Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs(depinject): clarify how to wrap module #23373

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025
Merged

Conversation

julienrbrt
Copy link
Member

@julienrbrt julienrbrt commented Jan 14, 2025

Description

ref: #23127


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Added clarifying comments to the module registration process
    • Improved documentation for module configuration and registration method
    • Provided guidance on using protobuf message types for module setup

@julienrbrt julienrbrt requested a review from a team as a code owner January 14, 2025 08:37
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 14, 2025

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@aljo242 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 14 minutes and 3 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 818baee and 5c11651.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • depinject/appconfig/module.go (1 hunks)
📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request adds clarifying comments to the RegisterModule function in the depinject/appconfig/module.go file. The comments explain the behavior of module registration, specifically highlighting that a module can be manually overwritten in the global module registry by calling RegisterModule again with the same configuration but different options. The changes focus on improving documentation about protobuf message types for module configuration and provide guidance on defining module options for better debugging.

Changes

File Change Summary
depinject/appconfig/module.go Added explanatory comments for RegisterModule function, clarifying module registration and configuration process

Suggested labels

Type: ADR

Suggested reviewers

  • tac0turtle

Possibly related PRs


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
depinject/appconfig/module.go (1)

20-23: Consider enhancing documentation with examples and risk warning.

To make the documentation even more helpful, consider:

  1. Adding a code example demonstrating how to wrap a default module
  2. Including a warning about potential risks when overwriting modules in the global registry

Example addition:

 // In some cases, a module may need to be manually overwritten from the global module
 // registry. This can be done by calling RegisterModule again with the same config,
 // but different options. This is useful when wrapping default modules.
+//
+// For example, to wrap a default bank module:
+//   RegisterModule(banktypes.Module{},
+//     Provide(
+//       func(m *banktypes.Module) CustomBankModule {
+//         return WrapBankModule(m)
+//       },
+//     ),
+//   )
+//
+// Note: Exercise caution when overwriting modules as it affects the global state
+// and may impact other parts of the application that depend on the original module.
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b4e88cc and 818baee.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • depinject/appconfig/module.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
depinject/appconfig/module.go (1)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (13)
  • GitHub Check: tests (03)
  • GitHub Check: tests (02)
  • GitHub Check: tests (01)
  • GitHub Check: tests (00)
  • GitHub Check: test-simapp-v2
  • GitHub Check: test-system-v2
  • GitHub Check: test-sim-nondeterminism
  • GitHub Check: test-integration
  • GitHub Check: build (arm64)
  • GitHub Check: build (amd64)
  • GitHub Check: Analyze
  • GitHub Check: golangci-lint
  • GitHub Check: Summary
🔇 Additional comments (1)
depinject/appconfig/module.go (1)

20-23: Documentation clearly explains module overwriting capability.

The added documentation effectively clarifies how modules can be manually overwritten in the global registry, which is particularly useful for module wrapping scenarios.

depinject/appconfig/module.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Alex | Interchain Labs <alex@skip.money>
@julienrbrt julienrbrt enabled auto-merge January 14, 2025 14:33
@julienrbrt julienrbrt added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 14, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 80552a6 Jan 14, 2025
70 of 71 checks passed
@julienrbrt julienrbrt deleted the julien/docs-depinject branch January 14, 2025 14:52
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.

3 participants