str, Any]]]]"); });This would ensure that the
Typeclass can handle deeply nested and complex type structures correctly.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Variable.test.ts (6)
30-38: LGTM: Complex type variable declaration test is comprehensive.This test case effectively covers the scenario of declaring a variable with a complex type (List[int]). The assertion correctly checks the output string, including the complex type representation.
Consider adding a test to verify that the
Listtype is correctly imported in the generated code, as it's not a built-in type in Python.
40-47: LGTM: Optional type variable declaration test is well-structured.This test case effectively covers the scenario of declaring a variable with an optional type (Optional[str]). The assertion correctly checks the output string, including the optional type representation.
Consider adding a test to verify that the
Optionaltype is correctly imported from thetypingmodule in the generated code.
49-56: LGTM: Union type variable declaration test is comprehensive.This test case effectively covers the scenario of declaring a variable with a union type (Union[int, str]). The assertion correctly checks the output string, including the union type representation.
Consider adding a test to verify that the
Uniontype is correctly imported from thetypingmodule in the generated code.
58-65: LGTM: Dictionary type variable declaration test is well-structured.This test case effectively covers the scenario of declaring a variable with a dictionary type (Dict[str, Any]). The assertion correctly checks the output string, including the dictionary type representation.
Consider adding a test to verify that both
DictandAnytypes are correctly imported from thetypingmodule in the generated code.
67-75: LGTM: Tuple type variable declaration test is comprehensive.This test case effectively covers the scenario of declaring a variable with a tuple type (Tuple[float, float]). The assertion correctly checks the output string, including the tuple type representation.
Consider adding a test to verify that the
Tupletype is correctly imported from thetypingmodule in the generated code.
1-75: Great job on the comprehensive test suite!This test file provides excellent coverage for the
Variableclass functionality, including various Python type annotations. The tests are well-structured, consistent, and follow Jest best practices.To further enhance the test suite, consider adding a general test case that verifies the correct imports for non-built-in types (e.g., List, Optional, Union, Dict, Any, Tuple) in the generated code. This would ensure that the necessary imports from the
typingmodule are included when these types are used.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (1)
35-43: Simplify thewriteVariablesmethodConsider simplifying the
writeVariablesmethod by removing the redundantwriter.writeNewLineIfLastLineNot();call. Since you are managing new lines based on the variable index, this check may be unnecessary.Apply this diff to simplify the code:
private writeVariables({ writer }: { writer: Writer }): void { this.variables.forEach((variable, index) => { variable.write(writer); - writer.writeNewLineIfLastLineNot(); if (index < this.variables.length - 1) { writer.newLine(); } }); }This simplification maintains the intended formatting while enhancing code readability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Class.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snappnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/package.json (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Annotation.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (2 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Variable.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Variable.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (22)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts (5)
1-1: LGTM: Annotation export added successfully.The export of the Annotation entity aligns with the PR objectives and enhances the module's interface.
3-3: LGTM: Variable export added successfully.The export of the Variable entity aligns with the PR objectives and enhances the module's interface.
5-5: LGTM: Type export added successfully.The export of the Type entity aligns with the PR objectives and enhances the module's interface.
1-5: Summary: New exports align with PR objectivesThe changes to this file successfully introduce exports for the new AST classes (Type, Annotation, Variable) as outlined in the PR objectives. The addition of these exports enhances the module's interface and makes these new entities available for use in other parts of the application.
The export of the Writer entity, while not explicitly mentioned in the PR objectives, may play a supporting role in the implementation of the new AST classes. Its inclusion suggests that it might be an important utility for the new classes.
Overall, these changes appear to be a solid foundation for the introduction of class attributes to classes, as described in the PR objectives.
4-4: LGTM: Writer export added, but clarification needed.The export of the Writer entity enhances the module's interface. However, it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the PR objectives.
Could you please clarify the role of the Writer entity in the context of the PR objectives, particularly its relationship to the new AST classes (Type, Annotation, Variable)?
To verify the usage and importance of the Writer entity, let's run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Writer export is actively used in AST classes.
The
Writerentity is utilized in the following files within the AST module:
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.tsgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Annotation.tsgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Variable.tsThis confirms that the addition of the
Writerexport is necessary for the new AST classes.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the usage of Writer in the new AST classes # Test: Search for Writer usage in Type, Annotation, and Variable files echo "Checking Writer usage in new AST classes:" rg --type typescript 'Writer' generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Annotation.ts generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Variable.tsLength of output: 299
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check the usage of Writer in the new AST classes by targeting .ts files directly # Test: Search for Writer usage in Type.ts, Annotation.ts, and Variable.ts files echo "Checking Writer usage in new AST classes:" rg 'Writer' generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Annotation.ts generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Variable.tsLength of output: 773
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement updated correctly.The import statement has been appropriately expanded to include the new entities (Annotation, Variable, Type, Writer) from the "./ast" module. This change aligns well with the PR objectives and supports the new functionality introduced in this file.
15-15: LGTM: Export statement updated correctly.The export statement has been appropriately expanded to include the new entities (Annotation, Variable, Type, Writer) alongside the existing Class export. This change ensures that all necessary components are available for use in other parts of the project, aligning well with the PR objectives.
1-15: Summary: Excellent implementation of new AST classes and supporting functions.The changes in this file successfully introduce the necessary components for working with the new AST classes (Type, Annotation, Variable) as outlined in the PR objectives. The implementation is clean, consistent, and well-structured. The new functions and exports provide a clear interface for creating and working with these new entities.
A minor suggestion was made for naming consistency, but overall, these changes lay a solid foundation for the implementation of class attributes and enhance the module's capabilities.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Annotation.ts (1)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and necessary.The imports of
AstNodeandWriterare correctly sourced from local modules and are essential for the functionality of this file.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Variable.ts (3)
1-3: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and necessary.The imports for
AstNode,Writer, andAnnotationare well-chosen and align with the functionality of theVariableclass.
5-14: LGTM: Well-structured namespace and interface declaration.The
Variablenamespace andArgsinterface are well-defined. The optional properties fortypeandinitializerprovide flexibility in variable creation. The comments for each property enhance code readability.
16-26: LGTM: Well-structured Variable class.The
Variableclass is well-designed, extendingAstNodeand using readonly properties for immutability. The constructor correctly uses theArgsinterface for initialization.generators/pythonv2/codegen/package.json (1)
30-30: LGTM. Verify usage of the new dependency.The addition of
@fern-api/core-utilsas a dependency looks good. This appears to be another package within the same monorepo, which is a common pattern for sharing code between related projects.To ensure this new dependency is being utilized, please run the following script:
If the script doesn't return any results, consider removing the unused dependency or adding a TODO comment to use it in the future.
✅ Verification successful
Verification script encountered an error. Please run the updated script below to verify the usage of
@fern-api/core-utils:
LGTM. The
@fern-api/core-utilsdependency is actively used in multiple parts of the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of @fern-api/core-utils in the codebase # Test: Search for import statements or require calls for @fern-api/core-utils rg --type typescript --type javascript "from ['\"]@fern-api/core-utils['\"]|require\(['\"]@fern-api/core-utils['\"]\)" # If no results are found, it might indicate that the dependency is not yet used in the codebaseLength of output: 163
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of @fern-api/core-utils in the codebase # Search for import statements or require calls for @fern-api/core-utils in .ts and .js files rg "from ['\"]@fern-api/core-utils['\"]|require\(['\"]@fern-api/core-utils['\"]\)" -g "*.ts" -g "*.js"Length of output: 23766
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Type.test.ts (2)
1-9: LGTM: Imports and test setup are well-structured.The imports are appropriate for testing the
Typeclass, and the use ofbeforeEachto initialize a newWriterinstance before each test ensures isolation between tests, which is a good practice.
1-88: Great job on the comprehensive test suite for theTypeclass!This test file provides excellent coverage of the
Typeclass functionality, including all major Python types. The consistent test structure and appropriate use of Jest and theWriterclass contribute to a robust and maintainable test suite.To ensure the completeness of the test coverage, it would be beneficial to verify that all methods of the
Typeclass are being tested.Run the following script to check for any untested methods in the
Typeclass:This script will help identify any methods in the
Typeclass that might not be covered by the current test suite.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Variable.test.ts (4)
1-2: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate.The import statements are concise and import only the necessary components for the test file.
4-9: LGTM: Test structure follows best practices.The use of
describeto group tests andbeforeEachto initialize a newWriterinstance before each test ensures proper test isolation and follows Jest best practices.
11-18: LGTM: Basic variable declaration test is comprehensive.This test case effectively covers the fundamental scenario of declaring a variable with a name and type. The assertion correctly checks the output string.
20-28: LGTM: Variable declaration with initializer test is well-structured.This test case effectively covers the scenario of declaring a variable with a name, type, and initializer value. The assertion correctly checks the output string, including the initialization.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (3)
3-3: ImportVariablecorrectly addedThe import statement for
Variableis appropriately added, allowing the class to utilize theVariabletype.
15-16: Initializevariablesarray properlyThe
variablesarray is correctly declared as a private member and initialized to an empty array.
31-33: ImplementaddVariablemethod correctlyThe
addVariablemethod correctly adds aVariableinstance to thevariablesarray.
| if (typeof this.type === "string") { | ||
| writer.write(this.type); | ||
| } else { | ||
| this.type.write(writer); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[q] How does the writer handle super long lines? like let's say the AstNode is a Union of like 30 types
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The csharp package has a formatting step: https://github.com/fern-api/fern/blob/main/generators/csharp/codegen/src/ast/core/AstNode.ts#L85
Maybe we do something similar with black? I'd be keen on @dsinghvi's advice here when the time comes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would recommend using this wasm library that uses ruff https://www.npmjs.com/package/@wasm-fmt/ruff_fmt
| @@ -11,12 +12,34 @@ export declare namespace Class { | |||
| export class Class extends AstNode { | |||
| public readonly name: string; | |||
|
|
|||
| private variables: Variable[] = []; | |||
|
|
|||
| constructor({ name }: Class.Args) { | |||
| super(); | |||
| this.name = name; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | |||
| writer.write(`class ${this.name}:`); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[q] base classes coming in a future PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah OOS for this one.
| /* The type annotation of the variable */ | ||
| type?: Annotation; | ||
| /* The initializer for the variable */ | ||
| initializer?: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nit] I'm surprised that initializer is a string and not an AstNode
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm I see a couple different patterns for initializers in csharp.
String: https://github.com/fern-api/fern/blob/main/generators/csharp/codegen/src/ast/Parameter.ts#L14
Codeblock: https://github.com/fern-api/fern/blob/main/generators/csharp/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts#L32
I'd be interested in @dsinghvi's preference here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And introduce a CodeBlock AST Node which can either be a string or can be a lambda that takes a writer. basically a glorified function that will allow you to write any code you want
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When do you guys use CodeBlock vs stuff like this
Since this initializer is basically code, I would think we would want it all to be ast traversable
| name: "Car" | ||
| }); | ||
| clazz.addVariable( | ||
| python.variable({ name: "color", type: python.annotation({ type: "str" }), initializer: "'red'" }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[oos] interesting question of whether we should be outputting 'red' or "red". Maybe there's a prettier/black postprocessing step we could do using the user's config if there is one, defaulting to our own?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm yeah interesting. My guess would be that we output the latter but then also have a postprocessing step, as commented above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(commented on another thread to use ruff fmt)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (1)
66-124: LGTM: Well-structured Type class with factory methodsThe
Typeclass is well-structured and follows the factory pattern, which is appropriate for creating different types of objects. The static methods provide a clean API for creating type instances, corresponding to each type defined in theInternalTypeunion.
| @@ -11,12 +12,34 @@ export declare namespace Class { | |||
| export class Class extends AstNode { | |||
| public readonly name: string; | |||
|
|
|||
| private variables: Variable[] = []; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: @noanflaherty i would name this Field and rename the Variable AST Node to Field as well
| /* The name of the variable */ | ||
| name: string; | ||
| /* The type annotation of the variable */ | ||
| type?: Annotation; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thoughts on this just being a Type.ts -- forces someone to create a Type when instantiating a Field
| import { Writer } from "./core/Writer"; | ||
| import { Annotation } from "./Annotation"; | ||
|
|
||
| export declare namespace Variable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from another comment (rename this to Field)
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "tuple": | ||
| writer.write("Tuple["); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noanflaherty you will probably want to setup ClassReference and imports in this PR since we want to make sure that we are importing appropriately from the typing module
from typing import Tuple
from typing import Set
|
|
||
| export class Variable extends AstNode { | ||
| public readonly name: string; | ||
| public readonly type: Annotation | undefined; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Once/if this becomes Field then type should not be nullable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
annotations are optional in python though? eg this could be color = 'red'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They're not really optional for fields, which is what this class is supposed to be (not variables)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (35)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-43: Summary: Good implementation with minor improvement suggestion.The changes to the
Classmodule effectively introduce support for class attributes (fields) as intended. The implementation is well-structured, with appropriate encapsulation and methods for adding and writing fields. The formatting of the generated Python code has been improved.To further enhance the implementation:
- Consider handling empty classes as suggested in the
writemethod review comment.- If not already present elsewhere in the codebase, consider adding unit tests for the new functionality, especially edge cases like empty classes or classes with a single field.
These changes lay a good foundation for representing Python classes in the AST. As the project evolves, consider how this class might interact with other AST nodes (e.g., methods, decorators) to build more complex class structures.
packages/cli/fern-definition/validator/src/rules/no-undefined-variable-reference/__test__/no-undefined-variable-reference.test.ts (1)
37-37: LGTM. Consider updating related documentation.The change from "Variable reference" to "Field reference" is consistent with previous updates and maintains the new terminology across different test cases.
Consider updating any related documentation or comments in the codebase to reflect this terminology change from "Variable" to "Field".
packages/cli/generation/ir-generator/src/resolvers/VariableResolver.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-68: Summary: Terminology change from "Variable" to "Field" needs broader discussionThe changes in this file appear to be part of a larger shift from "Variable" to "Field" terminology. While the modifications themselves are straightforward, they raise important questions about consistency across the codebase.
Key points:
- The error messages have been updated to use "Field" instead of "Variable".
- Method names, interface names, and constants still use "Variable".
- This inconsistency could lead to confusion for developers working with this code.
I recommend initiating a broader discussion with the team to address the following:
- Is this terminology change intentional and part of a larger refactoring effort?
- If so, what is the scope of this change? Should it be applied consistently across all related code?
- Are there any implications for the public API or documentation that need to be considered?
- What is the plan for updating related tests, documentation, and other affected parts of the codebase?
Once these questions are addressed, it would be beneficial to create a comprehensive plan for implementing the terminology change consistently throughout the project. This may involve creating a separate issue or task to track the broader refactoring effort.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Field.test.ts (2)
67-75: LGTM: Comprehensive test for field with tuple type.This test case effectively covers the scenario of creating a field with a tuple type. It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field with a tuple type.Consider adding a test case for a tuple with mixed types (e.g.,
Tuple[int, str, float]) to ensure theFieldclass handles more complex tuple scenarios correctly.
1-75: Excellent test coverage and structure for the Field class.This test file provides comprehensive coverage for the
Fieldclass, including various field types such as basic types, complex types (lists, dictionaries, tuples), optional types, and union types. The test structure is consistent, follows best practices, and ensures proper isolation between test cases.To further enhance the test suite:
- Consider adding edge cases, such as fields with very long names or special characters.
- Test for potential error scenarios, like invalid type combinations or malformed inputs.
- If not covered elsewhere, include integration tests that use these fields within a class context to ensure they work as expected in real-world scenarios.
packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/outputs/bland/fern/api-v1/post/tools.mdx (2)
154-154: Approved: Terminology update improves clarity.The change from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" is a good improvement in terminology. It aligns better with modern programming concepts and enhances clarity.
Consider updating other occurrences of "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" throughout the document for consistency. For example, in the
headers,body, andqueryparameter descriptions.
Line range hint
1-385: Summary: Documentation improvements enhance clarity and consistency.The changes in this file improve the documentation by updating terminology and providing more specific information about data handling. These updates align well with the PR objectives and contribute to better overall documentation.
Consider a follow-up task to review the entire document and update any remaining instances of "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" for complete consistency. This will ensure that the terminology is uniform throughout the documentation, further enhancing its clarity and professionalism.
packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/fixtures/bland/api-v1/post/tools.mdx (4)
153-153: Approved: Terminology update enhances clarityThe change from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" is consistent with the rest of the document and improves clarity. This update helps maintain a uniform terminology throughout the documentation.
Consider adding a brief explanation of what a "Prompt Field" is, either here or in a general glossary section, to ensure users unfamiliar with the term can quickly understand its meaning and significance.
Line range hint
153-170: Approved: Improved explanation and example for body parameterThe updates to the "body" parameter section enhance the clarity of the documentation. The example now better illustrates how to use Prompt Fields in the body, and the explanation provides a clearer understanding of the relationship between the input schema and the body structure.
For consistency, consider updating the comment on line 154 to use "Prompt Field" instead of "Prompt Variable":
- // AI-generated input is created as the `input` Prompt Field - and the structure is defined by the input schema. + // AI-generated input is created as the `input` Prompt Field - and the structure is defined by the input schema.This change would align with the terminology used elsewhere in the document.
258-258: Approved: Consistent terminology and improved example for response parameterThe change from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" on line 258 maintains consistency with the terminology used throughout the document. The updated example and explanation for extracting data from the response provide a more comprehensive illustration of how to use this feature.
To further enhance clarity, consider adding a brief note explaining that the extracted Prompt Fields can be used in subsequent tools or in the AI's decision-making process. This would help users understand the full potential of data extraction from responses.
Line range hint
1-365: Overall improvements enhance documentation clarity and usabilityThe changes made to this document significantly improve its clarity and usability. The consistent use of terminology, particularly the change from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field," helps users better understand the concepts. The enhanced examples and explanations throughout the document provide clearer guidance on how to use the API effectively.
To further improve the documentation:
Consider adding a "Terminology" or "Glossary" section at the beginning or end of the document to define key terms like "Prompt Field," "Custom Tool," and other domain-specific concepts. This would help new users quickly grasp the fundamental concepts.
Evaluate the possibility of adding a "Quick Start" or "Tutorial" section that walks users through creating and using a simple Custom Tool. This hands-on approach could complement the existing reference-style documentation and help users get up to speed more quickly.
These additions would make the documentation more accessible to users with varying levels of experience and provide a more comprehensive resource for working with Custom Tools in this API.
packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/outputs/bland/fern/api-v1/post/tools-tool-id.mdx (3)
Line range hint
160-170: Improved clarity in body parameter description.The changes in this section enhance the documentation by:
- Updating terminology from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" for consistency.
- Adding a clear example of how AI-generated input is structured and used.
These improvements will help developers better understand how to work with dynamic input in the API.
Consider adding a brief explanation of why the terminology was changed from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" to help users who might be familiar with the old term.
Line range hint
265-270: Enhanced explanation of response data handling.The updates to this section improve the documentation by:
- Consistently using the term "Prompt Field" instead of "Prompt Variable".
- Providing a clearer explanation of how response data is extracted and stored.
- Including a helpful example that illustrates the concept.
These changes will assist developers in better understanding how to work with API responses.
To further improve clarity, consider adding a brief note explaining the difference between "Prompt Field" and the general concept of variables in programming. This could help prevent confusion for developers new to this specific API terminology.
Line range hint
1-370: Well-structured and comprehensive API documentation.The overall structure and content of this documentation file are excellent. Key strengths include:
- Detailed descriptions of all parameters and their usage.
- Consistent use of ParamField and ResponseField components for clarity.
- Helpful examples and explanations throughout the document.
These elements combine to create a valuable resource for developers working with the Custom Tool API.
For consistency, consider reviewing all instances of "Prompt Variable" throughout the document and updating them to "Prompt Field" if any were missed. This will ensure uniform terminology usage across the entire documentation.
packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/fixtures/bland/api-v1/post/tools-tool-id.mdx (1)
264-264: Terminology update and clarification: Approved with suggestion.The change from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" is consistent with the previous update and is approved. The clarification on how data is stored in the response is helpful.
Consider adding a brief explanation of what a "Prompt Field" is, either here or in a glossary section of the documentation. This would help users who might be unfamiliar with the term. For example:
- By default, the entire response body is stored in the `{{data}}` Prompt Field. + By default, the entire response body is stored in the `{{data}}` Prompt Field. Prompt Fields are dynamic placeholders that can be used to access and manipulate data within the tool.fern/pages/docs/getting-started/global-configuration.mdx (3)
Line range hint
328-368: Comprehensive layout configuration options addedThe new layout configuration options provide excellent granular control over the documentation layout. Each new option is well-documented with clear explanations, default values, and valid input formats.
The addition of the
disable-headeroption is particularly noteworthy, as it allows for a significant layout change and its implications are clearly explained.Consider adding a brief example YAML snippet at the beginning of the Layout configuration section to visually demonstrate how these new options are used in the
docs.ymlfile. This would provide an immediate overview of the available options and their structure.
Line range hint
370-389: Improved GitHub configuration documentationThe updates to the GitHub configuration section are valuable improvements:
- The added warning about repository visibility is crucial for users to ensure the "Edit this page" functionality works correctly.
- The expanded documentation for each GitHub configuration option provides clearer guidance.
Consider adding a brief note explaining the purpose of the "Edit this page" functionality at the beginning of this section. This would provide context for users who might not be familiar with this feature.
Line range hint
134-150: Enhanced redirects configuration documentationThe updates to the redirects configuration section are valuable improvements:
- The expanded explanations provide clearer guidance on how to use redirects.
- The addition of the
permanentoption allows for more flexible redirect configurations, distinguishing between permanent (308) and temporary (307) redirects.Consider adding a brief example of when one might use a permanent vs. temporary redirect. This would help users understand when to use each type and make more informed decisions about their redirect configurations.
seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Terminology update approved with a minor suggestion.The change from "Variable" to "Field" in the path template syntax description is appropriate and likely improves consistency with other parts of the documentation. This update doesn't affect the actual syntax or behavior of the path template.
However, for complete consistency, consider updating the explanatory text that follows this syntax definition. Specifically, the paragraphs that still use the term "variable" when describing the
Fieldsyntax could be updated to use "field" instead.seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/package-id/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Approve changes with a minor suggestion for consistencyThe updates to the path template syntax description improve clarity by replacing "Variable" with "Field" and providing more detailed information about how a Field matches part of the URL path. These changes enhance the documentation without affecting the functionality of the protocol.
For complete consistency, consider updating the following line as well:
- // If a variable contains exactly one path segment, such as `"{var}"` or + // If a field contains exactly one path segment, such as `"{var}"` orThis change would align with the new terminology used in the updated sections.
Also applies to: 240-243
seed/go-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Terminology update in path template syntax documentationThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the path template syntax definition is appropriate and consistent with the rest of the documentation. This update better reflects the nature of the element in the path template, aligning it with the terminology used throughout the file when referring to message fields.
Consider updating the explanation below this syntax definition (around line 240) to use the term "Field" instead of "variable" for complete consistency. For example, "The syntax
Fieldmatches part of the URL path as specified by its template. A field template must not contain other fields."seed/java-spring/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
Line range hint
1-424: Suggestion: Consider enhancing the documentation with additional examplesWhile the current changes improve the consistency of the path template syntax documentation, consider further enhancing the overall documentation in this file. Some suggestions:
- Add more real-world examples of complex path templates and their corresponding gRPC method signatures.
- Include a section on best practices for designing RESTful APIs using gRPC transcoding.
- Provide examples of common pitfalls and how to avoid them when using this configuration.
These additions could make the documentation even more valuable for developers implementing gRPC transcoding.
seed/openapi/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (2)
231-231: Terminology update approved. Consider updating related documentation.The change from 'Variable' to 'Field' in the Segment definition improves clarity in the context of URL path matching. This terminology update is appropriate and consistent with the subsequent changes.
To maintain consistency, please ensure that any related documentation or code comments using the term 'Variable' in this context are also updated to use 'Field'.
232-235: Approved: Clear explanation added for 'Field' syntax.The replacement of 'Variable' with 'Field' and the added explanation significantly improve the clarity of the path template syntax. The explanation effectively describes how the 'Field' syntax is used in URL path matching.
Consider adding a brief example to illustrate the usage of the 'Field' syntax, such as:
For example, in the path "/v1/messages/{message_id}", "{message_id}" is a Field that matches a single path segment.This would further enhance understanding for API users.
seed/python-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Terminology update in path template syntax documentation.The changes in the "Path template syntax" section improve clarity by consistently using "Field" instead of "Variable". This update aligns the terminology with common API design practices and provides a clearer explanation of how fields are used in URL path templates.
Consider updating the rest of the document to use "Field" consistently where appropriate, to maintain coherence with this change.
Also applies to: 240-243
seed/ruby-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
232-232: Field syntax definition improvedThe updated Field syntax definition provides a more precise description by introducing the concept of "FieldPath". This change enhances the clarity of the path template syntax documentation.
However, to further improve clarity, consider adding a brief explanation of "FieldPath" immediately after this line, if it's not already present in the subsequent lines.
seed/ts-express/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Terminology update in path template syntaxThe syntax definition for
Segmenthas been updated, replacing "Variable" with "Field". This change aligns the terminology with the subsequent definition ofFieldand potentially with broader API documentation standards.While this doesn't affect the code functionality, it's worth noting for developers who might be familiar with the previous terminology. Consider updating related documentation or adding a note about this terminology change to maintain consistency and avoid confusion.
232-232: NewFielddefinition in path template syntaxA new definition for
Fieldhas been introduced, replacing the previousVariabledefinition. This change provides more detailed syntax for defining fields in path templates:Field = "{" FieldPath [ "=" Segments ] "}" ;This new definition allows for more flexible path template designs, as it includes an optional custom segment pattern (
[ "=" Segments ]). This addition could be particularly useful for API designers who need more control over how fields are represented in URLs.Consider adding an example in the comments to illustrate how this new syntax can be used, especially the optional custom segment pattern. This would help developers understand and utilize this new flexibility in their API designs.
231-232: Summary of changes to path template syntax documentationThe changes in this file update the terminology and syntax definition for path templates in gRPC transcoding. The shift from "Variable" to "Field" and the introduction of a more detailed
Fieldsyntax enhance the consistency and flexibility of path template definitions.While these changes don't affect the code's functionality, they do impact how developers understand and use the API. To ensure a smooth transition:
- Review and update any related documentation that may still use the old "Variable" terminology.
- Consider adding examples demonstrating the use of the new
Fieldsyntax, particularly the optional custom segment pattern.- If this is part of a larger terminology update across the API, ensure consistency in other related files and documentation.
These updates should ultimately lead to clearer and more flexible API designs, benefiting both API designers and consumers.
seed/ts-express/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Approve terminology update with a minor suggestion.The changes in the path template syntax description improve clarity by consistently using the term "Field" instead of "Variable". This update aligns the terminology with the rest of the document and provides a clearer explanation of how the Field syntax works in path templates.
Consider adding a brief explanation of why the term "Field" is used instead of "Variable" to help users understand the rationale behind this terminology choice. This could be added as a short comment just before or after the syntax description.
Also applies to: 240-243
generators/go/internal/testdata/model/ir/fixtures/types.go (1)
2262-2263: Consider updating the JSON tag to match the new field name.The field has been renamed from
VariabletoField, which is likely for better clarity or consistency in the codebase. However, the JSON tag still uses "variable". To maintain consistency between the field name and its serialization, consider updating the JSON tag as well.Here's a suggested change:
- Field *VariableId `json:"variable,omitempty" url:"variable,omitempty"` + Field *VariableId `json:"field,omitempty" url:"field,omitempty"`Note that changing the JSON tag might affect API compatibility. If this is an intentional decision to keep the external representation unchanged, please add a comment explaining the reason for the discrepancy between the field name and the JSON tag.
packages/cli/api-importers/openapi/openapi-ir-to-fern-tests/src/__test__/fixtures/deel/openapi.yml (4)
Line range hint
22-95: Tags are well-defined, but consider standardizing external documentation links.The tags provide clear categorization for API endpoints, which is excellent for documentation and SDK generation. However, there's an inconsistency in the external documentation links:
- Some tags use "https://developer.letsdeel.com"
- Others use "https://developer.deel.com"
Consider standardizing these URLs for consistency.
Line range hint
96-2890: Paths section is comprehensive, but ensure consistency across all endpoints.The paths section provides detailed information for each endpoint, including parameters, request bodies, and responses. This level of detail is excellent for API consumers. However, given the extensive nature of this section, it's crucial to maintain consistency across all endpoints.
Some observations:
- Most endpoints use proper HTTP methods (GET, POST, PATCH, DELETE).
- Security schemes are consistently applied.
- Response codes and schemas are well-defined.
To ensure ongoing consistency and completeness:
- Consider implementing automated tools or processes to validate the OpenAPI specification.
- Regularly review and update the documentation to match any API changes.
- Ensure all endpoints have consistent error responses and follow similar patterns for pagination, filtering, and sorting where applicable.
Line range hint
2891-7967: Components section is well-structured, but consider some improvements.The components section provides a comprehensive set of reusable schemas, parameters, request bodies, and responses. This promotes consistency and reduces duplication in the API specification. However, there are a few areas that could be improved:
Some schema properties use
nullable: true, while others usetype: ["string", "null"]. Consider standardizing the approach for representing nullable fields.The
SecuritySchemessection is well-defined, including both API token and OAuth2 authentication methods. However, thedeelTokenscheme uses a description field to provide detailed instructions. Consider moving this information to a separate documentation section for better organization.Some schemas, like
PaymentStatementInitiatedWebhook, have very few required properties. Ensure that all required properties are correctly marked as such.The
HrisDirectEmployeeschema usesoneOffor job information and contract types. While this provides flexibility, it may complicate client-side parsing. Consider if a more straightforward structure could achieve the same goal.Some enum types, like
ContractTypeEnum, include anunknownvalue. Evaluate if this is necessary or if it could be handled differently to provide more clarity to API consumers.
Line range hint
7968-8022: Security schemes are well-defined, but consider improving token generation instructions.The security schemes provide good options for API authentication:
- The
deelTokenscheme uses bearer token authentication, which is simple and suitable for many use cases.- The
oauth2scheme implements the authorization code flow with well-defined scopes, providing more advanced security features.However, the token generation instructions in the
deelTokendescription could be improved:
- Consider moving the detailed instructions to a separate authentication documentation section.
- The image link (
) may not work in all contexts where this OpenAPI spec is used. Consider providing a URL to the image or removing it from the spec.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
generators/commons/src/__test__/__snapshots__/SourceFetcher.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Class.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/typescript/.yarn/releases/yarn-1.22.22.cjsis excluded by!**/.yarn/**
📒 Files selected for processing (71)
- fern/apis/fhir/definition/package.yml (2 hunks)
- fern/pages/docs/getting-started/global-configuration.mdx (1 hunks)
- generators/commons/src/test/fixtures/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- generators/go/internal/fern/ir/types.go (1 hunks)
- generators/go/internal/testdata/model/ir/fixtures/types.go (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (2 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Field.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/typescript/sdk/client-class-generator/src/GeneratedSdkClientClassImpl.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/cli/api-importers/openapi/openapi-ir-to-fern-tests/src/test/fixtures/deel/openapi.yml (1 hunks)
- packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/test/fixtures/bland/api-v1/post/tools-tool-id.mdx (2 hunks)
- packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/test/fixtures/bland/api-v1/post/tools.mdx (2 hunks)
- packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/test/outputs/bland/fern/api-v1/post/tools-tool-id.mdx (2 hunks)
- packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/test/outputs/bland/fern/api-v1/post/tools.mdx (2 hunks)
- packages/cli/fern-definition/validator/src/rules/no-undefined-variable-reference/test/no-undefined-variable-reference.test.ts (1 hunks)
- packages/cli/generation/ir-generator/src/resolvers/VariableResolver.ts (2 hunks)
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/package-id/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/package-id/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/fastapi/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/fastapi/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/go-fiber/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/go-fiber/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/go-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/go-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/go-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/go-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/java-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/java-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/java-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/java-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/java-spring/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/java-spring/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/openapi/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/openapi/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/php-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/php-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/php-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/php-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/postman/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/postman/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/pydantic/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/pydantic/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/python-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/python-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ruby-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ruby-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ruby-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ruby-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ts-express/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ts-express/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ts-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- seed/ts-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- test-definitions/fern/apis/grpc-proto-exhaustive/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
- test-definitions/fern/apis/grpc-proto/proto/google/api/http.proto (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (27)
- generators/commons/src/test/fixtures/google/api/http.proto
- generators/typescript/sdk/client-class-generator/src/GeneratedSdkClientClassImpl.ts
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/fastapi/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/go-fiber/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/go-fiber/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/go-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/go-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/java-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/java-spring/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/openapi/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/php-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/php-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/postman/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/pydantic/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/pydantic/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/python-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/ruby-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/ruby-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/ts-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- seed/ts-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto
- test-definitions/fern/apis/grpc-proto-exhaustive/proto/google/api/http.proto
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (73)
fern/apis/fhir/definition/__package__.yml (2)
37016-37016: LGTM: Documentation update aligns with PR objectives.The change from "Variable" to "Field" in the documentation is appropriate and consistent with the PR's goal of introducing components for class attributes. This terminology update improves clarity and better reflects common object-oriented programming concepts.
40814-40815: LGTM: Consistent terminology update in documentation.The change from "Variable" to "Field" in this section maintains consistency with the previous update and aligns with the PR objectives. This consistent use of terminology across the documentation improves overall clarity and readability.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (4)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement for Field is correctly added.The import of
Fieldis necessary for the new functionality and is placed appropriately with other imports.
15-15: LGTM: Fields property is correctly added and initialized.The
fieldsproperty is correctly typed asField[], initialized as an empty array, and marked as private for proper encapsulation. This addition aligns with the PR objective of introducing class attributes.Note: The suggestion to rename
VariabletoFieldhas been implemented as requested in a previous review.
31-33: LGTM: AddField method correctly implemented.The
addFieldmethod provides a clean interface for adding fields to the class. Its implementation is simple and correct, pushing the new field to thefieldsarray.
35-43: LGTM: WriteFields method well-implemented for formatting.The
writeFieldsmethod is well-implemented, correctly iterating over the fields and managing newlines for proper formatting. The use ofwriteNewLineIfLastLineNotand the additional newline between fields (except after the last one) ensures clean and consistent output.packages/cli/fern-definition/validator/src/rules/no-undefined-variable-reference/__test__/no-undefined-variable-reference.test.ts (4)
25-25: LGTM. Consistent terminology update.The change from "Variable reference" to "Field reference" is consistent with the previous update and maintains the new terminology.
31-31: LGTM. Consistent terminology update across test cases.The change from "Variable" to "Field" is consistent with previous updates and maintains the new terminology across different test cases.
19-19: LGTM. Verify terminology consistency across the codebase.The change from "Variable" to "Field" in the error message is appropriate. This update likely reflects a shift in terminology in the codebase.
To ensure consistency, let's check for any remaining instances of "Variable" that should be "Field":
19-37: Summary: Consistent terminology update from "Variable" to "Field"The changes in this file consistently update the error messages from using "Variable" to "Field". This terminology shift likely reflects a broader change in the codebase. The updates improve consistency without altering the functionality of the tests.
To ensure this change is part of a broader update, let's check for any remaining instances of "Variable" in related files:
packages/cli/generation/ir-generator/src/resolvers/VariableResolver.ts (1)
57-57: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionConsider updating method name and constant for consistency
The error message has been updated from "Variable reference does not start with" to "Field reference does not start with", which is consistent with the previous change. However, there are still inconsistencies:
- The method name
getVariableIdOrThrowstill uses "Variable".- The
VARIABLE_PREFIXconstant is still named using "Variable".Consider the following updates for consistency:
- Rename
getVariableIdOrThrowtogetFieldIdOrThrow.- Rename
VARIABLE_PREFIXtoFIELD_PREFIX.Here's a suggested diff:
- public static VARIABLE_PREFIX = "$"; + public static FIELD_PREFIX = "$"; - public getVariableIdOrThrow(referenceToVariable: string): VariableId { - const variableId = this.getVariableId(referenceToVariable); - if (variableId == null) { - throw new Error("Field reference does not start with " + VariableResolverImpl.VARIABLE_PREFIX); - } - return variableId; + public getFieldIdOrThrow(referenceToField: string): VariableId { + const fieldId = this.getFieldId(referenceToField); + if (fieldId == null) { + throw new Error("Field reference does not start with " + VariableResolverImpl.FIELD_PREFIX); + } + return fieldId; } - public getVariableId(referenceToVariable: string): VariableId | undefined { - if (!referenceToVariable.startsWith(VariableResolverImpl.VARIABLE_PREFIX)) { + public getFieldId(referenceToField: string): VariableId | undefined { + if (!referenceToField.startsWith(VariableResolverImpl.FIELD_PREFIX)) { return undefined; } - return referenceToVariable.substring(VariableResolverImpl.VARIABLE_PREFIX.length); + return referenceToField.substring(VariableResolverImpl.FIELD_PREFIX.length); }Note: These changes might require updates in other parts of the codebase that use these methods and constants.
To verify the impact of these changes, you can run the following script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for usages of methods and constants that might need updating echo "Usages of getVariableIdOrThrow:" rg --type typescript "getVariableIdOrThrow" echo "\nUsages of getVariableId:" rg --type typescript "getVariableId" echo "\nUsages of VARIABLE_PREFIX:" rg --type typescript "VARIABLE_PREFIX"This will help identify areas that might need updating if these changes are implemented.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Field.test.ts (7)
1-9: LGTM: Proper test setup and imports.The test file is well-structured with appropriate imports and follows Jest best practices by setting up a new
Writerinstance before each test. This ensures a clean state for each test case.
11-18: LGTM: Comprehensive test for basic field creation.This test case effectively covers the basic scenario of creating a field with a name and type. It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field.
20-28: LGTM: Thorough test for field with initializer.This test case effectively covers the scenario of creating a field with a name, type, and initializer value. It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field with an initializer.
30-38: LGTM: Comprehensive test for field with complex type.This test case effectively covers the scenario of creating a field with a complex type (List[int]). It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field with a complex type and initializer.
40-47: LGTM: Well-structured test for field with optional type.This test case effectively covers the scenario of creating a field with an optional type. It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field with an optional type.
49-56: LGTM: Comprehensive test for field with union type.This test case effectively covers the scenario of creating a field with a union type. It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field with a union type.
58-65: LGTM: Well-structured test for field with dictionary type.This test case effectively covers the scenario of creating a field with a dictionary type. It correctly uses the
python.field()function and verifies that the output matches the expected Python syntax for a typed field with a dictionary type.packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/outputs/bland/fern/api-v1/post/tools.mdx (1)
259-259: Approved: Enhanced clarity on response handling.The addition of specific information about the entire response body being stored in the
{{data}}Prompt Field improves the documentation's clarity. This change helps users better understand how to work with the response data.packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/fixtures/bland/api-v1/post/tools-tool-id.mdx (1)
Line range hint
1-364: Summary: Documentation improvements enhance clarity and consistency.The changes in this file primarily focus on terminology updates and minor clarifications. The shift from "Prompt Variable" to "Prompt Field" improves consistency throughout the documentation. These updates align well with the PR objectives of introducing and refining components for class attributes.
While the changes are relatively minor, they contribute to a more coherent and user-friendly documentation. Great job on maintaining and improving the documentation quality!
fern/pages/docs/getting-started/global-configuration.mdx (2)
Line range hint
264-275: Improved typography configurationThe changes to the typography configuration section are well-documented and provide more flexibility for font management. The introduction of the
pathsproperty allows users to specify multiple font files for different weights, which is a significant improvement over the previous singularpathproperty.The documentation clearly explains the new structure and provides both basic and advanced examples, which will be helpful for users implementing custom fonts.
Line range hint
1-389: Well-structured and consistent documentationThe overall structure and consistency of the document are commendable:
- Each configuration section follows a similar format, making the document easy to navigate and understand.
- Code examples are provided for most sections, enhancing clarity and helping users implement the configurations.
- ParamField components are used consistently to document individual configuration options, providing a uniform way to present information.
These structural choices contribute to a high-quality, user-friendly documentation experience.
seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Terminology update improves clarityThe change from 'Variable' to 'Field' in the path template syntax description is a positive update. It aligns better with Protocol Buffer and gRPC concepts, potentially reducing confusion for developers.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following script to check for any remaining instances of the old terminology:
If any results are found, consider updating them to maintain consistency with this change.
Also applies to: 240-243
✅ Verification successful
All instances of 'Variable' in URL path templates have been updated
No occurrences found. The terminology is now consistent across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for 'Variable' in the context of URL path templates rg --type proto "Variable.*URL path" .Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for 'Variable' in the context of URL path templates within .proto files rg "Variable.*URL path" --glob '*.proto' .Length of output: 44
seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-232: Summary of path template syntax changesThe changes in the path template syntax description provide more clarity and specificity:
Segmentnow includesFieldinstead ofVariable.Fieldsyntax is now explicitly defined, replacing the previousVariablesyntax.These updates appear to be documentation improvements rather than functional changes. However, they may impact how developers interpret and implement path templates in their use of the API.
To ensure these changes are consistently applied and don't introduce discrepancies, please run the following comprehensive check:
#!/bin/bash # Check for any remaining references to the old syntax and potential inconsistencies rg --type proto --type go --type java --type md "(Segment|Variable|Field).*(\{.*\}|URL path|template)" .Consider the following actions to maintain consistency and clarity:
- Review and update any code examples or tutorials that use the old syntax.
- Ensure that the implementation correctly handles path templates as per this updated syntax.
- If there are any generated docs or SDKs based on this proto file, regenerate them to reflect these changes.
- Communicate these changes to the API users, possibly through release notes or documentation updates.
232-232: Replacement of Variable syntax with Field syntaxThe
Variablesyntax has been replaced with a more specificFieldsyntax. This change provides more clarity on how fields are mapped in the URL path, now including aFieldPathand optionalSegments.To ensure this change is properly implemented and doesn't introduce breaking changes, please run the following script:
This will help identify any potential inconsistencies or areas that need to be updated following this syntax change.
Consider updating any related documentation, examples, or code comments that reference the old
Variablesyntax to reflect this newFieldsyntax. This will ensure consistency across the project and prevent confusion for developers using this API.
231-231: Update in path template syntax definitionThe definition of
Segmenthas been updated from includingVariableto includingField. This change appears to be a clarification that aligns better with the subsequent explanation of theFieldsyntax.To ensure consistency, please run the following script to check if this change is reflected in other parts of the codebase or documentation:
This will help verify if the change is consistently applied across the project.
✅ Verification successful
Consistent Update of
SegmentDefinition Across CodebaseAll occurrences of
Segmenthave been successfully updated to includeFieldinstead ofVariableacross the codebase. The change is consistent and aligns with the intended clarification.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for occurrences of 'Segment' and 'Variable' in path template syntax contexts rg --type proto --type md "Segment.*=.*(\*|\*\*|LITERAL|Variable|Field)" .Length of output: 136
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for occurrences of 'Segment' and 'Variable' in path template syntax contexts using glob patterns rg --glob '*.proto' --glob '*.md' "Segment.*=.*(\*|\*\*|LITERAL|Variable|Field)" .Length of output: 1442
seed/csharp-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/read-only-memory/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Approve: Terminology update improves clarity and consistencyThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the path template syntax definition is a positive update. This modification:
- Aligns the terminology more closely with Protocol Buffer concepts.
- Improves consistency with the rest of the documentation, which predominantly uses "field" when referring to message components.
- Enhances clarity for developers implementing URL path templates in gRPC transcoding.
While this change doesn't alter the API's functionality, it contributes to a more precise and understandable API design documentation.
seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Improved clarity in path template syntax definitionThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the
Segmentdefinition enhances the consistency and clarity of the path template syntax documentation. This adjustment aligns well with the subsequent explanation of theFieldsyntax and provides a more precise description of what can be used in a path segment.
232-232: Consistent terminology in path template syntaxWhile there are no visible changes to this line, it's worth noting that the
Fielddefinition here is now more consistent with the updatedSegmentdefinition in line 231. This consistency enhances the overall clarity of the path template syntax documentation.
231-232: Summary of changes: Improved documentation clarityThe changes in this file, while minor, contribute to the overall clarity and consistency of the API documentation. By updating the terminology in the path template syntax explanation, the documentation now provides a more precise and coherent description of how URL paths are structured in the API. These updates, although not directly related to the introduction of class attributes, demonstrate attention to detail and commitment to maintaining clear and accurate documentation throughout the project.
seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/no-custom-config/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Approved: Clarification of path template syntaxThe change from
VariabletoFieldin the Segment definition enhances clarity and consistency with the subsequent Field syntax explanation. This modification improves the documentation without altering the underlying functionality.
240-243: Approved: Enhanced explanation of Field syntax in path templatesThis change provides a more detailed and precise explanation of the Field syntax in path templates. It clarifies that:
- A Field matches part of the URL path as specified by its template.
- A variable template must not contain other variables.
These clarifications are crucial for API developers to understand the constraints and proper usage of Fields in path templates, potentially preventing errors in API design.
231-243: Summary: Documentation improvements enhance API clarityThe changes in this file are focused on improving the documentation of the path template syntax. These updates provide more precise and clear explanations of the Segment and Field components in URL paths. While these modifications do not alter the functional aspects of the API configuration, they significantly enhance the clarity of the documentation. This improvement will help API developers better understand and implement correct URL path templates, potentially reducing errors and misunderstandings in API design and usage.
seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/package-id/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Terminology update improves consistencyThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the segment definition aligns the terminology with the rest of the documentation. This improvement enhances clarity and consistency throughout the file.
240-243: Enhanced explanation of field mapping in URL pathsThe updated paragraph provides a more accurate and comprehensive explanation of how fields are mapped to URL paths. This change:
- Maintains consistency with the terminology update (from "variable" to "field").
- Clarifies that a field can match part of the URL path, not just a single segment.
- Improves the overall precision of the documentation.
These updates contribute to a better understanding of the path template syntax and its usage in gRPC transcoding.
231-243: Documentation improvements enhance clarity and consistencyThe changes in this file are focused on improving the documentation for gRPC transcoding and HTTP mapping rules. By updating terminology and providing more precise explanations, these modifications enhance the overall clarity and consistency of the documentation. This will benefit developers working with gRPC transcoding by providing more accurate and easier-to-understand guidelines.
No functional changes were made to the proto definitions themselves, so no additional testing or verification is required. These documentation updates are a positive contribution to the project.
seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/proto/google/api/http.proto (2)
231-232: Terminology update improves clarity and consistencyThe changes in the "Path template syntax" section enhance the documentation:
- Replacing "Variable" with "Field" in the syntax definition provides consistency with common API terminology.
- The new "Field" syntax definition (line 232) offers a clearer structure for field templates.
- The updated explanation (lines 240-243) maintains consistency with the new terminology.
These modifications improve the overall clarity of the documentation without affecting the actual message definitions or functionality of the proto file.
Also applies to: 240-243
Line range hint
1-391: Documentation update enhances clarity without functional changesThe changes in this file are limited to documentation updates in the "Path template syntax" section. These modifications improve the clarity and consistency of the terminology used in describing URL path templates. Importantly, these changes do not affect the actual message definitions or functionality of the proto file.
Key points:
- Terminology has been updated from "Variable" to "Field" for better alignment with common API terminology.
- The syntax definition has been expanded to provide more detailed information about field templates.
- The explanatory text has been updated to reflect the new terminology consistently.
These changes contribute to better understanding of the API configuration without introducing any functional modifications to the proto definitions.
seed/csharp-sdk/grpc-proto/proto/google/api/http.proto (4)
231-231: Terminology update improves consistencyThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the segment definition aligns the terminology with the subsequent explanation of the "Field" syntax. This update enhances the consistency of the documentation without affecting the actual functionality of the protocol.
232-232: Consistent terminology updateThis change from "Variable" to "Field" in the Field definition is consistent with the previous modification. It reinforces the use of "Field" terminology throughout the documentation, improving overall clarity without altering the actual syntax or functionality of the protocol.
Line range hint
1-424: Summary of changesThe modifications in this file are focused on improving the consistency of terminology in the documentation for path template syntax. The changes from "Variable" to "Field" in the comment section enhance clarity without affecting the actual protocol implementation or message definitions. These updates are beneficial for maintaining clear and consistent documentation across the project.
231-240: Verify terminology consistency across documentationWhile the changes improve the consistency within this file, it's important to ensure that this terminology update from "Variable" to "Field" is applied consistently across all related documentation. This includes other proto files, API documentation, and any developer guides that reference these path template syntaxes.
To verify the consistency, you can run the following script:
This script will help identify any inconsistencies in terminology usage across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Terminology consistency confirmed across documentation
All instances of the terminology change from "Variable" to "Field" have been verified and are consistently applied across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for inconsistent terminology in related files echo "Searching for 'Variable' in path template contexts:" rg --type proto --type md "Variable.*=.*Segments" ./ echo "Searching for 'Field' in path template contexts:" rg --type proto --type md "Field.*=.*Segments" ./Length of output: 398
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for inconsistent terminology in related files echo "Searching for 'Variable' in path template contexts:" rg -g "*.proto" -g "*.md" "Variable.*=.*Segments" ./ echo "Searching for 'Field' in path template contexts:" rg -g "*.proto" -g "*.md" "Field.*=.*Segments" ./Length of output: 1729
seed/fastapi/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Terminology update in path template syntax definition.The change from "Variable" to "Field" in the syntax definition for path template segments is appropriate. This update aligns the terminology with the subsequent explanation of the "Field" syntax, providing better consistency throughout the documentation. This change doesn't affect the actual functionality of the gRPC transcoding but improves the clarity of the documentation.
240-243: Improved clarity in Field syntax explanation for path templates.This change enhances the explanation of the "Field" syntax in path templates:
- It clarifies that a Field matches part of the URL path as specified by its template.
- It introduces an important rule: a variable template must not contain other variables.
- The existing explanation about omitting the template for single path segment variables is preserved.
These updates provide more precise rules for defining path templates, which will help developers create more accurate and unambiguous URL mappings for gRPC transcoding. This improvement in documentation clarity is valuable for preventing potential errors in API design.
231-243: Summary of documentation improvements for gRPC transcoding.The changes in this file focus on enhancing the documentation for gRPC transcoding, specifically in the area of path template syntax. These updates:
- Improve terminology consistency by using "Field" instead of "Variable" in the syntax definition.
- Provide more precise rules for defining path templates, including the clarification that a variable template must not contain other variables.
These documentation improvements will help developers better understand and implement gRPC transcoding in their APIs. The changes do not affect the actual protocol buffer message definitions or introduce any functional changes, ensuring backward compatibility while enhancing usability.
seed/go-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Approved: Terminology alignment in path template syntaxThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the path template syntax definition improves consistency with the subsequent explanation of the
Fieldsyntax. This alignment in terminology enhances clarity and reduces potential confusion for developers working with the API.
240-243: Approved: Enhanced clarity in Field syntax explanationThe updated explanation of the
Fieldsyntax provides more precise information about how it matches parts of the URL path. It also adds an important constraint that a variable template must not contain other variables. This change offers several benefits:
- Improved accuracy in describing the
Fieldsyntax behavior.- Clear communication of constraints, helping developers avoid potential errors.
- Retention of the single path segment variable example, ensuring backward compatibility in understanding.
These updates contribute to a more comprehensive and accurate documentation, which will be valuable for developers working with this API.
Line range hint
1-424: Summary: Documentation improvements with no functional changesThe changes in this file are limited to documentation updates in the comments section. These modifications improve the clarity and consistency of the path template syntax explanation without altering the actual
HttporHttpRulemessage definitions.Key points:
- Terminology has been aligned to use "Field" consistently.
- The
Fieldsyntax explanation has been enhanced with more precise information.- An important constraint about variable templates has been added.
These documentation improvements will benefit developers working with the API but do not require any code modifications in existing implementations using this proto file. The changes are purely informational and do not affect the protocol's functionality.
seed/java-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
240-240: Consistent terminology update in the explanationThe change from "variable" to "Field" in this line maintains consistency with the updated syntax description. This ensures that the explanation aligns with the new terminology introduced in the path template syntax.
231-240: Summary of changes to path template syntax documentationThe changes in this file focus on improving the clarity and consistency of the path template syntax documentation:
- Updated terminology from "Variable" to "Field" in the syntax description.
- Added a more detailed explanation of the "Field" syntax.
- Adjusted the subsequent explanation to maintain consistency with the new terminology.
These changes enhance the documentation without altering the functional aspects of the HTTP rule definitions. However, it's important to ensure that this terminology update is reflected in any related documentation or code comments to maintain consistency across the project.
To ensure comprehensive documentation update, let's check for any related files that might need similar updates:
#!/bin/bash # Search for files containing similar path template syntax descriptions rg --type proto "Template.*=.*Segments.*Verb" .
231-232: Terminology update and syntax clarification in path template descriptionThe changes in the path template syntax description provide more clarity and consistency:
- The term "Variable" has been replaced with "Field" in the Segment definition. This aligns better with the field-based nature of Protocol Buffers.
- A new line has been added to define the "Field" syntax explicitly.
These updates improve the documentation by:
- Using more precise terminology
- Providing a clearer structure for defining path segments
- Offering more detailed information about how fields are used in path templates
To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's check if this terminology change is reflected in other parts of the file or related files:
seed/java-model/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Terminology update improves consistencyThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the path template syntax definition enhances the consistency of terminology throughout the document. This modification aligns well with the rest of the file, where "Field" is used to describe parts of the URL path specified by templates.
The updated lines now read:
// Segment = "*" | "**" | LITERAL | Field ; // Field = "{" FieldPath [ "=" Segments ] "}" ;And the explanation has been updated accordingly:
// The syntax `Field` matches part of the URL path as specified by its // template. A variable template must not contain other variables. If a variable // matches a single path segment, its template may be omitted, e.g. `{var}` // is equivalent to `{var=*}`.This change improves the overall clarity and consistency of the API documentation without altering any functional aspects of the protobuf messages or their behavior.
Also applies to: 240-243
seed/java-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Approved: Terminology alignment in syntax definitionThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the
Segmentdefinition improves consistency with the subsequent explanation of theFieldsyntax. This adjustment enhances the clarity of the documentation without affecting the protocol's implementation.
232-232: Approved: Consistent terminology in Field definitionThe replacement of "Variable" with "Field" in the
Fielddefinition is consistent with the previous change. This modification ensures uniform terminology throughout the syntax documentation, improving overall clarity and readability.
231-232: Summary: Documentation improvements enhance clarityThe changes in this file are limited to documentation updates, specifically in the syntax definition section. These modifications improve terminology consistency by using "Field" instead of "Variable" throughout the syntax explanation. The changes enhance the overall clarity of the documentation without affecting the protocol's functionality or implementation.
No functional changes were made to the protocol definition, and no further actions or verifications are necessary. These documentation improvements are beneficial for developers working with the gRPC transcoding feature.
seed/java-spring/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Approved: Improved consistency in path template syntax documentationThe changes in these lines enhance the clarity and consistency of the path template syntax documentation:
- In the
Segmentdefinition, "Variable" has been replaced with "Field".- The
Fielddefinition now uses consistent terminology.These updates align the syntax description with the actual usage throughout the document, making it easier for developers to understand and implement the path template syntax correctly.
seed/openapi/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-235: Summary: Terminology update and improved documentationThe changes in this file focus on enhancing the clarity of the path template syntax documentation. The replacement of 'Variable' with 'Field' in the syntax definition is consistent and appropriate. The added explanation for the 'Field' syntax provides valuable information for API users.
These changes improve the overall quality of the documentation without altering the functional behavior of the API. Ensure that this terminology update is reflected in any related documentation or code comments for consistency.
seed/php-model/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (2)
231-232: Improved clarity in path template syntax documentationThe changes in the path template syntax documentation enhance clarity and consistency:
- The term "Variable" has been replaced with "Field", which aligns better with the terminology used in the
HttpRulemessage.- The explanation of the Field syntax now explicitly states that "A variable template must not contain other variables."
- The documentation provides clearer guidance on how to use the Field syntax in URL paths.
These updates improve the overall consistency and understandability of the API configuration.
Also applies to: 240-243
Line range hint
1-424: Summary of changes and their impactThe changes in this file are limited to the documentation of the path template syntax. These updates improve the clarity and consistency of the API configuration guidelines without altering the actual implementation or behavior of the
HttpRulemessage.Key points:
- The terminology has been aligned with the
HttpRulemessage implementation.- The documentation now provides clearer guidance on using the Field syntax in URL paths.
- There are no changes to the actual protobuf message definitions or their fields.
These improvements in documentation should help developers better understand and correctly implement API configurations using this proto file.
seed/php-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Terminology update: 'Variable' to 'Field'The change from "Variable" to "Field" in the segment definition improves consistency with the rest of the documentation. This update clarifies that path segments can include fields from the request message.
240-243: Improved clarity in Field syntax explanationThe updated explanation for the Field syntax in path templates is more precise and consistent with the terminology change. This modification enhances the overall clarity of the documentation, making it easier for developers to understand how to use fields in URL path templates.
231-243: Summary of documentation updatesThe changes in this file are focused on improving the clarity and consistency of the documentation for HTTP mapping in gRPC transcoding. The terminology has been updated from "Variable" to "Field" throughout the relevant sections, which aligns better with the actual usage in path templates. These modifications enhance the readability and understanding of the API documentation without affecting the underlying functionality of the protobuf definitions.
seed/postman/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (3)
231-231: Approved: Improved terminology consistency in documentationThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the
Segmentdefinition enhances the clarity and consistency of the documentation. This modification aligns with the subsequent explanation of theFieldsyntax, reducing potential confusion for developers working with the protocol.
232-232: Approved: Enhanced documentation with Field syntax explanationThe addition of the
Fieldsyntax definition is a valuable improvement to the documentation. It provides developers with a clear and concise explanation of how to use fields in path templates, which was previously missing. This enhancement complements the terminology change in theSegmentdefinition and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the path template syntax.
231-240: Approved: Valuable enhancements to path template syntax documentationThe changes made to the "Path template syntax" section significantly improve the clarity and completeness of the documentation. By refining the terminology and adding a clear definition of the
Fieldsyntax, these modifications provide developers with a more accurate and comprehensive guide for defining HTTP mappings in gRPC services.These documentation improvements, while not changing the protocol's functionality, can lead to:
- Reduced errors in implementing HTTP mappings
- Better understanding of the path template syntax
- Improved consistency in how developers use and interpret the protocol
Overall, these changes contribute to a more user-friendly and precise documentation, which is crucial for the correct implementation of gRPC transcoding.
seed/ruby-sdk/grpc-proto-exhaustive/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (1)
231-232: Approved: Terminology update improves documentation consistencyThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the path template syntax description is a positive update. This modification aligns the documentation with the actual usage in the
HttpRulemessage definition, where fields are used to map parts of the URL path. This improvement in terminology consistency will help developers better understand the relationship between the path template syntax and the protobuf message structure.seed/ruby-sdk/grpc-proto/.mock/proto/google/api/http.proto (2)
231-231: Terminology update improves consistencyThe change from "Variable" to "Field" in the Segment definition aligns the terminology with the subsequent explanation of the "Field" syntax. This update enhances the consistency of the documentation and reduces potential confusion for developers working with the path template syntax.
231-232: Summary of documentation improvementsThe changes in the path template syntax description enhance the overall quality of the documentation:
- Consistency: The terminology now consistently uses "Field" instead of "Variable".
- Precision: The Field syntax definition is more specific, introducing the concept of "FieldPath".
These updates will help developers better understand and implement the path template syntax for gRPC transcoding. The changes are purely documentation-related and do not affect the functional aspects of the protobuf definitions.
test-definitions/fern/apis/grpc-proto/proto/google/api/http.proto (2)
231-232: Improved clarity in path template syntax explanationThe changes in the path template syntax explanation enhance the clarity of the documentation:
- Replacing "Variable" with "Field" in the syntax definition provides consistency with the rest of the document where "Field" is used.
- The updated explanation for the "Field" syntax offers more precise information about how it matches parts of the URL path.
These modifications will help developers better understand and implement the path template syntax in their gRPC transcoding configurations.
Also applies to: 240-243
Line range hint
1-424: Summary of changes and their impactThe modifications in this file are limited to the path template syntax explanation in the comments. These changes:
- Improve the clarity of the documentation.
- Maintain consistency in terminology by using "Field" instead of "Variable".
- Do not alter any actual protobuf message definitions or functional aspects of the gRPC transcoding configuration.
The updates enhance the developer experience without introducing any breaking changes or new features. The rest of the file, including all message definitions and other explanations, remains unchanged.
generators/go/internal/fern/ir/types.go (1)
2160-2161: Approved: Field renamed fromVariabletoFieldThe renaming from
VariabletoFieldin thePathParameterstruct appears to be a deliberate change, possibly to better represent the nature of this field. This change is approved, but please consider the following points:
The JSON and URL tags still use "variable", which creates an inconsistency between the Go field name and the serialized form. Was this intentional?
This change might affect other parts of the codebase that reference the
Variablefield ofPathParameter.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any issues, please run the following script to check for any remaining uses of
PathParameter.Variable:packages/cli/api-importers/openapi/openapi-ir-to-fern-tests/src/__test__/fixtures/deel/openapi.yml (2)
Line range hint
1-21: API information and server details look good.The OpenAPI version, API title, and contact information are well-defined. The inclusion of terms of service and external documentation links is a good practice. The server URLs for production and demo environments are clearly specified.
Line range hint
8023-8026: x-readme section is appropriately configured.The x-readme section enables features like the API explorer, proxy, and samples, which can enhance the developer experience when using the API documentation platform.
packages/cli/generation/ir-generator/src/resolvers/VariableResolver.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/cli/docs-importers/mintlify/src/__test__/fixtures/bland/api-v1/post/tools-tool-id.mdx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
noanflaherty
force-pushed
the
noa/class-variables
branch
from
c1488ae to
883f19a
Compare
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
| constructor(private readonly name: string, private readonly modulePath: string[]) { | ||
| super(); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Make modulePath explicit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use args here.
| return this.name; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public getFullQualifiedModulePath(): string { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Change to "Fully"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (1)
13-27: LGTM with a minor suggestion: Public methods are well-implemented.All public methods (
write,getName,getFullQualifiedModulePath, andgetFullyQualifiedName) are correctly implemented and serve their intended purposes.Suggestion for improvement:
- For consistency, consider renaming
getFullQualifiedModulePathtogetFullyQualifiedModulePathto match the naming convention used ingetFullyQualifiedName.This change would address the past review comment and improve overall consistency.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/ClassReference.test.ts (2)
12-15: Suggestion: Update test description for accuracy.The current test description "returns the fully qualified name" is misleading. The test is actually verifying that the
toString()method returns only the class name, not the fully qualified name (which would include the module path).Consider updating the test description to better reflect its actual behavior:
- it("returns the fully qualified name", () => { + it("returns only the class name, regardless of module path", () => {
1-32: Overall: Well-structured and comprehensive test suite with a minor suggestion.This test file provides excellent coverage for the
ClassReference.toString()method. The tests are well-organized, easy to understand, and cover various scenarios effectively. The use ofbeforeEachto set up a freshWriterinstance for each test is a good practice.To further improve the test suite:
- Update the description of the first test case as suggested earlier.
- Consider adding tests for other methods of the
ClassReferenceclass, if any exist. This would ensure comprehensive coverage of the entire class functionality.Would you like me to propose additional test cases for other
ClassReferencemethods, if they exist?generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Variable.test.ts (2)
11-18: LGTM: Basic field creation test case.This test case effectively covers the basic scenario of creating a field with a name and type. The use of snapshots for output comparison is a good practice for maintaining consistent output.
Consider adding a comment with the expected output format. This would provide immediate context without needing to check the snapshot file.
20-74: LGTM: Comprehensive coverage of field creation scenarios.The test cases effectively cover a wide range of field types and configurations, including:
- Fields with initializers
- Complex types (e.g., lists)
- Optional types
- Union types
- Dictionary types
- Tuple types
The consistent structure across all test cases enhances readability and maintainability.
Consider parameterizing the tests to reduce code duplication. You could create a single test case that takes different field configurations as parameters, potentially using Jest's
test.each(). This would make it easier to add new test cases in the future.Example:
const testCases = [ { name: "writes a field with a name and type", field: python.field({ name: "my_field", type: python.annotation({ type: python.Type.str() }) }) }, // ... other test cases ]; test.each(testCases)("$name", ({ field }) => { field.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toMatchSnapshot(); });This approach would make the test suite more concise and easier to extend.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts (1)
34-40: Consider sorting imports for consistencyFor better readability and maintainability, consider sorting the class names alphabetically in each import statement.
Apply this diff to sort the class names:
private stringifyImports(): string { return Object.entries(this.references) .map(([modulePath, references]) => { const uniqueClassNames = Array.from(new Set(references.map((r) => r.getName()))); + uniqueClassNames.sort(); return `from ${modulePath} import ${uniqueClassNames.join(", ")}`; }) .join("\n"); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Class.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Field.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Type.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Variable.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (2 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/ClassReference.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Field.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Variable.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Field.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: eslint
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts
[failure] 5-5:
ES2015 module syntax is preferred over custom TypeScript modules and namespaces
🔇 Additional comments (26)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts (6)
1-1: LGTM: Annotation export added successfully.The export of the Annotation class aligns with the PR objectives and follows the correct syntax.
3-3: LGTM: Field export added successfully.The export of the Field class is consistent with the PR objectives and follows the correct syntax.
5-5: LGTM: Type export added successfully.The export of the Type class aligns with the PR objectives and follows the correct syntax.
6-6: LGTM: ClassReference export added successfully.The export of the ClassReference class is consistent with the PR objectives and follows the correct syntax.
1-6: Summary: New exports successfully added, aligning with PR objectives.The changes to this file successfully introduce exports for the new AST classes (Annotation, Type) and enhance class handling (Field, ClassReference). The addition of the Writer export from the core subdirectory also contributes to the overall functionality. These changes are consistent with the PR objectives of introducing necessary components for adding class attributes and laying the groundwork for new AST classes.
4-4: LGTM: Writer export added successfully. Verify the import path.The export of the Writer class follows the correct syntax. Please ensure that the import path "./core/Writer" is correct and that the Writer.ts file exists in the "core" subdirectory.
✅ Verification successful
LGTM: Writer export and import path verified successfully.
The export of the
Writerclass follows the correct syntax, and the import path "./core/Writer" is valid.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the existence of the Writer.ts file in the core subdirectory fd -p 'generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts'Length of output: 109
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (5)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement updated correctly.The import statement has been expanded to include the new AST classes (Annotation, Field, Type, Writer, and ClassReference) from the "./ast" module. This aligns with the PR objectives and supports the introduction of new functionality.
7-9: LGTM: New classReference function added.The new
classReferencefunction is well-implemented and follows the existing code style. It provides a convenient way to create ClassReference instances, which is in line with the PR objectives of enhancing class handling and references.
11-17: LGTM: New field and annotation functions added.The new
fieldandannotationfunctions are well-implemented and consistent with the existing code style. They provide a clean interface for creating Field and Annotation instances, which aligns with the PR objectives of introducing new AST classes for class attributes.
19-19: LGTM: Export statement updated correctly.The export statement has been expanded to include the new AST classes (Annotation, Field, Type, and Writer). This update is consistent with the new imports and functions added, and it ensures that these new components are available for use throughout the project.
1-19: Overall assessment: Changes are well-implemented and align with PR objectives.The modifications to this file successfully introduce the necessary components for adding class attributes to classes. The new AST classes (Type, Annotation, Variable) are properly integrated, and the changes are consistent with the PR objectives. The code follows existing patterns and maintains a clean, consistent style.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (4)
1-2: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate.The import statements for
AstNodeandWriterfrom the core modules are correct and necessary for theClassReferenceimplementation.
4-7: LGTM: Class declaration and constructor are well-implemented.The
ClassReferenceclass correctly extendsAstNode, and the constructor properly initializes thenameandmodulePathproperties.Regarding the past review comment:
- The
modulePathparameter is already explicit in the constructor signature.
9-11: LGTM: Static create method is correctly implemented.The
createmethod properly instantiates a newClassReferencewith the providednameandmodulePath.Regarding the past review comment:
- The suggestion to "Use args here" is not applicable as the method already directly uses the provided arguments.
1-28: Great implementation: ClassReference is well-structured and functional.The
ClassReferenceclass is well-implemented, providing a clean and efficient way to handle class references with associated module paths. It extendsAstNodeappropriately and includes all necessary methods for accessing and manipulating these references.Key points:
- Proper use of TypeScript features and OOP principles.
- Clear and concise method implementations.
- Good encapsulation of properties and functionality.
The only minor suggestion is to consider renaming
getFullQualifiedModulePathtogetFullyQualifiedModulePathfor consistency, as mentioned in the previous comment.Overall, this is a solid addition to the codebase.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (1)
16-26: LGTM: Class declaration and constructorThe
Fieldclass is well-structured with appropriate use of readonly properties and a clear constructor. The use ofField.Argsas the constructor parameter type ensures type safety and consistency with the interface declaration.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/ClassReference.test.ts (3)
1-9: LGTM: Imports and test setup look good.The necessary imports are present, and the
beforeEachhook correctly initializes a newWriterinstance for each test. This ensures a clean state for each test case.
4-11: LGTM: Test suite structure is well-organized.The test suite is properly structured with a main describe block for "ClassReference" and a nested describe block for the "toString" method. This organization enhances readability and maintainability of the tests.
17-31: LGTM: Comprehensive test coverage for different scenarios.The additional test cases effectively cover various scenarios:
- Single-level module path
- Class without module path
- Deeply nested module path
These tests ensure that the
toString()method consistently returns only the class name, regardless of the module path complexity. This comprehensive coverage helps maintain the reliability of theClassReferenceclass.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Variable.test.ts (3)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are appropriate for the test file.The import statements are concise and import the necessary modules for the test suite. The
pythonimport likely contains the required functions and types for field creation, while theWriterimport is used to create instances for writing the fields.
4-9: LGTM: Well-structured test suite following Jest best practices.The test suite is properly organized with a descriptive
describeblock and abeforeEachhook that initializes a newWriterinstance before each test. This structure ensures clean and isolated test cases, preventing inter-test dependencies.
1-75: Overall, excellent test coverage and structure.This test file provides comprehensive coverage for the
Fieldfunctionality in the Python code generation module. It effectively tests various scenarios including basic fields, fields with initializers, and fields with complex types such as lists, optional types, unions, dictionaries, and tuples.The consistent use of snapshots for output comparison is appropriate and will help maintain output consistency over time. The structure of the test suite follows Jest best practices, with a clear
describeblock andbeforeEachhook for setup.While the current implementation is solid, consider the suggested improvements:
- Adding comments with expected output formats for immediate context.
- Parameterizing the tests to reduce code duplication and ease future extensions.
These changes could further enhance the maintainability and readability of the test suite.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (2)
1-203: Overall, well-structured implementation with room for minor improvementsThe implementation of the type system is comprehensive and well-structured. It covers a wide range of Python types and provides a clean API for creating and writing these types. The use of a private constructor and static factory methods is a good practice that enforces proper type creation.
To further improve the implementation, consider the following main points:
- Add support for
DateandDateTimetypes throughout the file (inInternalType, interfaces, static factory methods, and thewritemethod).- Implement support for ellipsis in the
Tupleinterface to handle variable-length tuples.These additions will make the type system more complete and flexible, better representing the full range of Python types.
6-6:⚠️ Potential issueConsider adding
DateandDateTimetoInternalTypeAs mentioned in a previous review comment,
DateandDateTimetypes are missing from theInternalTypeunion. Consider adding these types to ensure consistency with future implementations.Apply this diff to include
DateandDateTimeinInternalType:-type InternalType = Int | Float | Bool | Str | Bytes | List | Set | Tuple | Dict | None | Optional | Union | Any; +type InternalType = Int | Float | Bool | Str | Bytes | Date | DateTime | List | Set | Tuple | Dict | None | Optional | Union | Any;Don't forget to add the corresponding interfaces for
DateandDateTimelater in the file.Likely invalid or redundant comment.
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts (2)
2-5: Import and type alias additions are appropriateThe import of
ClassReferenceand the definition of theModulePathtype alias enhance the code readability and maintainability.
10-12: Initialization of 'references' property is correctThe
referencesproperty is properly initialized as an empty record, which will store class references keyed by their module paths.
| export namespace Field { | ||
| interface Args { | ||
| /* The name of the field */ | ||
| name: string; | ||
| /* The type annotation of the field */ | ||
| type: Annotation; | ||
| /* The initializer for the field */ | ||
| initializer?: string; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using ES2015 module syntax instead of namespace
While the current implementation using a namespace is valid, modern TypeScript practices often prefer ES2015 module syntax for better tree-shaking and consistency with ECMAScript standards.
Consider refactoring the namespace to a separate interface:
export interface FieldArgs {
/* The name of the field */
name: string;
/* The type annotation of the field */
type: Annotation;
/* The initializer for the field */
initializer?: string;
}This change would align with the static analysis suggestion and modern TypeScript practices. However, please ensure this aligns with your project's coding standards before making the change.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: eslint
[failure] 5-5:
ES2015 module syntax is preferred over custom TypeScript modules and namespaces
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | ||
| writer.write(this.name); | ||
| this.type.write(writer); | ||
| if (this.initializer != null) { | ||
| writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add colon separator between field name and type
In Python, when declaring a field with a type annotation, the correct syntax is name: type. The current implementation is missing this colon separator, which could lead to incorrect code generation.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
public write(writer: Writer): void {
writer.write(this.name);
+ writer.write(': ');
this.type.write(writer);
if (this.initializer != null) {
writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`);
}
}This change ensures that the generated Python code will have the correct syntax for field declarations with type annotations.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | |
| writer.write(this.name); | |
| this.type.write(writer); | |
| if (this.initializer != null) { | |
| writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | |
| writer.write(this.name); | |
| writer.write(': '); | |
| this.type.write(writer); | |
| if (this.initializer != null) { | |
| writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`); | |
| } | |
| } |
| interface Tuple { | ||
| type: "tuple"; | ||
| values: Type[]; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding support for ellipsis in Tuple interface
As mentioned in a previous review comment, the Tuple interface doesn't account for the possibility of an ellipsis (...) in Python tuples. This is used for variable-length tuples, e.g., Tuple[str, ...].
Consider modifying the Tuple interface to support this feature. Here's a suggested implementation:
interface Tuple {
type: "tuple";
values: Type[];
hasEllipsis?: boolean;
}This change would allow representing both fixed-length and variable-length tuples.
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | ||
| switch (this.internalType.type) { | ||
| case "int": | ||
| writer.write("int"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "float": | ||
| writer.write("float"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "bool": | ||
| writer.write("bool"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "str": | ||
| writer.write("str"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "bytes": | ||
| writer.write("bytes"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "list": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("List", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("List["); | ||
| this.internalType.value.write(writer); | ||
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "set": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("Set", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("Set["); | ||
| this.internalType.value.write(writer); | ||
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "tuple": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("Tuple", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("Tuple["); | ||
| this.internalType.values.forEach((value, index) => { | ||
| if (index > 0) { | ||
| writer.write(", "); | ||
| } | ||
| value.write(writer); | ||
| }); | ||
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "dict": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("Dict", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("Dict["); | ||
| this.internalType.keyType.write(writer); | ||
| writer.write(", "); | ||
| this.internalType.valueType.write(writer); | ||
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "none": | ||
| writer.write("None"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "optional": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("Optional", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("Optional["); | ||
| this.internalType.value.write(writer); | ||
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "union": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("Union", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("Union["); | ||
| this.internalType.values.forEach((value, index) => { | ||
| if (index > 0) { | ||
| writer.write(", "); | ||
| } | ||
| value.write(writer); | ||
| }); | ||
| writer.write("]"); | ||
| break; | ||
| case "any": | ||
| writer.addReference(python.classReference("Any", ["typing"])); | ||
| writer.write("Any"); | ||
| break; | ||
| default: | ||
| assertNever(this.internalType); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add handling for Date and DateTime in write method
The write method currently doesn't handle Date and DateTime types. This is consistent with their absence in the InternalType definition, but if these types are added as suggested earlier, they should be handled here as well.
If Date and DateTime are added to InternalType, consider adding cases for them in the write method:
case "date":
writer.addReference(python.classReference("date", ["datetime"]));
writer.write("date");
break;
case "datetime":
writer.addReference(python.classReference("datetime", ["datetime"]));
writer.write("datetime");
break;This will ensure that all types defined in InternalType are properly serialized.
| const imports = this.stringifyImports(); | ||
| if (imports.length > 0) { | ||
| return `\ | ||
| ${imports} | ||
|
|
||
| ${this.buffer}`; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove unnecessary backslash in template literal
The backslash at the end of the template literal initiator is unnecessary in a template literal and may cause unintended behavior. Template literals inherently support multi-line strings without the need for a backslash.
Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary backslash:
- return `\
+ return `
${imports}
${this.buffer}`;📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| const imports = this.stringifyImports(); | |
| if (imports.length > 0) { | |
| return `\ | |
| ${imports} | |
| ${this.buffer}`; | |
| } | |
| const imports = this.stringifyImports(); | |
| if (imports.length > 0) { | |
| return ` | |
| ${imports} | |
| ${this.buffer}`; | |
| } |
| public addReference(reference: ClassReference): void { | ||
| const modulePath = reference.getFullQualifiedModulePath(); | ||
| this.references[modulePath] = (this.references[modulePath] ?? []).concat(reference); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct method name to 'getFullyQualifiedModulePath'
The method getFullQualifiedModulePath() seems to have a typo. The standard term is "fully qualified," so the method should likely be getFullyQualifiedModulePath().
Apply this diff to correct the method name:
public addReference(reference: ClassReference): void {
- const modulePath = reference.getFullQualifiedModulePath();
+ const modulePath = reference.getFullyQualifiedModulePath();
this.references[modulePath] = (this.references[modulePath] ?? []).concat(reference);
}Ensure that the ClassReference class has the method getFullyQualifiedModulePath(), or update the method name accordingly.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public addReference(reference: ClassReference): void { | |
| const modulePath = reference.getFullQualifiedModulePath(); | |
| this.references[modulePath] = (this.references[modulePath] ?? []).concat(reference); | |
| } | |
| public addReference(reference: ClassReference): void { | |
| const modulePath = reference.getFullyQualifiedModulePath(); | |
| this.references[modulePath] = (this.references[modulePath] ?? []).concat(reference); | |
| } |
| private stringifyImports(): string { | ||
| return Object.entries(this.references) | ||
| .map(([modulePath, references]) => { | ||
| return `from ${modulePath} import ${references.map((r) => r.getName()).join(", ")}`; | ||
| }) | ||
| .join("\n"); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure imported class references are unique
In the stringifyImports method, there is a possibility of importing the same class multiple times from a module if duplicate references are added. To prevent redundant imports, consider deduplicating the class names for each module path.
Apply this diff to deduplicate the class references:
private stringifyImports(): string {
return Object.entries(this.references)
.map(([modulePath, references]) => {
- return `from ${modulePath} import ${references.map((r) => r.getName()).join(", ")}`;
+ const uniqueClassNames = Array.from(new Set(references.map((r) => r.getName())));
+ return `from ${modulePath} import ${uniqueClassNames.join(", ")}`;
})
.join("\n");
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private stringifyImports(): string { | |
| return Object.entries(this.references) | |
| .map(([modulePath, references]) => { | |
| return `from ${modulePath} import ${references.map((r) => r.getName()).join(", ")}`; | |
| }) | |
| .join("\n"); | |
| } | |
| private stringifyImports(): string { | |
| return Object.entries(this.references) | |
| .map(([modulePath, references]) => { | |
| const uniqueClassNames = Array.from(new Set(references.map((r) => r.getName()))); | |
| return `from ${modulePath} import ${uniqueClassNames.join(", ")}`; | |
| }) | |
| .join("\n"); | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (1)
4-15: Consider adding a comment for thenameproperty.The
modulePathproperty has a helpful comment explaining its purpose and providing examples. For consistency and improved documentation, consider adding a similar comment for thenameproperty.Suggested addition:
interface Args { /* The name of the Python class */ name: string; // ... rest of the interface }generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Variable.test.ts (2)
11-18: LGTM: Basic field creation test is well-structured.This test case effectively covers the basic scenario of creating a field with a name and type. The use of snapshot testing is appropriate for checking the output format.
Consider adding an additional assertion to check the specific content of the output. For example:
expect(writer.toString()).toContain("my_field: str");This would provide an explicit check for the expected field format, complementing the snapshot test.
20-75: LGTM: Comprehensive test coverage for various field types.The test cases cover a wide range of scenarios, including fields with initializers, complex types, optional types, union types, dictionary types, and tuple types. This comprehensive coverage is commendable and helps ensure the robustness of the
Fieldfunctionality.Consider the following improvements:
Add specific assertions in addition to snapshot testing. For example:
expect(writer.toString()).toContain("my_int: int = 42");Test edge cases, such as:
- Fields with very long names
- Fields with special characters in names (if allowed)
- Nested complex types (e.g., List[Dict[str, List[int]]])
Consider parameterizing some tests to reduce code duplication. For example:
test.each([ ['int', python.Type.int(), '0'], ['str', python.Type.str(), '""'], ['bool', python.Type.bool(), 'False'], ])('writes a field with %s type', (typeName, type, defaultValue) => { const field = python.field({ name: `my_${typeName}`, type, initializer: defaultValue }); field.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toMatchSnapshot(); expect(writer.toString()).toContain(`my_${typeName}: ${typeName} = ${defaultValue}`); });These suggestions would enhance the robustness and maintainability of your test suite.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Class.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Field.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Type.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snapgenerators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Variable.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts (2 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/ClassReference.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Field.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Variable.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (10)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Class.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Class.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/ClassReference.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Field.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/index.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/python.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (5)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (3)
1-3: LGTM: Imports are appropriate.The imports for
AstNodeandWriterfrom local modules are correct and necessary for the functionality of theClassReferenceclass.
39-41: Review the method namegetFullyQualifiedModulePath.A previous review comment suggested changing "Fully" to something else. Consider if a different term might be more appropriate or if the current name is indeed the most suitable.
Would you like to keep the current method name or change it? If you decide to change it, please provide the preferred alternative.
17-46: LGTM: Class implementation is well-structured.The
ClassReferenceclass is well-implemented with appropriate methods for creating, writing, and retrieving information about the class reference. The staticcreatemethod provides a convenient way to instantiate the class, and the getter methods offer flexibility in accessing the class information.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Variable.test.ts (2)
1-9: LGTM: Imports and test setup are well-structured.The imports are appropriate for the test file, and the test setup follows Jest best practices. Using
beforeEachto initialize thewriterensures a clean state for each test case, which is a good practice for maintaining test isolation.
1-75: Great job on the comprehensive test suite for Field functionality!This test file is a valuable addition to the project, providing thorough coverage of the
Fieldfunctionality in the Python code generation module. The tests are well-structured, consistent, and cover a wide range of scenarios, which is crucial for ensuring the reliability of the code generation process.Key strengths:
- Comprehensive coverage of different field types and configurations.
- Consistent test structure improving readability and maintainability.
- Use of Jest best practices like
describeandbeforeEach.While the current test suite is strong, consider the suggestions in previous comments to further enhance its robustness and maintainability. These improvements will help catch potential edge cases and make the tests even more valuable as the project evolves.
Overall, this test file significantly contributes to the quality and reliability of the Python code generation module. Great work!
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | ||
| writer.write(this.name); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing the write method.
The current write method only writes the class name. In some contexts, it might be beneficial to write the fully qualified name instead. Consider adding an optional parameter to allow writing either the simple name or the fully qualified name.
Suggested implementation:
public write(writer: Writer, useFullyQualifiedName: boolean = false): void {
writer.write(useFullyQualifiedName ? this.getFullyQualifiedName() : this.name);
}
| import { python } from "../.."; | ||
| import { Writer } from "../core/Writer"; | ||
|
|
||
| describe("Field", () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (2)
151-229: LGTM: Comprehensive write method with a suggestionThe
writemethod is well-implemented, covering all defined types and correctly adding imports for complex types. The handling of the newreferencetype is consistent with other types.However, consider adding support for
dateanddatetimetypes, as mentioned in previous review comments. This would make the type system more complete for common Python use cases.Consider adding cases for
dateanddatetimein thewritemethod:case "date": writer.addReference(python.classReference("date", ["datetime"])); writer.write("date"); break; case "datetime": writer.addReference(python.classReference("datetime", ["datetime"])); writer.write("datetime"); break;Don't forget to add corresponding interfaces and update the
InternalTypeunion if you decide to implement these types.
1-230: Great implementation with room for future enhancementsThe overall implementation of the type system is comprehensive and well-structured. It provides a solid foundation for handling Python types in code generation and aligns well with the PR objectives of introducing necessary components for adding class attributes.
For future improvements, consider:
- Adding support for
dateanddatetimetypes.- Implementing support for variable-length tuples (e.g.,
Tuple[str, ...]) as mentioned in a previous review comment.- Expanding the type system to cover more advanced Python typing features as needed.
These enhancements would further increase the robustness and flexibility of the type system.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Type.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- .gitignore (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/ClassReference.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Type.test.ts
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/core/Writer.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.gitignore (1)
59-59: Consider the implications of ignoringvitest.workspace.tsThe addition of
vitest.workspace.tsto the.gitignorefile is noted. This change will prevent the Vitest workspace configuration file from being tracked in version control.While this can be appropriate for machine-specific configurations, please consider the following:
- If this file contains shared project configurations, it might be beneficial to track it in version control to ensure consistency across development environments.
- If you decide to keep this ignore rule, consider grouping it with other test-related or configuration file entries in the
.gitignorefile for better organization.To ensure this change doesn't impact other developers, please run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Addition of
vitest.workspace.tsto.gitignoreVerifiedThe inclusion of
vitest.workspace.tsin the.gitignorefile has been verified. The file exists in the project root but is neither referenced inpackage.jsonnor imported in any TypeScript files. Ignoring this file will not impact the project's functionality.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if vitest.workspace.ts exists and is used in the project # Test 1: Check if the file exists if [ -f "vitest.workspace.ts" ]; then echo "vitest.workspace.ts exists in the project root." echo "Consider if this file should be shared across the team before ignoring it." fi # Test 2: Check if the file is referenced in package.json scripts grep -q "vitest.workspace.ts" package.json if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then echo "vitest.workspace.ts is referenced in package.json. Ignoring it might cause issues for other developers." fi # Test 3: Check if the file is imported in any TypeScript files rg --type typescript "from ['\"]./vitest.workspace['\"]" || rg --type typescript "require\\(['\"]./vitest.workspace['\"]\\)"Length of output: 295
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if vitest.workspace.ts is imported in any TypeScript files rg --type ts "from ['\"]./vitest.workspace['\"]" || rg --type ts "require\\(['\"]./vitest.workspace['\"]\\)"Length of output: 115
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Type.ts (3)
1-85: LGTM: Comprehensive type system implementationThe imports and type definitions are well-structured and cover a wide range of Python types. The addition of the
Referenceinterface aligns with the PR objectives and enhances the type system's capabilities.
87-93: LGTM: Well-structured Type classThe
Typeclass is well-designed with proper encapsulation. The private constructor andinternalTypeproperty ensure that instances are created and managed correctly through static methods.
95-149: LGTM: Comprehensive set of static factory methodsThe static methods provide a clean and consistent way to create
Typeinstances for all supported types. The addition of thereferencemethod aligns well with the PR objectives of introducing class attributes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (1)
11-14: Improve comment for Args typeThe current comment could be more precise. Consider updating it to clearly explain the purpose and constraints of the Args type.
Here's a suggested improvement:
/** * Args type for Field constructor. * Requires 'name' and enforces that at least one of 'type' or 'initializer' must be defined. * @property {string} name - The name of the field * @property {Type} [type] - The type annotation of the field * @property {string} [initializer] - The initializer for the field */generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Field.test.ts (4)
11-28: LGTM: Basic field tests are well-implemented.The tests cover important basic scenarios for field creation, including fields with and without initializers. The use of snapshots for assertions is a good practice for catching unintended changes in output.
Consider adding a test case for a field with only a name (no type or initializer) to cover all basic scenarios:
it("writes a field with only a name", () => { const field = python.field({ name: "my_field" }); field.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toMatchSnapshot(); });
39-83: LGTM: Complex type field tests are comprehensive.The tests cover a good range of complex types including list, optional, union, dictionary, and tuple. The use of
python.Typemethods to create these types is consistent, and snapshots are used appropriately for assertions.Consider adding a test case for a nested complex type to ensure correct handling of more intricate type structures:
it("writes a field with a nested complex type", () => { const field = python.field({ name: "nested_field", type: python.Type.dict( python.Type.str(), python.Type.list(python.Type.optional(python.Type.int())) ) }); field.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toMatchSnapshot(); });
4-84: LGTM: Overall test structure and coverage are solid.The test suite is well-organized, covering both basic and complex field scenarios. Each test follows a consistent pattern, which enhances readability and maintainability. The use of snapshots for assertions is appropriate for this type of output testing.
To improve readability, consider grouping related tests using nested
describeblocks. For example:describe("Field", () => { let writer: Writer; beforeEach(() => { writer = new Writer(); }); describe("Basic fields", () => { it("writes a field with a name and type", () => { // ... }); it("writes a field with a name, type, and value", () => { // ... }); // ... }); describe("Complex type fields", () => { it("writes a field with a complex type", () => { // ... }); it("writes a field with an optional type", () => { // ... }); // ... }); });This structure can make it easier to navigate and understand the different categories of tests.
4-84: Consider adding tests for edge cases and error scenarios.While the current test suite provides good coverage for typical use cases, it would be beneficial to include tests for edge cases and error scenarios. This can help ensure robustness and proper error handling in the
Fieldimplementation.Consider adding the following test cases:
- Test with an invalid field name (e.g., containing spaces or special characters).
- Test with an unsupported type (if applicable).
- Test with a very long field name to ensure proper handling.
- Test with empty string as field name.
- Test with
nullorundefinedvalues for name or type (if applicable).Example:
it("throws an error for invalid field name", () => { expect(() => { python.field({ name: "invalid name", type: python.Type.str() }); }).toThrow(); }); it("handles very long field names", () => { const longName = "a".repeat(256); const field = python.field({ name: longName, type: python.Type.str() }); field.write(writer); expect(writer.toString()).toMatchSnapshot(); });These additional tests will help ensure that the
Fieldimplementation handles various edge cases and error conditions correctly.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/__snapshots__/Field.test.ts.snapis excluded by!**/*.snap
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- .gitignore (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (1 hunks)
- generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/test/Field.test.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .gitignore
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/Field.ts (2)
1-4: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and concise.The imports for
AstNode,Writer, andTypeare relevant to theFieldclass implementation.
1-47: Overall, well-structured implementation with minor improvements suggestedThe
Fieldclass and related types are well-implemented, providing a solid foundation for representing fields in the abstract syntax tree. The suggested improvements, if applied, will enhance code quality and readability.generators/pythonv2/codegen/src/ast/__test__/Field.test.ts (1)
1-9: LGTM: Imports and test suite setup are well-structured.The imports are appropriate, and the use of
beforeEachto initialize thewriterfor each test ensures proper test isolation. This setup provides a clean slate for each test case, which is a good practice in unit testing.
| import { Writer } from "./core/Writer"; | ||
| import { Type } from "./Type"; | ||
|
|
||
| export declare namespace Field { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove unnecessary 'declare' keyword
The declare keyword is not needed here as you're providing both the declaration and implementation in this file.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
-export declare namespace Field {
+export namespace Field {📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| export declare namespace Field { | |
| export namespace Field { |
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | ||
| writer.write(this.name); | ||
|
|
||
| if (this.type !== undefined) { | ||
| writer.write(": "); | ||
| this.type.write(writer); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (this.initializer !== undefined) { | ||
| writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify the write method logic
The current implementation of the write method can be simplified to reduce nesting and improve readability.
Consider applying this diff to improve the method:
public write(writer: Writer): void {
writer.write(this.name);
-
- if (this.type !== undefined) {
+ if (this.type) {
writer.write(": ");
this.type.write(writer);
}
-
- if (this.initializer !== undefined) {
+ if (this.initializer) {
writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`);
}
}This change simplifies the conditions and removes unnecessary empty lines, making the code more concise and easier to read.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | |
| writer.write(this.name); | |
| if (this.type !== undefined) { | |
| writer.write(": "); | |
| this.type.write(writer); | |
| } | |
| if (this.initializer !== undefined) { | |
| writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| public write(writer: Writer): void { | |
| writer.write(this.name); | |
| if (this.type) { | |
| writer.write(": "); | |
| this.type.write(writer); | |
| } | |
| if (this.initializer) { | |
| writer.write(` = ${this.initializer}`); | |
| } | |
| } |
This PR introduces everything needed to start adding class attributes to class, with a basic example in the
Carclass introduced previously.Crucially, introduces the beginnings of three new AST classes:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
.gitignorefile to improve specificity for ignored files and directories.ClassReferenceclass to encapsulate Python class references with associated module paths.Fieldclass for structured representation of fields in the abstract syntax tree.InternalTypeand added support forReferencetypes.Writerclass to manage and format import statements based on class references.Bug Fixes
.gitignorefile.Tests
FieldandTypeclasses to validate their functionality and output.