Skip to content

Conversation

@whoisarpit
Copy link
Contributor

PR Checklist

  • The commit message follows our guidelines: Code of conduct
  • Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
  • Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
  • Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
  • Include PR in release notes?

PR Type

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Refactoring
  • Build /CI
  • Documentation
  • Others

What is the current behavior?

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

Other information

@whoisarpit whoisarpit requested a review from CTY-git March 7, 2025 02:41
@whoisarpit whoisarpit requested a review from CTY-git March 7, 2025 03:02
@CTY-git CTY-git self-requested a review March 7, 2025 03:09
from .ScanSonar import ScanSonar
from .typed import ScanSonarInputs, ScanSonarOutputs, SonarVulnerability
from patchwork.steps.ScanSonar.ScanSonar import ScanSonar
from patchwork.steps.ScanSonar.typed import ScanSonarInputs, ScanSonarOutputs, SonarVulnerability
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should be

from patchwork.steps.ScanSonar.ScanSonar.typed import ScanSonarInputs, ScanSonarOutputs, SonarVulnerability

from patchwork.step import Step

from .typed import ManageEngineAgentInputs, ManageEngineAgentOutputs
from patchwork.steps.ManageEngineAgent.typed import ManageEngineAgentInputs, ManageEngineAgentOutputs
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should be

from patchwork.steps.ManageEngineAgent.ManageEngineAgent.typed import ManageEngineAgentInputs, ManageEngineAgentOutputs

@whoisarpit whoisarpit force-pushed the fix/circular-import-issues branch from 39cefee to 9e7d617 Compare March 7, 2025 03:26
@patched-admin
Copy link
Contributor

This code review does not contain any actionable or useful feedback. The reviews only state what is NOT wrong with the code (no bugs, no security issues, no standard violations) rather than providing constructive feedback about improvements or actual issues. Therefore, I'm returning an empty response since there are no meaningful code reviews to include.

File Changed: patchwork/steps/CallCode2Prompt/TestCallCode2Prompt.py

Rule 1: Do not ignore potential bugs in the code

Details: The import path change from from patchwork.steps import CallCode2Prompt to from patchwork.steps.CallCode2Prompt.CallCode2Prompt import CallCode2Prompt could potentially introduce a bug if the module structure doesn't match the new import path. This modification suggests a significant change in the project structure that could lead to import errors if not properly implemented across the codebase.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps import CallCode2Prompt

Changed to:

from patchwork.steps.CallCode2Prompt.CallCode2Prompt import CallCode2Prompt

Start Line: 4
End Line: 4


Rule 3: Do not deviate from original coding standards

Details: The import statement modification appears to deviate from the original coding standards. The original import used a flatter, more concise structure, while the new import uses a deeply nested path with repetitive naming (CallCode2Prompt.CallCode2Prompt). This violates Python's principle of simplicity and readability.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps import CallCode2Prompt

Changed to:

from patchwork.steps.CallCode2Prompt.CallCode2Prompt import CallCode2Prompt

Start Line: 4
End Line: 4

File Changed: patchwork/steps/ExtractPackageManagerFile/TestExtractPackageManagerFile.py

Rule 1: Do not ignore potential bugs in the code
Details: The import change introduces a potential bug risk. The new import path is significantly longer and more specific, which could break if the package structure changes. Additionally, importing a class from a file with the same name as the class (ExtractPackageManagerFile.ExtractPackageManagerFile) suggests a non-standard package structure that could lead to import conflicts or confusion.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps.ExtractPackageManagerFile.ExtractPackageManagerFile import ExtractPackageManagerFile

Start Line: 5
End Line: 5


Rule 3: Do not deviate from original coding standards
Details: The modified import statement appears to deviate from standard Python coding practices. The repetitive use of "ExtractPackageManagerFile" in the import path suggests a non-standard package structure that doesn't follow PEP 8 guidelines for package organization. The original import was more concise and followed better Python packaging conventions.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps.ExtractPackageManagerFile.ExtractPackageManagerFile import ExtractPackageManagerFile

Start Line: 5
End Line: 5

File Changed: patchwork/steps/ModifyCodeOnce/ModifyCodeOnce.py

Rule 1: Do not ignore potential bugs in the code
Details: The import path change from a direct import to a more specific nested import could potentially introduce import-related bugs if the module structure is not properly maintained or if there are circular dependencies. The change suggests a reorganization of the codebase structure which should be carefully tested.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps import ModifyCode

changed to:

from patchwork.steps.ModifyCode.ModifyCode import ModifyCode

Start Line: 4

End Line: 4


Rule 3: Do not deviate from original coding standards
Details: The new import statement uses a redundant module name repetition (ModifyCode.ModifyCode) which may not follow the project's import convention standards. This could indicate a deviation from established import patterns and naming conventions.

Affected Code Snippet:

from patchwork.steps.ModifyCode.ModifyCode import ModifyCode

Start Line: 4

End Line: 4

@whoisarpit whoisarpit merged commit 7a9c717 into main Mar 7, 2025
4 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.

4 participants