0033670: Coding - TopExp_Explorer performance update #7
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request encompasses multiple updates across the OCCT (Open CASCADE Technology) project, focusing on documentation generation processes, script path modifications, and code improvements. Changes include updating documentation build workflows, modifying documentation generation scripts, enhancing memory management in Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant User
participant BuildWorkflow
participant DocGenerator
participant Doxygen
User->>BuildWorkflow: Trigger documentation build
BuildWorkflow->>DocGenerator: Run gendoc script
DocGenerator->>Doxygen: Generate reference manual
DocGenerator->>Doxygen: Generate overview documentation
Doxygen-->>BuildWorkflow: Documentation artifacts
BuildWorkflow-->>User: Upload documentation
Poem
🪧 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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx (1)
46-46: Review and enhance exception safety and error handlingManual memory management increases the risk of memory leaks, especially in the presence of exceptions. Consider adding exception handling to ensure that resources are properly released if an exception occurs during the execution of constructors or other operations.
Also applies to: 63-63, 162-164, 182-182, 185-185
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx (5 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx (1)
185-185: Ensure correct construction of newTopoDS_Iteratorafter reallocationAfter reallocating
myStack, the placement new operation constructs a newTopoDS_IteratoratmyStack[myTop]. Confirm that this operation is safe and that the memory atmyStack[myTop]is correctly aligned and uninitialized to prevent any potential issues.Run the following script to review all placement new usages and verify their correctness:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all placement new usages in the file. rg --type cpp --line-number 'new\s*\(&\s*myStack\[.*\]\)' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
| @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ TopExp_Explorer::TopExp_Explorer() | |||
| toAvoid (TopAbs_SHAPE), | |||
| hasMore (Standard_False) | |||
| { | |||
| myStack = (TopoDS_Iterator*)Standard::Allocate(theStackSize*sizeof(TopoDS_Iterator)); | |||
| myStack = (TopoDS_Iterator*)Standard::AllocateOptimal(theStackSize*sizeof(TopoDS_Iterator)); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using containers for safer memory management of myStack
The code manually manages memory for myStack using Standard::AllocateOptimal, placement new, and explicit destructor calls. This approach is error-prone and can lead to memory leaks or undefined behavior if not handled meticulously.
Consider using a container class like NCollection_Vector<TopoDS_Iterator> or std::vector<TopoDS_Iterator> to manage myStack. Containers handle memory allocation, deallocation, and object lifetimes automatically, reducing complexity and potential errors.
Also applies to: 63-63
| NewSize = mySizeOfStack + theStackSize; | ||
| myStack = (TopoDS_Iterator*)Standard::Reallocate(myStack, NewSize * sizeof(TopoDS_Iterator)); | ||
| mySizeOfStack = NewSize; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential issues with reallocation of myStack and object lifetimes
When reallocating myStack using Standard::Reallocate, the existing TopoDS_Iterator objects are not properly constructed in the new memory space. This may lead to undefined behavior since only raw memory is reallocated without invoking copy constructors or moving the objects.
Ensure that existing objects are correctly copied or moved to the new memory location after reallocation. Alternatively, using a container like NCollection_Vector<TopoDS_Iterator> or std::vector<TopoDS_Iterator> can handle this safely.
Also applies to: 182-182
| @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ const TopoDS_Shape& TopExp_Explorer::Current()const | |||
| void TopExp_Explorer::Next() | |||
| { | |||
| Standard_Integer NewSize; | |||
| TopoDS_Shape ShapTop; | |||
| TopoDS_Shape const* ShapTop = nullptr; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Potential Dangling Pointer with ShapTop
Changing ShapTop to a pointer may lead to dangling pointers if myStack is reallocated, as reallocation can move the memory location of myStack. Ensure that myStack's memory does not change during the lifetime of ShapTop or consider alternative approaches.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the safety of changing ShapTop to a pointer
Changing ShapTop to a const TopoDS_Shape* avoids unnecessary copies of TopoDS_Shape. However, ensure that the pointer remains valid throughout its usage to prevent dangling pointers.
Run the following script to check all assignments to ShapTop and ensure it doesn't reference a temporary object:
Also applies to: 173-174, 185-185
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that `ShapTop` does not point to temporary objects.
# Search for all assignments to `ShapTop`.
rg --type cpp --line-number --fixed-strings 'ShapTop = ' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
# Search for usages of `ShapTop` after potential invalidation points.
rg --type cpp --line-number --fixed-strings 'ShapTop->' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
Length of output: 469
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Corrected script to verify that `ShapTop` does not point to temporary objects.
# Search for all assignments to `ShapTop`.
rg --type cpp --line-number --fixed-strings 'ShapTop = ' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
# Search for usages of `ShapTop` after potential invalidation points.
rg --type cpp --line-number --fixed-strings 'ShapTop->' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
Length of output: 305
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Locate the declaration and all usages of `myStack` to verify its lifetime.
# Find the declaration of `myStack`.
rg --type cpp --line-number 'myStack' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
# Find all usages of `myStack`.
rg --type cpp --line-number 'myStack' src/TopExp/TopExp_Explorer.cxx
Length of output: 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 41
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (28)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1)
2-14: Enhance contact link descriptions to be more specificThe current descriptions are repetitive and don't clearly differentiate the purpose of each platform. Consider making each description more specific to its platform's primary use case.
Here's a suggested improvement:
contact_links: - name: Collaborative development portal url: https://dev.opencascade.org/forums - about: You can also use the collaborative development portal to ask questions and discuss the problem you are seeing + about: Join our community forums for general discussions, technical questions, and knowledge sharing - name: GitHub discussions url: https://github.com/Open-Cascade-SAS/OCCT/discussions - about: You can also use GitHub discussions to ask questions and discuss the problem you are seeing + about: Start or join GitHub discussions for feature ideas, best practices, and implementation questions - name: Mantis bug tracker url: https://tracker.dev.opencascade.org/ - about: You can also use the Mantis bug tracker to report bugs and issues + about: Report and track bugs in our dedicated Mantis bug tracking system - name: Contact US form url: https://dev.opencascade.org/webform/contact_us - about: You can also use the Contact US form to ask questions and discuss the problem you are seeing + about: Get in touch with our team directly for commercial inquiries or sensitive issues.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Feature Request.yaml (1)
5-34: LGTM: Comprehensive template structure with clear fieldsThe template includes all essential fields for capturing feature requests with clear descriptions and appropriate validation.
Consider adding a placeholder example in the description field to guide users. For example:
attributes: label: Description description: "A detailed description of the feature request" + placeholder: "Example: Add a new DRAW command 'mydraw' that performs..."🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Feature Request.yaml (1)
12-14: Consider adding example text to field descriptionsTo help users provide more detailed and structured responses, consider enhancing the field descriptions with examples:
label: Description - description: "A detailed description of the feature request" + description: "A detailed description of the feature request. For example: 'Add support for XYZ format in sample ABC to demonstrate integration with external systems'".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-34: Consider adding example contentTo help users provide better information, consider adding placeholder text or examples in the description fields.
Example enhancement:
attributes: label: Use Case description: "Describe the use case for the feature" + placeholder: "Example: As a developer, I need this feature to automate testing of complex geometrical shapes..."🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Feature Request.yaml (1)
4-34: LGTM! Well-structured form with clear guidanceThe form structure effectively captures necessary information with required fields while maintaining flexibility with the optional additional context field.
Consider enhancing field descriptions with examples:
attributes: label: Description - description: "A detailed description of the feature request" + description: "A detailed description of the feature request. For example: 'Add support for X type of modeling operation that allows Y...'"🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Feature Request.yaml (1)
9-34: Consider adding placeholder text to guide usersWhile the fields are well-structured, adding placeholder text could help users understand what kind of information to provide.
Example enhancement for the description field:
attributes: label: Description description: "A detailed description of the feature request" + placeholder: | + Example: + - What feature would you like to add to the build process? + - How should it work? + - What problem does it solve? validations:🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Feature Request.yaml (1)
9-34: Consider enhancing the form fields with additional guidance.While the current fields cover the essential aspects of a feature request, consider adding:
- Placeholder examples in each textarea to guide users
- A field for potential alternatives considered
- A field for impact assessment on existing configurations
Example enhancement for the description field:
attributes: label: Description description: "A detailed description of the feature request" + placeholder: | + Describe the configuration feature you'd like to see added. + Example: "Add support for configuring X with Y parameters to enable Z functionality"🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Feature Request.yaml (1)
4-8: Consider enhancing the introduction textThe current introduction could be more helpful by providing guidelines for submitting effective feature requests.
Consider this enhancement:
value: | - **Please provide the following information:** + **Please provide the following information for your Data Exchange feature request:** + + - Be specific about the data formats or exchange scenarios involved + - Consider compatibility with existing features + - Include any performance requirements or constraints.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Feature Request.yaml (1)
9-34: LGTM: Comprehensive form fieldsThe template includes all essential fields with clear labels and descriptions, ensuring users provide complete information for documentation feature requests.
Add a newline at the end of the file to fix the YAML linting error:
label: Additional Context description: "Any additional context or information" +🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-34: Consider adding placeholder text for fieldsTo help users provide more structured and useful information, consider adding placeholder text with examples for each field.
Example improvement for the description field:
attributes: label: Description description: "A detailed description of the feature request" + placeholder: | + Example: + - What feature would you like to see added? + - How should it work? + - What problem does it solve?🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Feature Request.yaml (1)
34-34: Add newline at end of fileAdd a newline character at the end of the file to follow YAML best practices.
description: "Any additional context or information" +🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Bug Report.yaml (2)
1-3: Consider clarifying the label naming convention.The label "1. 2. Bug" has an unusual format. Consider using a more conventional naming pattern for better clarity, such as "type: bug" or "bug".
94-98: Consider removing redundant environment field.The environment field might be redundant since the OS, compiler, and bitness are already captured in separate fields above. Consider removing this field or clarifying what additional environment details are expected.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Bug Report.yaml (2)
5-15: Consider adding a placeholder example in the description field.Adding a placeholder example would help users understand the level of detail expected in the bug description.
attributes: label: Description description: "A detailed description of the bug" + placeholder: "Example: When loading sample X, the application crashes after clicking on..."
30-36: Consider enhancing the sample code section with formatting hints.Adding a placeholder with markdown code block syntax would encourage properly formatted code submissions.
attributes: label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + placeholder: | + ```cpp + // For C++ samples + ``` + or + ```tcl + # For DRAW Tcl scripts + ```.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Bug Report.yaml (2)
38-88: Consider adding more recent OCCT versionsThe OCCT version dropdown (lines 75-88) includes versions up to 7.9, but there might be more recent versions available. Consider adding newer versions if they exist.
31-36: Consider adding code formatting guidelinesFor the sample code field, consider adding a description that specifies the preferred code formatting style or minimum reproducible example guidelines.
attributes: label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script - description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + description: "Provide a minimal C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script that reproduces the issue. Please format your code and remove unnecessary details.".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Bug Report.yaml (2)
79-85: Consider adding OCCT version 7.7.The OCCT version dropdown includes versions 7.4-7.6 and 7.8-7.9, but version 7.7 appears to be missing from the sequence.
options: - 7.4 - 7.5 - 7.6 + - 7.7 - 7.8 - 7.9 - latest
33-34: Clarify DRAW script requirements.The current description implies that both C++ sample and DRAW Tcl script are needed. Consider clarifying that either one is sufficient.
- label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script - description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + label: Reproduction Steps + description: "Provide either a C++ sample OR a DRAW Tcl script that reproduces the issue".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Bug Report.yaml (2)
9-36: Consider enhancing the sample code description.The required sections are well-structured. Consider adding a note about providing a minimal reproducible example to help maintainers quickly identify the issue.
- description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + description: "Provide a minimal C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script that reproduces the issue"
79-86: Consider a more maintainable version list approach.The hardcoded version list will require regular updates. Consider implementing this as a dynamic list populated from available OCCT versions, or use version ranges.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Bug Report.yaml (1)
31-36: Consider enhancing the sample code field descriptionThe sample code field could be more specific about the expected format and minimal requirements.
Consider updating the description to:
- description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + description: | + Provide a minimal, complete example that reproduces the issue: + - For C++: Include necessary headers and a main function + - For DRAW Tcl: Provide step-by-step commands + - Ensure the sample is self-contained and can be run independently.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Bug Report.yaml (1)
4-4: Consider adding a field for documentation referenceTo help maintainers locate the documentation issue more quickly, consider adding a field for the documentation URL or location within the documentation.
Example addition:
- type: input id: documentation_url attributes: label: Documentation Reference description: "URL or location of the documentation with the issue" validations: required: true.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Bug Report.yaml (3)
38-58: Consider adding more compiler options.The compiler dropdown might benefit from including other commonly used compilers in the OCCT ecosystem:
- Intel C++ Compiler (ICC)
- MinGW
options: - GCC - Clang - MSVC + - Intel C++ + - MinGW
75-88: Update OCCT version options.The OCCT version dropdown should be reviewed:
- Version 7.7.0 is missing from the sequence
- Consider adding a "development" option for users testing against the main branch
options: - 7.4 - 7.5 - 7.6 + - 7.7 - 7.8 - 7.9 - latest + - development
31-36: Consider adding code block formatting hint.For better readability of submitted code, consider adding a hint about using proper code block formatting in the description.
attributes: label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script - description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue. Please use code blocks (```) for formatting.".github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Visualization Bug Report.yaml (1)
31-36: Consider adding syntax highlighting hint for code samples.Add a placeholder with markdown code block syntax to encourage properly formatted code submissions.
attributes: label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" + placeholder: | + ```cpp + // For C++ code + ``` + or + ```tcl + # For DRAW script + ``` validations: required: true.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Bug Report.yaml (1)
79-85: Consider updating OCCT version optionsThe version sequence appears to be incomplete:
- Version 7.7 is missing from the sequence (7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9)
- Consider if older versions should be removed or newer versions added
options: - - 7.4 - - 7.5 - - 7.6 - - 7.8 - - 7.9 + - 7.7 + - 7.8 + - 7.9 + - 7.10 - latest
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (29)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Coding Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Coding Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Mesh Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Mesh Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Visualization Bug Report.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Visualization Feature Request.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Coding Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Coding Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Mesh Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Mesh Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Visualization Bug Report.yaml
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Visualization Feature Request.yaml
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
🔇 Additional comments (47)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml (2)
1-1: LGTM: Good practice to enforce structured issue reportingDisabling blank issues ensures that users provide necessary information through templates, making issue tracking more efficient.
1-14:⚠️ Critical: PR description does not match the actual changesThe PR objectives describe performance updates to TopExp_Explorer component, but the actual changes are related to GitHub issue templates configuration. This significant mismatch needs to be addressed:
- If this PR is intended for TopExp_Explorer updates, these template changes might be committed to the wrong branch
- If these template changes are intended, the PR description needs to be updated to reflect the actual changes
Let's verify if there are any TopExp_Explorer related changes in this PR:
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-4: LGTM: Well-structured template metadataThe template metadata is well-structured with appropriate name, description, and labels.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Mesh Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM: Well-structured template metadataThe template metadata is properly defined with a clear name, description, and appropriate labels.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Coding Feature Request.yaml (3)
1-3: LGTM: Well-structured template metadataThe template name, description, and labels are clear and appropriately categorized.
9-29: LGTM: Well-structured required fieldsThe template includes all essential fields (Description, Use Case, Benefits) with clear labels and descriptions. Making these fields required ensures comprehensive feature requests.
30-34: LGTM: Optional additional contextGood practice to include an optional field for any extra information that doesn't fit the main categories.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM: Well-structured template metadataThe template name, description, and labels are appropriately defined and follow GitHub's issue template schema.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Feature Request.yaml (3)
1-3: LGTM: Template metadata is well-structuredThe template name, description, and labels are appropriately defined and follow GitHub's issue template conventions.
4-8: LGTM: Form introduction is clearThe markdown introduction provides a clear instruction for users filling out the template.
9-29: LGTM: Core fields are well-definedThe three main sections (Description, Use Case, and Benefits) are properly structured with:
- Clear labels and descriptions
- Required field validation
- Appropriate textarea type for long-form responses
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured metadata with clear labelingThe template metadata is well-organized with appropriate name, description, and hierarchical labels.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Feature Request.yaml (2)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured template metadataThe template metadata is clear and follows a consistent labeling scheme.
4-8: LGTM! Clear introduction sectionThe markdown introduction provides a good header for the form.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Feature Request.yaml (2)
1-3: LGTM! Clear template identification and categorization.The template is well-labeled with appropriate categorization using both component ("1. Configuration") and type ("2. Enhancement") labels.
1-34: Verify template consistency across the repository.Since this is part of a larger change introducing multiple templates, let's verify consistency in structure and required fields across all templates.
✅ Verification successful
Template structure is consistent across the repository
The analysis shows that all templates maintain consistent structure and required fields:
Feature request templates consistently include:
- Required description field
- Required use case field
- Required benefits field
- Optional additional context
- Consistent labeling pattern (1. Component, 2. Enhancement)
Bug report templates consistently include:
- Required description field
- Required expected behavior field
- Required actual behavior field
- Required reproduction steps
- Required environment fields (OS, compiler, bitness, version)
- Consistent labeling pattern (1. Component, 2. Bug)
The new Configuration Feature Request template follows this established pattern perfectly, maintaining consistency with all other templates in the repository.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistency across all issue templates # Expected: All templates should have similar structure and required fields # Check all YAML templates in the .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE directory echo "Checking template structure consistency..." fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ --exec cat {} \; | grep -E "name:|description:|labels:|required:" # Verify all templates have the same required fields echo "Verifying required fields..." fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ --exec yq -r '.body[] | select(.validations.required == true) | .id' {} \;Length of output: 22201
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a different approach using grep to analyze the structure and required fields # Check for feature request templates structure echo "=== Feature Request Templates Structure ===" fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ --exec grep -A 20 'Feature Request' {} \; | grep -E "name:|description:|labels:|id:" # Check for bug report templates structure echo -e "\n=== Bug Report Templates Structure ===" fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ --exec grep -A 20 'Bug Report' {} \; | grep -E "name:|description:|labels:|id:" # Check required validations in all templates echo -e "\n=== Required Fields ===" fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ --exec grep -B 2 'required: true' {} \;Length of output: 21655
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured template metadataThe template name, description, and labels are clear and follow a consistent hierarchical format.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Feature Request.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM: Well-structured template metadataThe template is properly configured with clear name, description, and appropriate labels for documentation and enhancement tracking.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Feature Request.yaml (2)
1-3: LGTM: Well-structured template headerThe template name, description, and labels are appropriately defined and follow GitHub's issue template conventions.
4-34: LGTM: Comprehensive template structureThe template body is well-organized with:
- Clear markdown instructions
- Essential required fields (description, use case, benefits)
- Additional context field for extra information
- Proper validations for required fields
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Feature Request.yaml (4)
1-3: LGTM: Template metadata is well-structuredThe template is properly configured with a clear name, description, and appropriate labels for categorization.
9-15: LGTM: Description field is well-definedThe description field is properly configured as a required textarea with clear labeling and description.
16-22: LGTM: Use Case field is well-definedThe use case field is properly configured as a required textarea with clear labeling and description.
23-29: LGTM: Benefits field is well-definedThe benefits field is properly configured as a required textarea with clear labeling and description.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Feature Request.yaml (3)
1-3: LGTM! Clear and well-structured metadataThe template metadata is well-defined with appropriate name, description, and categorization labels.
4-8: LGTM! Clear form structureThe form structure is well-organized with clear instructions for users.
9-34: LGTM! Well-structured form fieldsThe form fields are well-designed with:
- Clear labels and helpful descriptions
- Appropriate required/optional validations
- Logical flow of information gathering
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/DRAW Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-102: Verify PR description accuracy.There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the PR objectives and the actual changes:
- PR description mentions performance updates and memory optimization for TopExp_Explorer
- However, the changes introduce new issue templates for bug reporting
Please verify if:
- The PR description needs to be updated to reflect the actual changes
- The correct files are included in this PR
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Mesh Bug Report.yaml (3)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured template metadata.The template name, description, and labels are clear and follow a good hierarchical labeling pattern.
4-8: LGTM! Clear form introduction.The markdown introduction provides a clear context for users filling out the bug report.
79-85: Review OCCT version options for completeness.The version options seem to have a gap between 7.6 and 7.8. Consider adding version 7.7 if it exists.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Coding Bug Report.yaml (2)
4-98: LGTM! Comprehensive issue template structure.The template is well-structured with all essential fields for bug reporting:
- Clear description fields
- Environment details (OS, compiler, bitness)
- Version information
- Sample code requirement
- Additional context options
All critical fields are properly marked as required, ensuring complete bug reports.
1-3: Verify PR objectives and changes alignment.There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the PR objectives (which describe performance updates to TopExp_Explorer) and the actual changes (which introduce issue templates). Please clarify if this is the correct PR description or if there are missing files in the review.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Samples Bug Report.yaml (3)
1-4: LGTM! Well-structured template metadata.The template metadata is clear and follows good practices with appropriate name, description, and categorized labels.
16-29: LGTM! Well-structured behavior sections.The expected and actual behavior sections are properly implemented with clear labels and required validations.
94-102: LGTM! Well-structured optional sections.The additional information sections are properly implemented as optional fields.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Testing Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured template metadataThe template metadata is clear and follows good practices with appropriate labeling.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Modeling Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM: Clear template metadataThe template is well-labeled with appropriate name, description, and relevant labels for categorization.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Build Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-4: LGTM! Clear and well-structured template header.The template is properly configured with appropriate name, description, and relevant labels for build-related bugs.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Configuration Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-4: LGTM! Well-structured template metadata.The template metadata is clear and follows a consistent labeling pattern.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Data Exchange Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured template metadataThe template name, description, and labels are clear and properly categorized.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Documentation Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM: Clear template metadata with appropriate labelsThe template is well-identified with proper labels for documentation and bug categorization.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Shape Healing Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-4: LGTM: Well-structured template metadata.The template metadata is well-organized with:
- Clear name and description
- Appropriate labels for categorization ("1. Shape Healing", "2. Bug")
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Visualization Bug Report.yaml (2)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured template metadata.The template metadata is clear and follows a consistent labeling scheme.
1-102: Verify PR objectives alignment.The PR description mentions "TopExp_Explorer performance update", but the changes introduce issue templates. This seems to be a mismatch between the PR objectives and the actual changes.
#!/bin/bash # Check if there are any changes related to TopExp_Explorer rg -l "TopExp_Explorer"🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Foundation Classes Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-3: LGTM! Well-structured template metadataThe template name, description, and labels are clear and follow a consistent format.
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/Application Framework Bug Report.yaml (1)
1-102: Well-structured issue templateThe template is comprehensive and well-organized:
- Captures all essential information needed for bug reporting
- Includes proper validations for required fields
- Provides clear descriptions and guidance for users
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| id: additional_context | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Context | ||
| description: "Any additional context or information" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add newline at end of file
The YAML file is missing a newline character at the end, which is required by YAML specification.
Add a newline after line 34:
description: "Any additional context or information"
+📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| id: additional_context | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Context | ||
| description: "Any additional context or information" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add missing newline at end of file
Add a newline character at the end of the file to comply with YAML best practices.
label: Additional Context
description: "Any additional context or information"
+📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: description | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Description | ||
| description: "A detailed description of the feature request" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: use_case | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Use Case | ||
| description: "Describe the use case for the feature" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: benefits | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Benefits | ||
| description: "Explain the benefits of the feature" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: additional_context | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Context | ||
| description: "Any additional context or information" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing the template with more specific guidance
While the current structure is good, consider adding more specific guidance to help users provide better information:
label: Description
- description: "A detailed description of the feature request"
+ description: "Provide a clear and detailed description of the feature you'd like to see added to the Mesh module. Include any specific functionality or behavior you envision."
label: Use Case
- description: "Describe the use case for the feature"
+ description: "Explain the specific scenarios where this feature would be useful. Include examples of how you would use this feature in your workflow."
label: Benefits
- description: "Explain the benefits of the feature"
+ description: "Describe the advantages this feature would bring. Consider performance, usability, and compatibility benefits. If possible, compare with existing alternatives."
label: Additional Context
- description: "Any additional context or information"
+ description: "Add any other context, screenshots, sketches, or references that help explain your feature request."📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: "A detailed description of the feature request" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: use_case | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Use Case | |
| description: "Describe the use case for the feature" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: benefits | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Benefits | |
| description: "Explain the benefits of the feature" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: additional_context | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Additional Context | |
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: "Provide a clear and detailed description of the feature you'd like to see added to the Mesh module. Include any specific functionality or behavior you envision." | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: use_case | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Use Case | |
| description: "Explain the specific scenarios where this feature would be useful. Include examples of how you would use this feature in your workflow." | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: benefits | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Benefits | |
| description: "Describe the advantages this feature would bring. Consider performance, usability, and compatibility benefits. If possible, compare with existing alternatives." | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: additional_context | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Additional Context | |
| description: "Add any other context, screenshots, sketches, or references that help explain your feature request." |
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| body: | ||
| - type: markdown | ||
| attributes: | ||
| value: | | ||
| **Please provide the following information:** | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: description | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Description | ||
| description: "A detailed description of the feature request" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: use_case | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Use Case | ||
| description: "Describe the use case for the feature" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: benefits | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Benefits | ||
| description: "Explain the benefits of the feature" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: additional_context | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Context | ||
| description: "Any additional context or information" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add newline at end of file
The YAML file is missing a newline character at the end, which is a YAML best practice.
Apply this fix:
label: Additional Context
description: "Any additional context or information"
+Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| body: | ||
| - type: markdown | ||
| attributes: | ||
| value: | | ||
| **Please provide the following information:** | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: description | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Description | ||
| description: "A detailed description of the feature request" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: use_case | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Use Case | ||
| description: "Describe the use case for the feature" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: benefits | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Benefits | ||
| description: "Explain the benefits of the feature" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: additional_context | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Context | ||
| description: "Any additional context or information" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add newline at end of file
The file is missing a newline character at the end, which is a YAML best practice and required by many tools.
Add a newline after line 34:
label: Additional Context
description: "Any additional context or information"
+📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| body: | |
| - type: markdown | |
| attributes: | |
| value: | | |
| **Please provide the following information:** | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: "A detailed description of the feature request" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: use_case | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Use Case | |
| description: "Describe the use case for the feature" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: benefits | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Benefits | |
| description: "Explain the benefits of the feature" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: additional_context | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Additional Context | |
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
| body: | |
| - type: markdown | |
| attributes: | |
| value: | | |
| **Please provide the following information:** | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: "A detailed description of the feature request" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: use_case | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Use Case | |
| description: "Describe the use case for the feature" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: benefits | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Benefits | |
| description: "Explain the benefits of the feature" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: additional_context | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Additional Context | |
| description: "Any additional context or information" | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 34-34: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| id: occt_version | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: OCCT Version | ||
| description: "Select the OCCT version where the issue was detected" | ||
| options: | ||
| - 7.4 | ||
| - 7.5 | ||
| - 7.6 | ||
| - 7.8 | ||
| - 7.9 | ||
| - latest | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
The version list in the issue template should be updated to reflect current OCCT versions.
The current version list should be updated to:
- Remove version 7.4 and 7.5 as they are quite old
- Add versions 7.7 and 7.8 (current stable version is 7.8.2)
- Keep version 7.9 for upcoming release
- Keep "latest" option for development version
The version list should be ordered chronologically and include recent stable versions that are still actively maintained.
🔗 Analysis chain
Review OCCT version options for completeness.
The version list jumps from 7.6 to 7.8, potentially missing version 7.7. Also, consider adding a development/master branch option.
Let me try another script to get the version information:
Let me try one more script to check the current supported versions in the codebase:
Let me check the actual content of the version file:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify available OCCT versions in the repository
git ls-remote --tags origin | grep -oE 'V[0-9]+_[0-9]+' | sort -u
Length of output: 16302
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check OCCT version information in repository files
rg -i "occt.*version|version.*occt" --type md
Length of output: 14746
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check OCCT version references in source files
rg -l "7\.[0-9]" src/Standard/Standard_Version.hxx
Length of output: 86
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of Standard_Version.hxx
cat src/Standard/Standard_Version.hxx
Length of output: 3087
| id: occt_version | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: OCCT Version | ||
| description: "Select the OCCT version where the issue was detected" | ||
| options: | ||
| - 7.4 | ||
| - 7.5 | ||
| - 7.6 | ||
| - 7.8 | ||
| - 7.9 | ||
| - latest | ||
| validations: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response since I found clear evidence that version 7.7 exists and is documented in the repository (README.md mentions "Version 7.7" with a link to its documentation).
Update OCCT version list to include version 7.7
The version list in the issue template is missing version 7.7, which is a documented release of OCCT as shown in the repository's README.md. Please update the options list to include this version in chronological order.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify OCCT version list completeness
The version list appears to have a gap (missing 7.7) and might need updating if newer versions are available.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any version references in the codebase
echo "Searching for OCCT version references..."
rg -i "occt.*version|version.*occt" --type md
Length of output: 14837
| id: additional_files | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Files | ||
| description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add newline at end of file
Add a newline character at the end of the file to comply with YAML best practices.
label: Additional Files
description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue"
+📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue" | |
| description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue" | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: description | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Description | ||
| description: "A detailed description of the bug" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: expected_behavior | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Expected Behavior | ||
| description: "What you expected to happen" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: actual_behavior | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Actual Behavior | ||
| description: "What actually happened" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true | ||
| - type: textarea | ||
| id: sample_code | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script | ||
| description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" | ||
| validations: | ||
| required: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding a "Steps to Reproduce" field
While the template captures bug details well, adding a dedicated field for reproduction steps (separate from the sample code) would help users provide clearer instructions.
- type: textarea
id: actual_behavior
attributes:
label: Actual Behavior
description: "What actually happened"
validations:
required: true
+ - type: textarea
+ id: steps_to_reproduce
+ attributes:
+ label: Steps to Reproduce
+ description: "Step-by-step instructions to reproduce the issue"
+ validations:
+ required: true
- type: textarea
id: sample_code📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: "A detailed description of the bug" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: expected_behavior | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Expected Behavior | |
| description: "What you expected to happen" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: actual_behavior | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Actual Behavior | |
| description: "What actually happened" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: sample_code | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script | |
| description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: description | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Description | |
| description: "A detailed description of the bug" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: expected_behavior | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Expected Behavior | |
| description: "What you expected to happen" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: actual_behavior | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Actual Behavior | |
| description: "What actually happened" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: steps_to_reproduce | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Steps to Reproduce | |
| description: "Step-by-step instructions to reproduce the issue" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true | |
| - type: textarea | |
| id: sample_code | |
| attributes: | |
| label: Sample Code or DRAW Tcl Script | |
| description: "Provide a C++ sample or DRAW Tcl script to reproduce the issue" | |
| validations: | |
| required: true |
| id: additional_files | ||
| attributes: | ||
| label: Additional Files | ||
| description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add newline at end of file
Add a newline character at the end of the file to comply with YAML best practices.
description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue"
+📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue" | |
| description: "Attach any additional files that may help in reproducing the issue" | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint
[error] 102-102: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
Reorganized Explorer memory behavior
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/build-docs.yml (1)
47-52: Verify PATH duplication in build stepsThe PATH setting is duplicated between the refman and overview build steps. Consider extracting common environment setup into a separate step.
+ - name: Setup build environment + run: | + set PATH=%PATH%;C:\Program Files\doxygen\bin;C:\Program Files\Graphviz\bin;C:\Program Files\doxygen + shell: cmd - name: Build documentation Overview run: | - set PATH=%PATH%;C:\Program Files\doxygen\bin;C:\Program Files\Graphviz\bin;C:\Program Files\doxygen cd adm bash gendoc -overview shell: cmd
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.github/workflows/build-docs.yml(3 hunks)README.md(1 hunks)adm/gendoc(1 hunks)adm/gendoc.bat(1 hunks)dox/build/build_documentation/building_documentation.md(1 hunks)dox/contribution/documentation/documentation.md(1 hunks)src/DE/DE_ShapeFixParameters.hxx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- dox/build/build_documentation/building_documentation.md
🔇 Additional comments (7)
adm/gendoc (1)
13-13: LGTM: Path changes are consistent with Windows version
The path modifications in this Unix script mirror those in gendoc.bat:
- Looking for env.sh in the parent directory
- Referencing start.tcl directly
This maintains consistency between Windows and Unix environments.
Also applies to: 15-15
.github/workflows/build-docs.yml (2)
1-1: LGTM: Clear workflow description and consistent refman build step
The workflow description accurately reflects its expanded scope, and the refman build step maintains consistency with the updated script paths.
Also applies to: 26-31
54-59: LGTM: Consistent artifact configuration
The overview documentation artifact upload maintains consistency with the refman artifact configuration:
- Uses the same retention period (90 days)
- Follows the same naming pattern
- Uses the same artifact upload action version
README.md (1)
31-31: LGTM! Documentation updates are consistent and clear.
The changes improve clarity by:
- Updating documentation version references consistently
- Specifying correct paths for documentation generation
- Adding helpful resources through the wiki link
Also applies to: 37-38, 47-47
src/DE/DE_ShapeFixParameters.hxx (2)
17-18: LGTM! New parameters enhance shape fixing control.
The addition of DetalizationLevel and NonManifold parameters provides finer control over shape fixing operations:
DetalizationLevel: Controls the granularity of shape processingNonManifold: Enables handling of non-manifold geometry
Also applies to: 33-34
30-83: LGTM! Improved code organization.
The consistent alignment of member variable declarations enhances readability and maintainability.
dox/contribution/documentation/documentation.md (1)
62-62: LGTM! Documentation generation instruction is clear and consistent.
The update correctly specifies that the gendoc command should be run from the adm directory, maintaining consistency with changes in README.md.
adm/gendoc.bat
Outdated
| if exist "%~dp0../env.bat" ( | ||
| call "%~dp0../env.bat" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Path changes need to be revised
The verification reveals inconsistencies with the new path structure:
env.batis not present in the root directory as the new path%~dp0../env.batexpects- Multiple
env.batfiles exist in various subdirectories, with a template inadm/templates/env.bat start.tclis correctly located in theadmdirectory, but the script's new path%~dp0start.tclis correct sincegendoc.batis also in theadmdirectory
Suggested actions:
- Keep
env.batreference in the same directory asgendoc.bator use the template fromadm/templates/env.bat - No changes needed for
start.tclpath as it's correctly referenced
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify path changes maintain directory structure consistency
The script has been modified to:
- Look for env.bat in the parent directory (
%~dp0../env.bat) - Reference start.tcl directly (
%~dp0start.tcl)
Let's verify the existence and accessibility of these files:
Also applies to: 18-18
Let me gather more information about the directory structure and file locations to better understand the path changes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence of referenced files
# Check if env.bat exists in the parent directory
if [ -f "env.bat" ]; then
echo "env.bat exists in root directory"
else
echo "env.bat not found in root directory"
fi
# Check if start.tcl exists in adm directory
if [ -f "adm/start.tcl" ]; then
echo "start.tcl exists in adm directory"
else
echo "start.tcl not found in adm directory"
fi
Length of output: 205
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for env.bat in different locations and list files in adm directory
echo "=== Searching for env.bat files ==="
fd env.bat
echo -e "\n=== Contents of adm directory ==="
ls -la adm/
echo -e "\n=== Checking if this is part of a larger reorganization ==="
git diff --name-status HEAD~1 | grep -E "env\.bat|\.tcl"
Length of output: 1646
Reorganized Explorer memory behavior
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Documentation
gendocscript in the documentation.Bug Fixes