Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@KATO-Hiro has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 14 minutes and 35 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. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughAdds a provider-key scheme for contest table providers: introduces Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant Group as ContestTableProviderGroup
participant Provider as ContestTableProviderBase
Client->>Group: addProvider(providerInstance)
activate Group
Group->>Provider: providerInstance.getProviderKey()
activate Provider
Provider-->>Group: "ContestType" or "ContestType::section"
deactivate Provider
Group->>Group: providers.set(providerKey, providerInstance)
deactivate Group
Client->>Group: getProvider(contestType, section?)
activate Group
Group->>Group: key = ContestTableProviderBase.createProviderKey(contestType, section)
Group-->>Client: providers.get(key) or fallback lookup (no section)
deactivate Group
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
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. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
-
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks) -
src/lib/types/contest_table_provider.ts(2 hunks) -
src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts(12 hunks) -
src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts(7 hunks)
⏰ 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: preview
🔇 Additional comments (1)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (1)
1-323: Implementation successfully aligns with plan specifications—all key requirements verified.The planning document's specifications are correctly implemented:
- ProviderKey type (
src/lib/types/contest_table_provider.ts:76): Defined as template literal union\${ContestType}` | `${ContestType}::${string}`` ✓- ContestTableProviderBase:
sectionproperty markedreadonly,static createProviderKey()andprotected getProviderKey()methods implemented with correct return type ✓- Tessoku Book providers: All three subclasses (Examples, Practicals, Challenges) correctly pass section identifiers ('examples', 'practicals', 'challenges') to parent constructor ✓
- ContestTableProviderGroup:
addProvider()andaddProviders()methods correctly use bracket notation (provider['getProviderKey']()) to access protected method ✓- Test coverage: "Provider key functionality" describe block verifies simple keys, composite keys, multiple provider registration, and backward compatibility ✓
The implementation maintains backward compatibility, achieves type safety through template literals, and properly separates concerns via protected method abstraction. The plan's completion report appears accurate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts(12 hunks)
⏰ 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: preview
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts (1)
307-371: LGTM: Section-specific providers correctly implemented.The three providers properly extend
TessokuBookProviderand implement section-specific filtering. The filtering logic correctly combines the base contest type check with prefix matching ontask_table_index.Optional: Consider extracting section constants for type safety.
The section strings ('examples', 'practicals', 'challenges') are currently hardcoded in constructors. For improved maintainability and type safety, consider defining them as constants:
const TESSOKU_SECTIONS = { EXAMPLES: 'examples', PRACTICALS: 'practicals', CHALLENGES: 'challenges', } as const;Then use in constructors:
export class TessokuBookForExamplesProvider extends TessokuBookProvider { constructor(contestType: ContestType) { - super(contestType, 'examples'); + super(contestType, TESSOKU_SECTIONS.EXAMPLES); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts(13 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md
⏰ 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: preview
🔇 Additional comments (8)
src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts (8)
33-45: LGTM: Clean refactoring to support sectioned providers.The addition of the optional
sectionfield and makingcontestTypereadonly are well-designed. The readonly modifier prevents accidental mutations, and the optional section maintains backward compatibility for providers that don't need section-based filtering.
47-66: LGTM: Provider key generation properly implemented.The static
createProviderKeyand instancegetProviderKeymethods are well-designed. MakinggetProviderKeypublic resolves the previous TypeScript compilation issue, and the conditional formatting (contestType::sectionvs plaincontestType) is clean and logical.
267-277: LGTM: Excellent documentation of architectural intent.The JSDoc clearly documents that
TessokuBookProviderserves as a base class for section-specific providers and that callers should use section-qualified lookups. This addresses the backward compatibility concern from the previous review and provides valuable context for future maintainers.
544-577: LGTM: Provider registration API correctly refactored.The changes to use string-based keys and provider-derived keys are well-implemented:
- Changing the Map to
Map<string, ContestTableProviderBase>supports composite provider keys- Both
addProviderandaddProviderscorrectly useprovider.getProviderKey()for keying- The variadic signature for
addProvidersis cleaner than accepting an array
587-590: LGTM: Backward-compatible section-aware lookup.The updated
getProvidermethod properly supports optional section lookups while maintaining backward compatibility. UsingcreateProviderKeyensures the lookup key format is consistent with registration.
632-636: LGTM: Stats correctly expose provider keys.Updating
getStatsto includeproviderKeyfrom the map entries provides better visibility into the actual keys being used, which is helpful for debugging and introspection of the provider system.
690-694: LGTM: TessokuBook sectioned providers correctly registered.The TessokuBook preset correctly uses
addProvidersto register all three section-specific providers (examples, practicals, challenges). This aligns with the documented design where only section-specific providers are registered, not the baseTessokuBookProvider.
654-722: LGTM: All preset registrations properly updated.All provider preset functions have been correctly updated to use the new API:
- Single-provider groups use
addProviderwith provider instances- Multi-provider groups use
addProviderswith multiple instances- All provider instantiations correctly pass
ContestTypeargumentsThe refactoring maintains consistency across all preset definitions.
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts (1)
1111-1125: Simplify method calls by removing unnecessary bracket notation.Lines 1116, 1119, and 1122 use bracket notation
provider['getProviderKey'](), butgetProviderKey()is now a public method (see Line 65 in the main file). Call it directly for better readability and consistency.Apply this diff:
- expect(examplesProvider['getProviderKey']()).toBe( + expect(examplesProvider.getProviderKey()).toBe( `TESSOKU_BOOK::${TESSOKU_SECTIONS.EXAMPLES}`, ); - expect(practicalsProvider['getProviderKey']()).toBe( + expect(practicalsProvider.getProviderKey()).toBe( `TESSOKU_BOOK::${TESSOKU_SECTIONS.PRACTICALS}`, ); - expect(challengesProvider['getProviderKey']()).toBe( + expect(challengesProvider.getProviderKey()).toBe( `TESSOKU_BOOK::${TESSOKU_SECTIONS.CHALLENGES}`, );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)src/lib/types/contest_table_provider.ts(2 hunks)src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts(13 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts(7 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/lib/types/contest_table_provider.ts
🔇 Additional comments (9)
src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts (5)
1-9: LGTM! Clean import additions for provider key functionality.The new imports for
ProviderKeyandTESSOKU_SECTIONSare properly structured and support the provider key mechanism.
33-67: Excellent design! Provider key mechanism is well-implemented.The changes properly introduce section-aware provider keys with:
- Immutable
contestTypeandsectionfields- Static
createProviderKey()for centralized key generation- Public
getProviderKey()for external access (resolves previous protected access issue)The implementation maintains clean separation of concerns and enables multiple providers per contest type.
306-370: Well-structured sectioned providers!The three TessokuBook subclasses are properly implemented with:
- Clear section identifiers passed to the base constructor
- Appropriate filtering logic based on
task_table_indexprefixes (A, B, C)- Descriptive metadata for each section
The inheritance pattern maintains code reusability while enabling section-specific behavior.
540-638: Solid refactoring to support provider keys!The
ContestTableProviderGroupchanges are well-executed:
- Map storage correctly switched to
Map<string, ContestTableProviderBase>- Methods properly derive keys from providers via
getProviderKey()getProvider(contestType, section?)maintains backward compatibility- Stats output updated to reflect
providerKeyThe implementation cleanly supports multiple providers per contest type while preserving existing API contracts.
687-695: Proper preset configuration with clear documentation!The TessokuBook group correctly registers three sectioned providers with explanatory comments about the design decision. The comment addresses the backward compatibility concern raised in previous reviews.
src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts (3)
1-24: LGTM! Test imports properly updated.The new imports correctly include the sectioned provider classes and
TESSOKU_SECTIONSconstant needed for comprehensive testing.
1093-1182: Excellent test coverage for provider key functionality!The new test suite comprehensively validates:
- Simple and composite key generation
- Sectioned provider key retrieval
- Multiple providers stored separately
- Backward compatibility (section-less lookups)
- Non-existent section handling
The tests provide strong confidence in the provider key mechanism.
1248-1266: Proper test update for sectioned TessokuBook providers!The test correctly verifies that the TessokuBook preset now creates three sectioned providers with appropriate type assertions for each section.
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-12/add_provider_key_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (1)
1-482: Comprehensive and well-structured documentation!The plan document thoroughly covers the provider key mechanism implementation, including:
- Clear background and objectives
- Detailed specification and implementation steps
- Test strategy and verification approach
- Lessons learned and backward compatibility considerations
- TESSOKU_SECTIONS constant usage guidelines
This documentation will be valuable for future maintainers understanding the design decisions.
1 participant
close #2819
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
Tests