Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CodeRabbit test #224

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

CodeRabbit test #224

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

gelisam
Copy link
Owner

@gelisam gelisam commented Jan 20, 2024

Creating a non-draft copy of #223 in the hope of successfully summoning CodeRabbit

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Improved the REPL interaction by enhancing expression evaluation and output handling.
    • Streamlined module declarations and imports for better maintainability.
    • Enhanced the expansion and evaluation process with updated function signatures and control flow.

@gelisam gelisam added the CodeRabbit summons the AI reviewing bot label Jan 20, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2024

Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The Haskell project has seen a refactoring that streamlines the REPL and evaluation components. Changes include alterations to import declarations, exception handling, and function implementations. The REPL now excludes a specific function from an import and changes its control flow for expression handling. The Evaluator module is simplified, and the Expander's function signature and implementation have been updated to use new evaluation strategies.

Changes

Files Change Summary
repl/Main.hs Altered import statements, excluded evaluate from Control.Exception, and updated control flow for expression evaluation and printing.
src/Evaluator.hs Simplified module declaration and changed imports, replacing Control.Monad.IO.Class (MonadIO) with Control.Exception while hiding TypeError and evaluate.
src/Expander/Monad.hs Added FlexibleContexts extension, updated expandEval function signature to input Core and output Expand Value, and revised implementation to use evaluateIn.

🐇✨
To the code that shifts and shapes beneath,
A rabbit hopped along, with a coding wreath.
With a leap and a bound, the bugs take flight,
In the burrow of bytes, all now set right. 🌟
🐇✨

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?

Share

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Note: Auto-reply has been disabled for this repository by the repository owner. The CodeRabbit bot will not respond to your comments unless it is explicitly tagged.

  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit tests for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

@gelisam
Copy link
Owner Author

gelisam commented Jan 20, 2024

@coderabbitai review

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 9

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 67d4eed and 4e52966.
Files selected for processing (4)
  • repl/Main.hs (2 hunks)
  • src/Evaluator.hs (4 hunks)
  • src/Expander.hs (11 hunks)
  • src/Expander/Monad.hs (2 hunks)
Additional comments: 7
repl/Main.hs (2)
  • 7-7: The import of Control.Exception now excludes evaluate. Ensure that this change does not affect other parts of the code where evaluate might be used.
Verification successful

The review comment is verified. The exclusion of evaluate from the Control.Exception import does not affect other parts of repl/Main.hs as there are no direct usages of evaluate from Control.Exception in this file.

Scripts Executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of `evaluate` which might be affected by the exclusion.
rg --type haskell "evaluate" "repl/Main.hs"

Length of output: 317

* 149-151: The commented-out error handling code for `evaluateIn` has been removed. Ensure that proper error handling is still in place elsewhere in the code.
src/Evaluator.hs (3)
  • 49-49: The module declaration has been simplified by removing the where keyword. This is a cosmetic change and does not affect functionality.
  • 64-64: The import of Control.Exception now explicitly hides TypeError and evaluate. Confirm that this change does not lead to any unresolved references in the module.
Verification successful

The references to TypeError and evaluate within src/Evaluator.hs are resolved within the module itself, as evidenced by their definitions and usages in the provided output. The hiding of these entities from Control.Exception does not lead to any unresolved references in the module.

Scripts Executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for references to `TypeError` and `evaluate` to ensure they are not unresolved.
rg --type haskell "TypeError|evaluate" "src/Evaluator.hs"

Length of output: 1794

* 99-476: > 📝 **NOTE** > This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [180-566]

The rest of the file does not contain any annotated changes, which implies that the code remains the same as before. Since the AI-generated summary does not indicate any other changes, we can assume that no further review is needed for this file.

src/Expander/Monad.hs (2)
  • 9-9: The FlexibleContexts language extension has been added.
  • 864-867: The expandEval function's signature has been changed to accept Core instead of Eval a, and the return type is now Expand Value. The implementation now uses evaluateIn and constructs a Right value directly. Ensure that the evaluateIn function is correctly handling all possible error cases since the previous implementation using runExceptT and runReaderT might have handled some errors that are not being handled now.

Comment on lines +92 to +93
import Debug.Trace

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The import of Debug.Trace is a red flag for production code as it is often used for debugging purposes and should not be present in the final version.

- import Debug.Trace

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.

Suggested change
import Debug.Trace

@@ -277,7 +279,7 @@
Define x n sch e -> do
ptr <- liftIO newSchemePtr
lift $ linkScheme ptr sch
val <- lift $ expandEval (eval e)
val <- lift $ expandEval e
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The use of trace from Debug.Trace is a potential issue. It's typically used for debugging and should not be present in production code due to performance implications and unintended side effects.

- val <- lift $ expandEval e
+ val <- lift $ expandEval e  -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

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.

Suggested change
val <- lift $ expandEval e
val <- lift $ expandEval e -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

Copy link
Owner Author

@gelisam gelisam Jan 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@coderabbitai there is no call to trace on this line

@@ -304,10 +306,10 @@

Example loc sch expr -> do
env <- lift currentEnv
value <- lift $ expandEval (eval expr)
value <- lift $ expandEval expr
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Jan 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The use of trace from Debug.Trace is a potential issue. It's typically used for debugging and should not be present in production code due to performance implications and unintended side effects.

- value <- lift $ expandEval expr
+ value <- lift $ expandEval expr  -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

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.

Suggested change
value <- lift $ expandEval expr
value <- lift $ expandEval expr -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@coderabbitai there is no call to trace on this line

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gelisam You are correct; the line in question does not contain a direct call to trace. The function expandEval is used in several places within src/Expander.hs, but none of the provided contexts show a direct call to trace. If you need further investigation into the expandEval function's definition or other usages, please let me know.

Analysis chain
Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for the usage of `trace` within the `expandEval` function in the file `src/Expander.hs`.
rg "expandEval" --context 5 src/Expander.hs

Length of output: 2704

modify' (:|> ExampleResult loc env expr sch value)
Run loc expr -> do
lift (expandEval (eval expr)) >>=
lift (expandEval expr) >>=
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The use of trace from Debug.Trace is a potential issue. It's typically used for debugging and should not be present in production code due to performance implications and unintended side effects.

- lift (expandEval expr) >>=
+ lift (expandEval expr) >>=  -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

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.

Suggested change
lift (expandEval expr) >>=
lift (expandEval expr) >>= -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

@@ -318,7 +320,7 @@
DefineMacros macros -> do
p <- lift currentPhase
lift $ inEarlierPhase $ for_ macros $ \(x, n, e) -> do
v <- expandEval (eval e)
v <- expandEval e
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The use of trace from Debug.Trace is a potential issue. It's typically used for debugging and should not be present in production code due to performance implications and unintended side effects.

- v <- expandEval e
+ v <- expandEval e  -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

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.

Suggested change
v <- expandEval e
v <- expandEval e -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

@@ -558,19 +560,16 @@
ValueIOAction $ do
vx <- mx
vioy <- case f of
HO fun -> do
pure (fun vx)
HO fun -> pure (fun vx)
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The use of trace from Debug.Trace is a potential issue. It's typically used for debugging and should not be present in production code due to performance implications and unintended side effects.

- ValueClosure $ HO $ \(ValueIOAction mx) -> do
+ ValueClosure $ HO $ \(ValueIOAction mx) -> do  -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

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.

Suggested change
HO fun -> pure (fun vx)
HO fun -> pure (fun vx) -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

Comment on lines +569 to +572
case Right (evaluateWithExtendedEnv env [(ident, var, vx)] body) of
-- Left err -> error (T.unpack (pretty err))
Right vioy -> pure vioy
_ -> error "ValueIOAction error"
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The commented-out error handling code should be addressed. It's important to handle errors properly rather than commenting them out.

- -- Left err -> error (T.unpack (pretty err))
+ // TODO: Proper error handling needs to be implemented here.

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.

Suggested change
case Right (evaluateWithExtendedEnv env [(ident, var, vx)] body) of
-- Left err -> error (T.unpack (pretty err))
Right vioy -> pure vioy
_ -> error "ValueIOAction error"
case Right (evaluateWithExtendedEnv env [(ident, var, vx)] body) of
// TODO: Proper error handling needs to be implemented here.
Right vioy -> pure vioy
_ -> error "ValueIOAction error"

Comment on lines 981 to 1003
case value of
ValueSyntax syntax -> do
forkExpandSyntax dest syntax
other -> expandEval $ evalErrorType "syntax" other
other -> do
p <- currentPhase
throwError $ MacroEvaluationError p $ evalErrorType "syntax" other
ContinueMacroAction dest value (closure:kont) -> do
result <- expandEval $ apply closure value
case result of
case apply closure value of
ValueMacroAction macroAction -> do
forkInterpretMacroAction dest macroAction kont
other -> expandEval $ evalErrorType "macro action" other
other -> do
p <- currentPhase
throwError $ MacroEvaluationError p $ evalErrorType "macro action" other
EvalDefnAction x n p expr ->
linkedCore expr >>=
\case
Nothing -> stillStuck tid task
Just definiens ->
inPhase p $ do
val <- expandEval (eval definiens)
let val = trace "EvalDefnAction" $ evaluate definiens
modifyState $ over (expanderCurrentEnvs . at p) $
\case
Nothing -> Just $ Env.singleton x n val
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [916-993]

The use of trace within the EvalDefnAction case is a potential performance issue and should not be present in production code. It's also a sign that proper logging is not being used.

- let val = trace "EvalDefnAction" $ evaluate definiens
+ let val = evaluate definiens  -- Consider removing or replacing `trace` with proper logging

Comment on lines +1305 to +1309
macroVal <- inEarlierPhase
$ pure
$ apply macroImpl
$ ValueSyntax
$ addScope p stepScope stx
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Jan 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The use of inEarlierPhase without checking the result can lead to unhandled errors if the macro implementation fails. Proper error handling should be implemented.

- macroVal <- inEarlierPhase
-             $ pure
-             $ apply macroImpl
-             $ ValueSyntax
-             $ addScope p stepScope stx
+ // TODO: Check the result of inEarlierPhase to handle potential errors.

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.

Suggested change
macroVal <- inEarlierPhase
$ pure
$ apply macroImpl
$ ValueSyntax
$ addScope p stepScope stx
// TODO: Check the result of inEarlierPhase to handle potential errors.

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@coderabbitai what is the type of inEarlierPhase? Is it producing an error by returning an Either or by throwing an exception?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gelisam The function inEarlierPhase has the type signature Expand a -> Expand a, which does not directly indicate the use of Either for error handling. Additionally, there is a reference to inEarlierPhase in the context of a case expression within tests/Test.hs, which might suggest pattern matching on a result type like Either. However, without more context, it's not conclusive whether inEarlierPhase is using exceptions or an Either-like type for error handling.

Would you like me to look into the specific usage within tests/Test.hs to clarify how errors are handled in that instance?

Analysis chain
Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's find the type signature of `inEarlierPhase` to determine how it handles errors.
rg "inEarlierPhase ::"

Length of output: 85


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Additionally, let's check if there are any instances where `inEarlierPhase` is used with error handling, which might suggest it throws an exception.
rg "inEarlierPhase" -A 3 | rg "catchError|throwError|Left|Right|case|exception|try|catch"

Length of output: 119

@gelisam
Copy link
Owner Author

gelisam commented Jan 21, 2024

Note that CodeRabbit incorrectly recommends to remove calls to trace on lines which do not, in fact, include a call to trace. I have reported the issue and it is already fixed! See #225, which runs the fixed version of CodeRabbit on an identical PR.

@gelisam gelisam closed this Jan 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CodeRabbit summons the AI reviewing bot
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants