adds a playground testfile to gitignore so Daniel has his own playground :) #883
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve updates to both the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Warning Rate limit exceeded@0xDEnYO has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 24 minutes and 12 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🔇 Additional comments (2).github/workflows/types.yaml (2)
The changes enhance robustness and debuggability:
The change from explicit path staging to Let's verify no sensitive files would be staged: ✅ Verification successfulUsing The change from explicit path staging to
🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential sensitive files that might be staged
# List all files that would be staged, excluding known safe paths
cd lifi-contract-types
git status --porcelain | grep -vE '^.. (src/|dist/|package.json)' || true
# Check for common sensitive file patterns
find . -type f -not -path "*/\.*" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" \
-name "*secret*" -o \
-name "*private*" -o \
-name "*.key" -o \
-name "*.pem" -o \
-name "*password*" \
2>/dev/null || true
Length of output: 381 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check for sensitive files and unintended staging
# List all tracked and untracked files in the repository
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard
git ls-files
# Check the contents of the workflow file to understand the context better
cat .github/workflows/types.yaml
Length of output: 36969 Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.gitignore (1)
46-46: LGTM! Consider a more structured approach for developer playgrounds.While ignoring personal playground files is good practice, consider establishing a dedicated
developers/directory structure for personal test files (e.g.,test/solidity/developers/{username}/Playground.t.sol). This would:
- Provide better organization
- Prevent potential naming conflicts
- Make it clear which files are personal playgrounds
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.gitignore(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.gitignore (1)
46-46: Verify the playground file usage.
Let's confirm that this file exists and is being used to avoid unnecessary .gitignore entries.
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 76.10% (1675 / 2201 lines) |
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)