-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45.3k
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
feat(blocks): add a generic webhook block #9584
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
PR Reviewer Guide 🔍Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
✅ Deploy Preview for auto-gpt-docs-dev canceled.
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
|
The PR does not meet all requirements. Issues found: 1) The PR template contains a partial checklist (configuration section is present but not filled out, should be removed if not applicable). 2) The PR appears to be related to webhook functionality but there's no mention or explanation of potential user_id handling impacts for data/.py files (though in this case there don't appear to be any data/.py changes). However, the core functionality and purpose is clearly explained, the changes are well-scoped, and the test plan is appropriate for the changes being made. |
✅ Deploy Preview for auto-gpt-docs canceled.
|
The PR appears to be insufficient based on the provided rules. While it has a proper conventional commit title format and the changes appear to be in scope, the PR template is only partially filled out. The PR is missing important sections like configuration changes (which should be removed if not applicable rather than left unchecked), and the test plan is very minimal with only one test item compared to the example provided. |
The PR appears to be insufficient based on the required criteria. While it has a proper conventional commit style title with scope and the changes are focused (not exceeding 20% out of scope), there are several issues: 1) The changes in data/*.py were not applicable to review for user_id concerns as no such files were modified. 2) The description is quite minimal and could be more detailed. 3) The test plan is very basic with only one test point, compared to the template example which shows much more comprehensive testing scenarios. 4) The checklist sections for configuration changes was not removed despite being not applicable, it was just left unchecked. |
The PR appears to be insufficient based on the provided rules. Issues include: 1) Not enough details in the 'Changes' section - it only mentions adding a generic webhook block without specifics about the implementation details or affected components 2) The test plan is very minimal and only includes one test case, where more comprehensive testing would be expected for a new webhook feature 3) The code changes include new files and modifications to existing ones which are not properly documented in the changes section. |
The PR fails several requirements: 1) The PR title has a scope but it's too generic ('blocks' should be more specific), 2) The test plan is minimal and doesn't follow the example format provided in the template, 3) The configuration section of the checklist wasn't removed despite being not applicable. Also, the description of changes could be more detailed about what exactly was added and how it works. |
|
||
|
||
class GenericWebhookType(StrEnum): | ||
PLAIN = "plain" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So what is it for ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we need to specify one i think?
@@ -15,6 +16,7 @@ | |||
CompassWebhookManager, | |||
GithubWebhooksManager, | |||
Slant3DWebhooksManager, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does simple webhook manager like Slant3DWebhooksManager still be needed if we already have the generic one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Compass can go away but I think slant has custom data
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but idk maybe having it wiht custom outputs would be cool so we get typed data out
def __init__(self): | ||
super().__init__( | ||
id="8fa8c167-2002-47ce-aba8-97572fc5d387", | ||
description="This block will output the contents of the compass transcription.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Compass transcription?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oops
super().__init__( | ||
id="8fa8c167-2002-47ce-aba8-97572fc5d387", | ||
description="This block will output the contents of the compass transcription.", | ||
categories={BlockCategory.HARDWARE}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hardware ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OOPS
I want to be able to insert data into the graph as a webhook from various services without making a provider specific webhook for things like discord, slack, uptime bots, etc.
Changes 🏗️
Checklist 📋
For code changes: