Skip to content

Conversation

UdjinM6
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 commented Oct 14, 2025

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

#6890 (review)

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 added this to the 23 milestone Oct 14, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 14, 2025

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 changed the title guix: adjust scripts to use SDK_SRCS env variable properly guix: adjust scripts to use SDK_SOURCES env variable properly Oct 19, 2025
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 marked this pull request as ready for review October 19, 2025 19:38
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 19, 2025

Walkthrough

The changes consist of renaming an exported environment variable from SDK_SRCS to SDK_SOURCES across two related shell scripts. In guix-start, the variable export is updated with modified default value logic. In setup-sdk, the variable declaration is replaced and all references throughout the script—including path assignments and directory creation commands—are updated to use the new name consistently.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

The changes follow a homogeneous pattern of variable renaming applied consistently across two shell scripts. There are no new logic flows, structural changes, or complex interactions introduced. Verification involves confirming that all occurrences of the old variable name have been systematically replaced with the new name and that default values are preserved or appropriately adjusted.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description Check ❓ Inconclusive The pull request description consists mostly of an incomplete template with empty sections for "What was done?", "How Has This Been Tested?", and "Breaking Changes", along with an unchecked checklist. While the description includes a reference to a related GitHub issue and uses a structure appropriate for PR documentation, it is extremely vague and generic, providing virtually no meaningful information about the actual changes made, testing performed, or any potential breaking changes. This falls into the category of descriptions that convey little substantive information about the changeset despite being structurally related to the topic.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title Check ✅ Passed The title "guix: adjust scripts to use SDK_SOURCES env variable properly" directly and clearly summarizes the main change in the pull request. The changeset involves renaming the environment variable from SDK_SRCS to SDK_SOURCES across multiple guix scripts (guix-start and setup-sdk). The title is concise, specific, and uses clear terminology that accurately reflects the primary objective of the changes without vagueness or unnecessary details.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 764893d and 7d3e909.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • contrib/containers/guix/scripts/guix-start (1 hunks)
  • contrib/containers/guix/scripts/setup-sdk (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
contrib/**

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

Unless specifically prompted, avoid making changes to the contrib directory (contributed scripts)

Files:

  • contrib/containers/guix/scripts/guix-start
  • contrib/containers/guix/scripts/setup-sdk
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
  • GitHub Check: linux64_sqlite-test / Test source
🔇 Additional comments (2)
contrib/containers/guix/scripts/setup-sdk (1)

12-12: LGTM: variable consistently renamed throughout.

All references to SDK_SRCS have been correctly updated to SDK_SOURCES across the variable declaration (line 12) and its usages in the archive path (line 16) and directory creation (line 21). The logic remains unchanged and aligns with the exported variable from guix-start.

Also applies to: 16-16, 21-21

contrib/containers/guix/scripts/guix-start (1)

14-14: Review comment is based on incorrect assumptions and should be disregarded.

The review claims that old code "incorrectly checked ${SDK_PATH:-...} when setting SDK_SRCS", but verification shows:

  • The variable SDK_SRCS does not exist anywhere in the codebase (no references found)
  • Line 14 correctly uses ${SDK_SOURCES:-...} and is properly self-referencing its own variable
  • Line 13 separately defines SDK_PATH with its own correct self-reference pattern
  • SDK_SOURCES has no external dependencies and is only used locally within this file

The code at line 14 is already correct and doesn't need changes. The review's description of the original bug doesn't match the actual codebase.

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.


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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 requested a review from kwvg October 19, 2025 19:49
Copy link
Collaborator

@kwvg kwvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK 7d3e909

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.

2 participants