ai experiments #359

galekseev · 2025-03-15T07:41:57Z

No description provided.

github-actions · 2025-03-15T08:33:43Z

Отзыв по изменениям в Pull Request:

chatgpt-review.yml:
- Важно указывать описание для каждого шага в jobs, чтобы было понятно, что именно выполняется на этом этапе.
- Рекомендуется добавить шаг для запуска тестов, если они есть в проекте.
- При установке зависимостей через pip, лучше указывать версии пакетов для более предсказуемого поведения.
chatgpt_review.py:
- Хорошее использование переменных среды для безопасного хранения ключей API.
- Рекомендуется добавить обработку возможных исключений при работе с API GitHub и OpenAI для более надежной работы скрипта.
- При формировании промпта для ChatGPT, убедитесь, что текст диффа не содержит конфиденциальной информации, так как он будет отправлен на обработку.
- При публикации комментария в PR, также стоит учитывать возможные ошибки в ответе от API и обрабатывать их.
Общее:
- Важно проверять возвращаемые значения и статусы запросов к API, чтобы обеспечить надежность и отслеживание ошибок.
- Рекомендуется добавить логирование для отслеживания действий скрипта и возможных проблем.

Код выглядит хорошо структурированным и чистым. Рекомендуется учесть упомянутые рекомендации для улучшения надежности и безопасности скрипта.

codecov · 2025-03-15T09:29:21Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.72%. Comparing base (ae6baca) to head (dfab659).
Report is 19 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #359      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.14%   91.72%   -2.42%     
==========================================
  Files          29       29              
  Lines         649      677      +28     
  Branches      149      158       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          611      621      +10     
- Misses         38       56      +18

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

github-actions · 2025-03-15T10:22:07Z

Potential Bugs and Security Vulnerabilities

Environment Variable Handling: The script assumes that OPENAI_API_KEY and GITHUB_TOKEN are always present in the environment. If these are missing, the script will raise a KeyError. Consider using os.environ.get() with a default value or adding error handling to provide a clear message if these variables are not set.
API Rate Limiting: The script does not handle potential rate limiting from GitHub or OpenAI APIs. Implement retry logic with exponential backoff for API requests to handle rate limits gracefully.
Error Handling: There is no error handling for the HTTP requests. Check the response status code and handle errors appropriately, such as logging the error or retrying the request.
Security: The GITHUB_TOKEN is used directly in the headers without any validation or masking. Ensure that this token has the least privileges necessary and consider logging only masked versions of sensitive information.

Conformance to Coding Style and Best Practices

Imports: The imports should be on separate lines according to PEP 8. Change import os, requests, openai to:
```
import os
import requests
import openai
```
Variable Naming: The variable pr_number is derived from GITHUB_REF, which might not always follow the expected format. Consider adding a check to ensure the format is correct before splitting.
Comments: The comments are a mix of English and Russian, which might not be ideal for all contributors. Consider standardizing comments to one language for consistency.
Hardcoded Model Name: The model name gpt-4o is hardcoded. Consider making this configurable via environment variables or a configuration file to allow easy updates or testing with different models.

Opportunities for Performance or Maintainability Improvements

Modularization: The script could be more modular. Consider breaking it into functions for fetching the diff, generating the review, and posting the comment. This will improve readability and maintainability.
Logging: Implement logging instead of using print statements (if any) for better traceability and debugging. Use Python's built-in logging module.
Configuration Management: Consider using a configuration management tool or library to handle environment variables and other configurations, which would simplify testing and deployment.
Token Management: For security and maintainability, consider using a secret management tool or service to handle API keys and tokens instead of relying solely on environment variables.

Additional Suggestions

Documentation: Add a README or documentation explaining how to set up and use this workflow, including required environment variables and permissions.
Testing: Implement unit tests for the script logic, especially for parsing and handling API responses. This will help catch potential issues early in the development process.

github-actions · 2025-03-15T16:19:15Z

Summary

This pull request introduces an AI-driven code review system by adding a Python script (ai_review.py) and a corresponding GitHub Actions workflow (ai-review.yml). The script fetches the pull request (PR) diff and description, generates a review using OpenAI's APIs based on the specified model, and posts the review as a comment on the PR. The workflow is triggered on PR events such as opened, reopened, and synchronized.

Identified Issues and Suggestions

Incorrect Authorization Header for GitHub API Requests
- Issue: The script uses the Bearer scheme for the Authorization header when interacting with the GitHub API. GitHub expects the token scheme instead.
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
headers = {
    "Authorization": f"Bearer {github_token}",
    ...
}
```
  and
```
comment_headers = {"Authorization": f"Bearer {github_token}"}
```
- Suggested Fix: Replace "Bearer" with "token" in all Authorization headers for GitHub API requests.
- Revised Code Snippets:
```
headers = {
    "Authorization": f"token {github_token}",
    "Accept": "application/vnd.github.v3.diff"
}
```
  and
```
comment_headers = {"Authorization": f"token {github_token}"}
```
Missing Response Status Code Check in fetch_pr_description
- Issue: The fetch_pr_description function does not verify if the GitHub API request was successful before parsing the JSON response. This could lead to unexpected errors if the request fails.
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
pr_details_response = requests.get(pr_url, headers=json_headers)
pr_data = pr_details_response.json()
```
- Suggested Fix: Add a status code check similar to the fetch_diff function to ensure the request was successful.
- Revised Code Snippet:
```
pr_details_response = requests.get(pr_url, headers=json_headers)
if pr_details_response.status_code != 200:
    raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to fetch PR details: {pr_details_response.status_code} {pr_details_response.text}")
pr_data = pr_details_response.json()
```
Typographical Error in Model Name
- Issue: The REGULAR_MODELS array includes "gpt-4o", which appears to be a typo. The correct model name is likely "gpt-4".
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
REGULAR_MODELS = ["gpt-3.5-turbo", "gpt-4o"]
```
- Suggested Fix: Correct "gpt-4o" to "gpt-4" unless "gpt-4o" is intentionally a different model.
- Revised Code Snippet:
```
REGULAR_MODELS = ["gpt-3.5-turbo", "gpt-4"]
```
Formatting Issue in AI Review Prompt
- Issue: In the generate_review_reasoning function, there's a missing space or newline between two concatenated strings, leading to a malformed prompt.
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
"Be brief, avoid giving general recommendations not related to code fixes"
"Do not recommend changes outside of the code changes in the diff."
```
- Suggested Fix: Add a space or newline between the two sentences to ensure the prompt is correctly formatted.
- Revised Code Snippet:
```
"Be brief, avoid giving general recommendations not related to code fixes.\n"
"Do not recommend changes outside of the code changes in the diff."
```
Excessive max_completion_tokens Value
- Issue: The generate_review_reasoning function sets max_completion_tokens to 10000, which exceeds the token limits of OpenAI's models (e.g., GPT-4 has a limit of 8192 tokens).
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
max_completion_tokens=10000
```
- Suggested Fix: Adjust max_completion_tokens to a value within the supported range of the specified OpenAI model. For example, set it to 2048.
- Revised Code Snippet:
```
max_completion_tokens=2048
```
Missing Environment Variable Check for OPENAI_API_KEY
- Issue: The script does not verify if the OPENAI_API_KEY environment variable is set, which could lead to a KeyError if it's missing.
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
openai.api_key = os.environ["OPENAI_API_KEY"]
```
- Suggested Fix: Add a check to ensure OPENAI_API_KEY is present, and provide a clear error message if it's missing.
- Revised Code Snippet:
```
openai_api_key = os.environ.get("OPENAI_API_KEY")
if not openai_api_key:
    logger.critical("Missing required environment variable: OPENAI_API_KEY")
    raise ValueError("Missing required environment variable: OPENAI_API_KEY")
openai.api_key = openai_api_key
```
Handling Unknown Models Gracefully
- Issue: If an unknown model is specified, the script defaults to a regular review without logging sufficient details or handling potential issues that might arise from using an unsupported model.
- Files Affected: .github/scripts/ai_review.py
- Location in Code:
```
logger.warning(f"Unknown model type: {model_name}, trying regular review")
return generate_review_regular(diff_text, pr_title, pr_body, model_name)
```
- Suggested Fix: After logging the warning, explicitly check if generate_review_regular can handle the unknown model_name or restrict model_name to known values earlier in the workflow.
- Revised Code Snippet:
```
logger.warning(f"Unknown model type: {model_name}. Defaulting to 'gpt-3.5-turbo'.")
return generate_review_regular(diff_text, pr_title, pr_body, "gpt-3.5-turbo")
```

Conclusion

Implementing the above suggestions will enhance the security, reliability, and maintainability of the AI code review system. These changes ensure proper authentication with GitHub's API, correct prompt formatting for the AI model, adherence to OpenAI's token limits, and robust environment variable handling.

github-actions · 2025-03-17T15:35:45Z

Summary:

This pull request introduces an AI-driven code review system by adding two files:

ai_review.py: A Python script that fetches pull request details, generates an AI-based code review using OpenAI's API, and posts the review as a comment on the pull request.
ai-review.yml: A GitHub Actions workflow that triggers the ai_review.py script whenever a pull request is opened, reopened, or synchronized.

Issues and Suggestions:

Incorrect Authorization Header in GitHub API Requests:
- Issue: When making requests to the GitHub API, the script uses the Authorization header with the Bearer scheme:
```
headers = {
    "Authorization": f"Bearer {github_token}",
    ...
}
```
  According to GitHub's API documentation, the correct scheme to use is token, not Bearer. Using the incorrect scheme might lead to authentication failures or unexpected behavior.
- Suggestion: Replace "Bearer" with "token" in all headers where the GitHub token is used.
```
- "Authorization": f"Bearer {github_token}",
+ "Authorization": f"token {github_token}",
```
  Update this change in the following functions:
  - fetch_diff()
  - fetch_pr_description()
  - post_review_comment()
Missing Status Code Check in fetch_pr_description():
- Issue: The function fetch_pr_description() does not check if the request to fetch PR details was successful before attempting to parse the JSON response. This could lead to a runtime error if the response is not a success (e.g., 404 Not Found).
```
pr_details_response = requests.get(pr_url, headers=json_headers)
pr_data = pr_details_response.json()
```
- Suggestion: Add a status code check and raise an exception if the request failed.
```
+ if pr_details_response.status_code != 200:
+     raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to fetch PR details: {pr_details_response.status_code} {pr_details_response.text}")
+ pr_data = pr_details_response.json()
```
Incorrect OpenAI API Method and Parameter Names:
- Issue: The script uses openai.chat.completions.create() to generate completions, which is not consistent with the OpenAI API's current method names. Additionally, the parameter max_completion_tokens is incorrect; the correct parameter is max_tokens.
```
completion = openai.chat.completions.create(
    model=model_name,
    messages=[...],
    temperature=0.3,
    max_completion_tokens=1000
)
```
- Suggestion: Update the method to openai.ChatCompletion.create() and correct the parameter name to max_tokens.
```
- completion = openai.chat.completions.create(
+ completion = openai.ChatCompletion.create(
      model=model_name,
      messages=[...],
      temperature=0.3,
-     max_completion_tokens=1000
+     max_tokens=1000
  )
```
  Apply these changes in both the generate_review_regular() and generate_review_reasoning() functions.
Wrap Execution Code in Main Guard:
- Issue: The script executes code at the module level without guarding it with if __name__ == "__main__":. This is not advisable as it can lead to unexpected behavior if the script is imported as a module in other scripts.
- Suggestion: Encapsulate the execution code within a main() function and add the main guard.
```
def main():
    # Existing execution code starting from "Action start"
    ...

if __name__ == "__main__":
    main()
```

Additional Notes:

These changes improve the script's reliability, proper usage of APIs, and adherence to Python best practices.
No changes outside of the provided diff are recommended.

galekseev added 3 commits March 15, 2025 11:40

init

3579fed

fixes

c8dbd78

fix

6d7e73e

galekseev added 2 commits March 15, 2025 13:25

Update chatgpt_review.py

650d0a2

model change

10f0db1

galekseev added 4 commits March 15, 2025 14:08

fix

df056d9

fix

8630378

fix

46c09e9

Update chatgpt_review.py

9493bf2

galekseev added 7 commits March 15, 2025 15:01

ref

3253736

fix

a0511bd

fix

2442cd7

fix

ef1dac8

Update o1-mini_review.py

7ea404e

Update o1-mini_review.py

47c0ab0

Update o1-mini_review.py

5b69a25