LCORE-1142: Final docstrings improvements #1015
Merged
+334
−17
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
WalkthroughThis PR expands documentation across three core modules: authorization middleware, authorization resolvers, and response models. All changes are documentation-oriented, adding detailed docstrings, behavioral descriptions, and OpenAPI schema examples. No functional logic, control flow, or API signatures were modified. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents
In `@src/authorization/resolvers.py`:
- Around line 256-262: The docstring for get_actions contradicts its
implementation: it says "empty set" but the function returns all actions except
Action.ADMIN; update the docstring to accurately describe behavior (that
get_actions returns the set of all Action values excluding Action.ADMIN) and
mention the returned variable allowed_actions and the exclusion of Action.ADMIN
so callers understand the resolver's semantics.
In `@src/models/responses.py`:
- Around line 986-998: The ConversationDetails example has a missing comma after
the conversation_id field which makes the sample invalid; update the example in
the ConversationDetails docstring so there's a comma between "conversation_id"
and "created_at" in the illustrated instantiation (refer to the
ConversationDetails example block) to produce valid Python syntax.
- Around line 1114-1125: Update the example instantiation to use the correct
response class and valid Python booleans: replace StatusResponse with
FeedbackStatusResponse and change lowercase true/false to True/False in the
status dict (e.g., FeedbackStatusResponse(status={"previous_status": True,
"updated_status": False, "updated_by": "user/test", "timestamp": "2023-03-15
12:34:56"})).
Comment on lines
+256
to
+262
| """Return an empty set of actions, indicating no specific actions are allowed. | ||
| Determine the set of actions permitted for any user under the noop access resolver. | ||
| Returns: | ||
| allowed_actions (set[Action]): All defined `Action` values except `Action.ADMIN`. | ||
| """ |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Docstring contradicts behavior in get_actions.
It says “empty set” but the method returns all actions except ADMIN.
Proposed fix
- """Return an empty set of actions, indicating no specific actions are allowed.
+ """Return all actions except the ADMIN override.
- Determine the set of actions permitted for any user under the noop access resolver.
+ Determine the set of actions permitted for any user under the noop access resolver
+ (all actions except ADMIN).
Returns:
- allowed_actions (set[Action]): All defined `Action` values except `Action.ADMIN`.
+ allowed_actions (set[Action]): All defined `Action` values except `Action.ADMIN`.
"""🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In `@src/authorization/resolvers.py` around lines 256 - 262, The docstring for
get_actions contradicts its implementation: it says "empty set" but the function
returns all actions except Action.ADMIN; update the docstring to accurately
describe behavior (that get_actions returns the set of all Action values
excluding Action.ADMIN) and mention the returned variable allowed_actions and
the exclusion of Action.ADMIN so callers understand the resolver's semantics.
Comment on lines
+986
to
+998
| Example: | ||
| ```python | ||
| conversation = ConversationDetails( | ||
| conversation_id="123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000" | ||
| created_at="2024-01-01T00:00:00Z", | ||
| last_message_at="2024-01-01T00:05:00Z", | ||
| message_count=5, | ||
| last_used_model="gemini/gemini-2.0-flash", | ||
| last_used_provider="gemini", | ||
| topic_summary="Openshift Microservices Deployment Strategies", | ||
| ) | ||
| ``` |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix the ConversationDetails example (missing comma).
Line 990 is missing a comma, which makes the sample invalid Python.
Proposed fix
- conversation = ConversationDetails(
- conversation_id="123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000"
- created_at="2024-01-01T00:00:00Z",
+ conversation = ConversationDetails(
+ conversation_id="123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000",
+ created_at="2024-01-01T00:00:00Z",📝 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.
Suggested change
| Example: | |
| ```python | |
| conversation = ConversationDetails( | |
| conversation_id="123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000" | |
| created_at="2024-01-01T00:00:00Z", | |
| last_message_at="2024-01-01T00:05:00Z", | |
| message_count=5, | |
| last_used_model="gemini/gemini-2.0-flash", | |
| last_used_provider="gemini", | |
| topic_summary="Openshift Microservices Deployment Strategies", | |
| ) | |
| ``` | |
| conversation = ConversationDetails( | |
| conversation_id="123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000", | |
| created_at="2024-01-01T00:00:00Z", | |
| last_message_at="2024-01-01T00:05:00Z", | |
| message_count=5, | |
| last_used_model="gemini/gemini-2.0-flash", | |
| last_used_provider="gemini", | |
| topic_summary="Openshift Microservices Deployment Strategies", | |
| ) |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In `@src/models/responses.py` around lines 986 - 998, The ConversationDetails
example has a missing comma after the conversation_id field which makes the
sample invalid; update the example in the ConversationDetails docstring so
there's a comma between "conversation_id" and "created_at" in the illustrated
instantiation (refer to the ConversationDetails example block) to produce valid
Python syntax.
Comment on lines
+1114
to
+1125
| Example: | ||
| ```python | ||
| status_response = StatusResponse( | ||
| status={ | ||
| "previous_status": true, | ||
| "updated_status": false, | ||
| "updated_by": "user/test", | ||
| "timestamp": "2023-03-15 12:34:56" | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| ``` |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the feedback status update example (class + booleans).
Line 1117 uses StatusResponse and lowercase true/false, which is invalid in Python.
Proposed fix
- status_response = StatusResponse(
+ feedback_status_response = FeedbackStatusUpdateResponse(
status={
- "previous_status": true,
- "updated_status": false,
+ "previous_status": True,
+ "updated_status": False,
"updated_by": "user/test",
"timestamp": "2023-03-15 12:34:56"
},
)📝 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.
Suggested change
| Example: | |
| ```python | |
| status_response = StatusResponse( | |
| status={ | |
| "previous_status": true, | |
| "updated_status": false, | |
| "updated_by": "user/test", | |
| "timestamp": "2023-03-15 12:34:56" | |
| }, | |
| ) | |
| ``` | |
| Example: |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In `@src/models/responses.py` around lines 1114 - 1125, Update the example
instantiation to use the correct response class and valid Python booleans:
replace StatusResponse with FeedbackStatusResponse and change lowercase
true/false to True/False in the status dict (e.g.,
FeedbackStatusResponse(status={"previous_status": True, "updated_status": False,
"updated_by": "user/test", "timestamp": "2023-03-15 12:34:56"})).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
LCORE-1142: Final docstrings improvements
Type of change
Tools used to create PR
Related Tickets & Documents
Summary by CodeRabbit
Documentation
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.