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

refactor the code to use one set of Docker instructions #545

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor

@Omkar0114 Omkar0114 commented Jul 6, 2023

Fixes #374

Refactored the code to use one set of Docker instructions.
Right now modified the code in the - https://github.com/slimtoolkit/slim/blob/master/pkg/docker/instruction/instruction.go

Signed-off-by: Omkar <opkulkarni0104@gmail.com>
@Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kcq sorry for pinging you again, can you please review this PR and point out me how to go ahead with this?
Thanks!

@Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor Author

HI @kcq, @iximiuz can anyone comment on this PR or review my PR?

@kcq
Copy link
Member

kcq commented Aug 7, 2023

@CodiumAI-Agent /review

@CodiumAI-Agent
Copy link

PR Analysis

  • 🎯 Main theme: Refactor Docker instruction handling
  • 📌 Type of PR: Refactoring
  • 🧪 Relevant tests added: No
  • Focused PR: Yes, the PR is focused as it is clearly aimed at refactoring the Docker instruction handling code, and all changes are related to this goal.
  • 🔒 Security concerns: No, the changes made in this PR do not introduce any apparent security concerns. The changes are related to internal code refactoring and do not involve any security-sensitive operations.

PR Feedback

  • 💡 General PR suggestions: The PR seems to be well-structured and the changes are clear. However, it would be beneficial to add tests to verify the new implementation. Also, it would be helpful to include in the PR description why this refactoring was necessary, and what benefits it brings.

How to use

Tag me in a comment '@CodiumAI-Agent' and add one of the following commands:
/review [-i]: Request a review of your Pull Request. For an incremental review, which only considers changes since the last review, include the '-i' option.
/describe: Modify the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR.
/improve: Suggest improvements to the code in the PR.
/ask <QUESTION>: Pose a question about the PR.

To edit any configuration parameter from 'configuration.toml', add --config_path=new_value
For example: /review --pr_reviewer.extra_instructions="focus on the file: ..."

@kcq
Copy link
Member

kcq commented Aug 7, 2023

@CodiumAI-Agent /describe

@CodiumAI-Agent
Copy link

Preparing pr description...

@kcq
Copy link
Member

kcq commented Aug 7, 2023

@CodiumAI-Agent /improve

@Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kcq can I improve the code with the above suggestions?

@Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor Author

@CodiumAI-Agent /review

@CodiumAI-Agent
Copy link

PR Analysis

  • 🎯 Main theme: Refactoring Docker instruction handling in the code
  • 📌 Type of PR: Refactoring
  • Focused PR: True
  • 🔒 Security concerns: No security concerns found

PR Feedback

  • General suggestions: The PR seems to be well-structured and focused on a single task of refactoring Docker instruction handling. However, it would be beneficial to include tests that verify the new implementation.

  • 🤖 Code feedback:

    • relevant file: pkg/docker/instruction/instruction.go
      suggestion: The map DOCKER_INSTRUCTION_NAMES should have its keys in lower case to match the usage in the IsKnown function. [important]
      relevant line: var DOCKER_INSTRUCTION_NAMES map[string]bool = map[string]bool{

    • relevant file: pkg/docker/instruction/instruction.go
      suggestion: The SupportsJSONForm function should return a list of instruction names that support JSON form, not all instruction names. [important]
      relevant line: return DOCKER_INSTRUCTION_NAMES

    • relevant file: pkg/docker/instruction/instruction.go
      suggestion: The IsKnown function should return the boolean value directly, instead of separating it into two lines. [medium]
      relevant line: _, ok := DOCKER_INSTRUCTION_NAMES[name]

How to use

Tag me in a comment '@CodiumAI-Agent' and add one of the following commands:
/review [-i]: Request a review of your Pull Request. For an incremental review, which only considers changes since the last review, include the '-i' option.
/describe: Modify the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR.
/improve: Suggest improvements to the code in the PR.
/ask <QUESTION>: Pose a question about the PR.

To edit any configuration parameter from 'configuration.toml', add --config_path=new_value
For example: /review --pr_reviewer.extra_instructions="focus on the file: ..."
To list the possible configuration parameters, use the /config command.

@Omkar0114
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kcq
When this PR will merge I updated the code with all your suggestions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Refactor to use one set of Docker instruction name constants when processing Docker instruction/command info
3 participants