Apply changes made on OBOFoundry.github.io #141
Conversation
This commit was supposed to be added in this repo. Ref commit: 9c3d971f79d1492e2bc50f1585e3586864bd2ecf
This commit was supposed to be done here. Ref commit a182e0e57335042c03b0a23f5a6d74db07a96c6b
This commit was supposed to be done here. Ref commit 8fd395bb03c18bc49114b405574b5719ef1539b7
This commit was supposed to be done here. Ref commit ebc2d0935b3de55076ec61c5a6e4be7cd279c7de
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@anitacaron has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 2 minutes and 28 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. 📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes introduced in the pull request focus on enhancing documentation across multiple Python files related to ontology validation and metadata requirements. Key modifications include clarifying the necessity of licenses, ontology formats, naming conventions, and metadata entries. The documentation improvements aim to provide clearer guidelines and examples for users, while the underlying code logic remains unchanged. Additionally, error handling and validation processes have been specified more thoroughly, ensuring that users understand the requirements and expected formats for ontology metadata. Changes
Assessment against linked issues
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: 13
🧹 Outside diff range comments (14)
util/dashboard/fp_020.py (1)
Line range hint
34-51: Consider some improvements to the implementation.While the simplified error message is more accurate, here are some suggestions to improve the code:
-def is_responsive(data): +def is_responsive(data: dict) -> dict: """Check fp 20 - responsiveness. If the ontology has an active issue tracker, PASS. Args: data (dict): ontology registry data from YAML file Return: - PASS or ERROR with optional help message + dict: Status dict with 'status' ('PASS' or 'ERROR') and optional 'comment' """ - if 'tracker' in data: - tracker = data['tracker'] - else: - tracker = None - - if tracker is None: + if 'tracker' not in data: return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker'} return {'status': 'PASS'}The suggested changes:
- Add type hints for better code documentation
- Simplify the logic by directly checking for the presence of 'tracker'
- Improve the return type documentation in the docstring
util/dashboard/fp_011.py (2)
Line range hint
34-41: Enhance function docstring return value documentationThe current docstring could be more specific about the return value structure. Consider clarifying that it returns a dictionary with 'status' and optional 'comment' keys.
"""Check fp 11 - locus of authority. Check if the registry data contains a valid contract entry. Args: data (dict): ontology registry data from YAML file + contact_schema (dict): JSON schema for contact validation Return: - PASS or ERROR with optional help message + dict: A dictionary containing: + - 'status': str, either 'PASS' or 'ERROR' + - 'comment': str, optional error message when status is 'ERROR' """🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
28-28:
dash_utilsimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils(F401)
30-30:
dash_utils.format_msgimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils.format_msg(F401)
33-33: Missing return type annotation for public function
has_contact(ANN201)
33-33: Missing type annotation for function argument
data(ANN001)
33-33: Missing type annotation for function argument
contact_schema(ANN001)
Line range hint
42-52: Enhance error messages with specific validation requirementsThe current error messages could be more helpful by including specific requirements from the contact schema.
if 'contact' in data: - # contact is in data but is not proper format return {'status': 'ERROR', - 'comment': 'Invalid contact information'} + 'comment': 'Invalid contact information: Contact must include both name and email address'} else: - # contact entry is missing from data return {'status': 'ERROR', - 'comment': 'Missing contact information'} + 'comment': 'Missing contact information: Please add a contact entry with name and email address'}util/dashboard/fp_005.py (2)
Line range hint
29-39: Update function docstring to match current implementationThe docstring describes domain comparison functionality that is currently disabled. It should be updated to reflect the actual implementation.
- '''Check fp 5 - scope. - - Retrieve the "scope" tag from the data and compare to other scopes in the - map. If domains overlap, return INFO with a list of overlapping domains. - If scope is missing, ERROR. Otherwise, PASS. + '''Check fp 5 - scope. + + Verify that the ontology has a declared domain in its metadata. + Returns ERROR if domain is missing, otherwise PASS. + Note: Domain overlap checking is currently disabled. Args: data (dict): ontology data from registry domain_map (dict): map of ontology to domain '''🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
23-23:
dash_utilsimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils(F401)
Line range hint
47-60: Consider cleaning up or restoring commented codeThere's a large block of commented-out code for domain comparison functionality. This represents potential technical debt and could be confusing for maintainers.
Consider either:
- Removing the commented code and tracking it in version control history
- Adding a TODO comment explaining why it's disabled and when it might be re-enabled
- Creating an issue to track the re-implementation of this feature
If you'd like, I can help create a GitHub issue to track this technical debt.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
23-23:
dash_utilsimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils(F401)
util/dashboard/fp_008.py (1)
Line range hint
42-83: Enhance error handling and code readability.The implementation could benefit from:
- Using dict.get() for cleaner None handling
- More informative error messages
- Robust URL validation with timeout handling
def has_documentation(data): """Check fp 8 - documentation. If the ontology has a valid homepage and description, return PASS. The homepage URL must also resolve. Args: data (dict): ontology registry data from YAML file Return: PASS or ERROR with optional help message """ - # check if the data exists - if 'homepage' in data: - home = data['homepage'] - else: - home = None - if 'description' in data: - descr = data['description'] - else: - descr = None + home = data.get('homepage') + descr = data.get('description') if home is None and descr is None: return {'status': 'ERROR', - 'comment': 'Missing homepage and description'} + 'comment': 'Missing required fields: homepage and description'} elif home is None: return {'status': 'ERROR', - 'comment': 'Missing homepage'} + 'comment': 'Missing required field: homepage'} elif descr is None: return {'status': 'ERROR', - 'comment': 'Missing description'} + 'comment': 'Missing required field: description'} # check if URL resolves - if not url_exists(home): + try: + if not url_exists(home): + return {'status': 'ERROR', + 'comment': f'Homepage URL ({home}) is not accessible'} + except Exception as e: + return {'status': 'ERROR', + 'comment': f'Error validating homepage URL ({home}): {str(e)}'} return {'status': 'PASS'}🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
43-43: Missing return type annotation for public function
has_documentation(ANN201)
43-43: Missing type annotation for function argument
data(ANN001)
util/dashboard/fp_009.py (3)
Line range hint
57-60: Implement TODO: Add validation for usage entriesThe TODO comment indicates missing validation for user URLs and descriptions. This should be implemented to ensure data quality.
Here's a suggested implementation:
def validate_usage(usage): """Validate a single usage entry.""" if not isinstance(usage, dict): return False if 'user' not in usage or 'description' not in usage: return False if not isinstance(usage['user'], str) or not isinstance(usage['description'], str): return False try: requests.head(usage['user']) return True except: return False if 'usages' in data: usages = data['usages'] if not all(validate_usage(usage) for usage in usages): return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Invalid usage entry. Each usage must have a valid user URL and description'}Would you like me to create an issue to track this implementation?
Line range hint
71-77: Enhance error messages with guidanceThe error messages could be more helpful by including information about how to fix the issues.
- return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker and usages'} + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker and usages. Please add both a tracker URL and usage examples to your metadata file. See documentation for details.'} - return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker'} + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker. Please add a tracker URL to your metadata file. See documentation for adding a tracker.'} - return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing usages'} + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing usages. Please add usage examples to your metadata file. See documentation for adding usages.'}
Line range hint
49-77: Add URL validation for trackerThe code should validate that the tracker URL is accessible.
def has_users(data): """Check fp 9 - users. If the ontology has an active issue tracker and examples of use, PASS. Args: data (dict): ontology registry data from YAML file Return: PASS or ERROR with optional help message """ + def is_valid_url(url): + try: + response = requests.head(url) + return response.status_code < 400 + except: + return False + if 'tracker' in data: tracker = data['tracker'] + if not isinstance(tracker, str) or not is_valid_url(tracker): + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Invalid tracker URL. Please provide a valid, accessible URL.'} else: tracker = Noneutil/dashboard/fp_016.py (1)
Line range hint
22-23: Consider making the version IRI pattern more robustThe current regex pattern assumes a specific format and might be too rigid. Consider:
- Making the protocol optional (support both http and https)
- Supporting different date formats
- Adding pattern documentation
-vpat = r'http:\/\/purl\.obolibrary\.org/obo/.*/([0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2})/.*' +# Matches version IRIs containing dates in YYYY-MM-DD format +# Supports both http and https protocols +vpat = r'https?:\/\/purl\.obolibrary\.org/obo/.*/(\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})/.*'util/dashboard/fp_012.py (1)
Line range hint
103-105: Consider enhancing error messages with fix instructions.The violation messages could be more helpful by including brief instructions on how to fix each type of violation. For example:
-duplicate_msg = '{0} duplicate labels.' -multiple_msg = '{0} multiple labels.' -missing_msg = '{0} missing labels.' +duplicate_msg = '{0} duplicate labels found. Update labels to be unique or obsolete duplicate terms.' +multiple_msg = '{0} terms with multiple labels found. Keep one label and convert others to synonyms.' +missing_msg = '{0} terms missing labels found. Add rdfs:label annotations to these terms.'🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
38-38:
dash_utilsimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils(F401)
util/dashboard/fp_003.py (1)
Line range hint
40-41: Consider using f-strings for error messagesThe error message formatting could be modernized using f-strings for better readability:
-error_msg = '{} invalid IRIs. The Ontology IRI is {}valid.' -warn_msg = '{0} warnings on IRIs' +error_msg = 'f{count} invalid IRIs. The Ontology IRI is {valid_status}valid.' +warn_msg = f'{count} warnings on IRIs'util/dashboard/fp_007.py (1)
Line range hint
201-211: Improve error handling inbig_get_propertiesThe error handling in this section uses print statements for logging errors, which might not be ideal for production environments. Consider using proper logging and providing more context about the parsing failures.
+import logging + def big_get_properties(file): props = {} with open(file, 'r') as f: p_iri = None for line in f: if 'owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about' in line: try: p_iri = dash_utils.get_resource_value(line) except Exception: - print('Unable to get IRI from line: ' + line) + logging.warning('Unable to get IRI from line: %s', line.strip()) elif p_iri and 'rdfs:label' in line: try: label = dash_utils.get_literal_value(line) normal = normalize_label(label) props[normal] = p_iri except Exception: - # continue on to the next line - # might be a line break between (like RNAO) - print('Unable to get label from line: ' + line) + # Skip lines that might have line breaks (like RNAO) + logging.debug('Unable to get label from line: %s', line.strip()) continue🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
31-31:
io.TextIOWrapperimported but unusedRemove unused import:
io.TextIOWrapper(F401)
util/dashboard/fp_001.py (1)
Line range hint
395-397: Consider moving constants to the top of the fileThe license property constants (
license_propandbad_license_props) are currently defined at the bottom of the file. Consider moving them to the top, after the imports, following Python best practices. This would improve code organization and make these important constants more visible.import dash_utils import jsonschema +# correct dc license property +license_prop = 'http://purl.org/dc/terms/license' +# incorrect dc license properties +bad_license_props = ['http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/license', 'http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/rights', 'http://purl.org/dc/terms/rights'] + def is_open(ontology, data, schema):🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
41-41: Missing return type annotation for public function
is_open(ANN201)
41-41: Missing type annotation for function argument
ontology(ANN001)
41-41: Missing type annotation for function argument
data(ANN001)
41-41: Missing type annotation for function argument
schema(ANN001)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
util/dashboard/fp_001.py(3 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_002.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_003.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_004.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_005.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_006.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_007.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_008.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_009.py(2 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_011.py(2 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_012.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_016.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_020.py(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
util/dashboard/fp_007.py
31-31: io.TextIOWrapper imported but unused
Remove unused import: io.TextIOWrapper
(F401)
util/dashboard/fp_011.py
28-28: dash_utils imported but unused
Remove unused import: dash_utils
(F401)
30-30: dash_utils.format_msg imported but unused
Remove unused import: dash_utils.format_msg
(F401)
🔇 Additional comments (25)
util/dashboard/fp_002.py (3)
8-11: LGTM: Clear requirement specification.
The added documentation clearly states the mandatory RDF/XML format requirement, which aligns well with the implementation.
Line range hint 20-36: LGTM: Well-structured implementation.
The implementation is clean, handles all cases appropriately, and includes proper type hints. The status messages are clear and informative.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
19-19: dash_utils imported but unused
Remove unused import: dash_utils
(F401)
12-14: LGTM: Comprehensive guidance for format conversion.
The documentation provides valuable references to tools and tutorials for format conversion.
Let's verify the accessibility of the provided links:
✅ Verification successful
All documentation links are accessible and working
The verification confirms that both external links return HTTP 200 status:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the documentation links are accessible
# Expected: All URLs should return HTTP 200 status
urls=(
"http://robot.obolibrary.org/convert"
"https://ontology101tutorial.readthedocs.io/en/latest/StartingProtege.html"
)
for url in "${urls[@]}"; do
echo "Checking $url"
curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "$url"
echo
done
Length of output: 662
util/dashboard/fp_020.py (2)
8-24: Documentation improvements look great!
The added documentation clearly outlines the requirements and provides helpful guidance for adding a tracker, including specific examples and relevant resource links. This aligns well with the PR objective of synchronizing documentation with OBOFoundry.github.io.
26-27: Implementation comment is clear and accurate!
The added comment succinctly describes the check's behavior and matches the actual implementation.
util/dashboard/fp_011.py (1)
Line range hint 8-25: Documentation improvements look great!
The enhanced documentation provides clear requirements, step-by-step instructions, and a practical example of the metadata format. This aligns well with the PR objective of synchronizing documentation with OBOFoundry.github.io.
util/dashboard/fp_005.py (1)
8-14: Documentation improvements look good!
The added documentation clearly outlines the requirements and provides helpful resources for users, including:
- Clear statement of the domain declaration requirement
- Link to the FAQ for metadata editing
- Concrete example of domain declaration
This aligns well with the PR's objective of synchronizing documentation between repositories.
util/dashboard/fp_008.py (1)
8-13: LGTM! Clear and well-structured requirements.
The requirements are clearly stated and properly emphasized using bold for mandatory items.
util/dashboard/fp_006.py (4)
8-11: LGTM! Clear and well-structured requirements.
The requirements are clearly specified with proper distinction between mandatory ("must") and recommended ("should") criteria.
20-21: LGTM! Clear guidance with practical solutions.
The documentation provides clear, actionable solutions for handling multiple definitions, with appropriate use of ontology-specific terminology.
30-31: LGTM! Clear implementation documentation.
The documentation effectively explains how ROBOT report is used and clearly defines the error levels for different types of violations.
16-17: Verify consistency with OBOFoundry.github.io documentation.
The fix guidance for duplicate definitions is clear, but let's verify it matches the source documentation.
✅ Verification successful
Documentation is consistent with OBO Foundry principles
The documentation in fp_006.py is actually part of an automated check implementation for the OBO Foundry principle FP-006 (Textual Definitions). The comment about updating duplicate definitions is consistent with the implementation's purpose, which validates against the duplicate_definition check from ROBOT report. The guidance is properly aligned with the OBO Foundry's textual definition principles, as evidenced by the reference to the official documentation at http://obofoundry.org/principles/fp-006-textual-definitions.html in the file's header.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if the documentation matches OBOFoundry.github.io
# Expected: Find matching text about duplicate definitions
# Search for the duplicate definition text in any markdown or text files
rg -t md -t txt "duplicate definition"
Length of output: 40
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the context of duplicate definitions
# and related documentation
# Search for files containing "duplicate" in relevant documentation directories
fd -e md -e txt . | xargs rg -i "duplicate" -A 2 -B 2
# Also search for any documentation about term definitions
fd -e md -e txt . | xargs rg -i "term definition" -A 2 -B 2
# Check if there's a README or similar file in the util/dashboard directory
ls -la util/dashboard/
Length of output: 1228
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of fp_006.py to understand the full context
# of the duplicate definitions guidance
cat util/dashboard/fp_006.py
# Also check the dashboard.py as it might contain related documentation
cat util/dashboard/dashboard.py | grep -A 5 -B 5 "FP006\|duplicate"
Length of output: 3525
util/dashboard/fp_016.py (3)
8-16: Documentation improvements look good!
The changes enhance readability and clarity by:
- Adding proper spacing
- Using markdown formatting to emphasize optional requirements
- Providing a clearer explanation of the version IRI checking process
These updates align well with the PR objective of synchronizing documentation with OBOFoundry.github.io.
Line range hint 89-124: Implementation correctly matches documented requirements
The version IRI checking logic properly implements the documented behavior:
- Warns for ontologies not updated in 2 years
- Provides info messages for ontologies not updated in 1 year
- Includes comprehensive error handling for edge cases
The implementation aligns well with the documentation and includes proper error handling.
Line range hint 108-109: Verify implementation matches documented requirements
The code comment references issue #94 regarding the severity change. Let's verify this decision is properly implemented.
✅ Verification successful
Implementation correctly matches documented requirements
The implementation in fp_016.py correctly matches the documented requirements and the decision made in issue #94. Specifically:
- The code comment explicitly references the severity change decision made on the 2023-07-25 OFOC call (issue Drop the severity level of the maintenance check for "last time maintained" #94)
- The implementation correctly sets a WARN status for ontologies with version IRIs older than two years
- This aligns with the documented implementation details in the file's header comments which state "If it is older than two years, this is a warning"
The change in severity level has been properly implemented and is well-documented within the code.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the implementation of version IRI checks across the codebase
# and related documentation
# Check for any other files that might reference these thresholds
rg -l "two.*years.*ago|2.*years.*ago"
# Look for related test cases
rg -l "test.*maintenance|test.*version.*iri"
Length of output: 111
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual content of fp_016.py to understand the implementation
cat util/dashboard/fp_016.py
# Search for any issue references in commit history
git log -p | rg -i "issue.*94|#94"
# Look for any documentation files that might contain requirements
fd -e md -e txt | xargs rg -l "version|maintenance|iri"
Length of output: 4534
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the documentation files to understand the requirements
cat docs/about.md
cat README.md
# Let's also check if there are any related test files in the test directory
fd -e py test | xargs rg -l "maintenance|version.*iri"
Length of output: 9011
util/dashboard/fp_012.py (1)
8-11: LGTM! Clear and well-structured requirements.
The documentation changes effectively clarify the label uniqueness and cardinality requirements using appropriate emphasis.
util/dashboard/fp_004.py (2)
8-27: Documentation improvements look great!
The enhanced documentation provides clear requirements and practical guidance for users, including:
- Clear formatting of requirements using bold/italic
- Step-by-step instructions for adding Version IRI in different tools
- Reference to automated solutions via ODK
Line range hint 30-179: Implementation looks solid, consider adding unit tests
The implementation is well-structured with:
- Clear regex patterns for validation
- Comprehensive doctest examples
- Proper type hints
- Descriptive error messages
However, while the doctests provide good examples, consider adding dedicated unit tests to:
- Cover edge cases
- Test error conditions
- Ensure backward compatibility
Let's check if there are existing unit tests:
util/dashboard/fp_003.py (2)
8-25: Documentation improvements look good!
The enhanced documentation provides clear guidelines and specific steps for:
- URI format requirements using underscores
- Proper process for updating IRIs
- Links to relevant external resources
The changes align well with the PR objective of synchronizing documentation with OBOFoundry.github.io.
28-28: Implementation documentation is accurate and helpful!
The added implementation details clearly explain the validation process and special cases, matching the actual code implementation.
util/dashboard/fp_007.py (1)
8-25: Documentation improvements look great!
The enhanced documentation provides clear requirements, detailed fix instructions, and implementation details. This aligns well with the PR objective of synchronizing documentation with OBOFoundry.github.io.
util/dashboard/fp_001.py (4)
8-11: LGTM: Documentation changes improve clarity of requirements
The updated wording makes the license requirements more explicit by using "must" instead of "should", which better reflects the mandatory nature of these requirements.
16-34: LGTM: Enhanced implementation documentation
The added documentation provides comprehensive guidance on:
- Choosing appropriate licenses
- Adding licenses to registry data
- Adding licenses to ontology files
- Implementation details of validation process
This aligns well with the PR's objective of synchronizing documentation improvements.
302-302: LGTM: Grammatical correction in docstring
Fixed plural form "licenses" to singular "license" in the return description, which is more accurate as the comparison is between two individual licenses.
378-378: LGTM: Added clarifying comment for edge case
The added comment improves code maintainability by documenting that matches_ontology returns None when the ontology license is missing.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
util/dashboard/fp_006.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
util/dashboard/fp_006.py (3)
16-20: LGTM! Clear and actionable guidance.
The fixes section provides specific instructions for handling duplicate and multiple definitions.
24-24: LGTM! Helpful resources provided.
Good addition of references to both the recommendations and ROBOT template for bulk operations.
Also applies to: 27-27
Line range hint 35-77: LGTM! Implementation aligns with requirements.
The code correctly implements all three requirements with appropriate error levels:
- Duplicates and multiples are treated as errors (MUST requirements)
- Missing definitions are treated as warnings (SHOULD requirement)
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
33-33: dash_utils imported but unused
Remove unused import: dash_utils
(F401)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
util/dashboard/fp_009.py (1)
Line range hint
51-83: Consider enhancing validation and error handlingThe current implementation could benefit from more robust validation and improved error messages:
- Add URL validation for the tracker
- Implement the TODO for validating user URLs and descriptions
- Provide more informative error messages
Here's a suggested implementation:
def has_users(data): """Check fp 9 - users. If the ontology has an active issue tracker and examples of use, PASS. Args: data (dict): ontology registry data from YAML file Return: PASS or ERROR with optional help message """ + from urllib.parse import urlparse + + def is_valid_url(url): + try: + result = urlparse(url) + return all([result.scheme, result.netloc]) + except: + return False + if 'tracker' in data: tracker = data['tracker'] + if not is_valid_url(tracker): + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': f'Invalid tracker URL: {tracker}'} else: tracker = None + if 'usages' in data: usages = data['usages'] - # TODO: usages should have a valid user that resovles - # and a description + if not isinstance(usages, list) or not usages: + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Usages must be a non-empty list'} + + for usage in usages: + if not isinstance(usage, dict): + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Each usage must be a dictionary'} + + if 'user' not in usage or not is_valid_url(usage['user']): + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': f'Invalid or missing user URL in usage: {usage}'} + + if 'description' not in usage or not usage['description'].strip(): + return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': f'Missing or empty description in usage: {usage}'} else: usages = None if tracker is None and usages is None: return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker and usages'} elif tracker is None: return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing tracker'} elif usages is None: return {'status': 'ERROR', 'comment': 'Missing usages'} return {'status': 'PASS'}util/dashboard/fp_006.py (1)
Line range hint
69-74: Simplify comment construction logic.The current approach to building the comment string may include empty strings. Consider using list comprehension for a more concise and cleaner implementation.
- comment = [f'{DUPLICATE_MSG.format(duplicates) if duplicates > 0 else ""}', - f'{MULTIPLE_MSG.format(multiples) if multiples > 0 else ""}', - f'{MISSING_MSG.format(missing) if missing > 0 else ""}', - HELP_MSG] + messages = [ + DUPLICATE_MSG.format(duplicates) if duplicates > 0 else None, + MULTIPLE_MSG.format(multiples) if multiples > 0 else None, + MISSING_MSG.format(missing) if missing > 0 else None, + HELP_MSG + ] + comment = [msg for msg in messages if msg]🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
33-33:
dash_utilsimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils(F401)
34-34:
dash_utils.format_msgimported but unusedRemove unused import:
dash_utils.format_msg(F401)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
util/dashboard/fp_006.py(1 hunks)util/dashboard/fp_009.py(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
util/dashboard/fp_009.py (3)
Line range hint 8-38: Documentation improvements look great!
The enhanced documentation provides clear requirements, comprehensive fix instructions, and helpful examples. The addition of external resource links and step-by-step guidance will help users understand and implement the requirements correctly.
39-39: LGTM!
42-42: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Implementation could be enhanced with validation details
The implementation documentation could be more detailed about the validation process. Additionally, there's a TODO comment in the code about usage validation that should be addressed.
Consider expanding the implementation documentation:
-The registry data is checked for 'tracker' and 'usage' entries. If either is missing, this is an error.
+The registry data is validated for both 'tracker' and 'usage' entries. The tracker must be a valid URL to an issue tracking system. The usages must contain at least one user entry with a valid, resolvable URL and a meaningful description. If any of these requirements are not met, an error is raised.Would you like assistance in implementing the TODO for usage validation? I can help create the validation logic to ensure users are valid and have descriptions.
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
util/dashboard/fp_006.py (2)
8-11: Requirements section looks good, with a note on formatting.
16-24: Well-structured guidance for fixing definition issues.
The fixes section provides clear, actionable guidance for resolving each type of definition violation. The structure effectively maps to the requirements and offers practical solutions.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Fixes #140
List of commits from OBOFoundry.github.io applied to this repo:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
Documentation Enhancements
Error Handling Improvements