Skip to content

Conversation

@nirga
Copy link
Member

@nirga nirga commented May 29, 2025

Important

Make general field in Config optional and update load_config to handle it, defaulting trace_content_enabled to true if absent.

  • Config Changes:
    • general field in Config struct in models.rs changed to Option<General>.
    • trace_content_enabled in General defaults to true if general is None.
  • Functionality:
    • Updated load_config in lib.rs to handle optional general field using is_none_or.
    • get_trace_content_enabled in lib.rs returns true if TRACE_CONTENT_ENABLED is not set.

This description was created by Ellipsis for 4632ce7. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.

Copy link
Contributor

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to b5a5287 in 24 seconds. Click for details.
  • Reviewed 31 lines of code in 2 files
  • Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
  • Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
  • Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. src/config/lib.rs:11
  • Draft comment:
    Good use of as_ref() with map_or to default to true if 'general' is missing. This change gracefully handles an optional general config.
  • Reason this comment was not posted:
    Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None
2. src/config/models.rs:7
  • Draft comment:
    Making the 'general' field an Option is appropriate to support configs without it. Ensure that default behavior is thoroughly documented.
  • Reason this comment was not posted:
    Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_WTLm4ZWlYBHbyHka

You can customize Ellipsis by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.

@nirga nirga force-pushed the make-general-optional branch from b5a5287 to 4632ce7 Compare May 29, 2025 03:14
Copy link
Contributor

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 4632ce7 in 1 minute and 18 seconds. Click for details.
  • Reviewed 31 lines of code in 2 files
  • Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
  • Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
  • Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.
1. src/config/lib.rs:15
  • Draft comment:
    Consider using Option::map_or(true, |g| g.trace_content_enabled) instead of is_none_or for clarity, unless is_none_or is a deliberate custom extension.
  • Reason this comment was not posted:
    Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None
2. src/config/models.rs:7
  • Draft comment:
    Changing Config.general to Option is valid. Ensure other code accounts for its optionality; consider adding #[serde(default)] if a default is intended when omitted in the config.
  • Reason this comment was not posted:
    Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment has two parts: 1) validating the change (not useful - we don't need validation comments) and 2) suggesting to check other code and consider #[serde(default)] (speculative and asking for verification). The struct already has Default derived and its field has a default, so the suggestion isn't even necessary. Maybe the comment is valuable because changing a field to Option could cause runtime errors if not handled properly in the rest of the codebase? While that's true, asking for verification violates our rules. The compiler will force handling of the Option type, and we trust the author to have handled this. Delete the comment. It's partly validation (which we don't want) and partly asking for verification (which we don't want). Any Option handling issues would be caught by the compiler.

Workflow ID: wflow_wPr5jRGQVFv3IPKU

You can customize Ellipsis by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.

@nirga nirga merged commit 985c084 into main May 29, 2025
2 checks passed
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.

3 participants