Claude command to generate commit message and PR desc #15883
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: vikram-raj The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
WalkthroughAdds a new Markdown file at Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting Knowledge base: Disabled due to 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.claude/commands/pr-desc-claude.md (2)
1-4: Consider expanding commit message guidance to include body format.The instructions mention the subject line requirement but omit guidance on the commit body/description, which is part of the Conventional Commits specification. Adding a brief mention of body formatting (e.g., wrapped at ~72 characters, separated from subject by a blank line) would make the instructions more complete and aligned with Conventional Commits best practices.
🔎 Suggested enhancement
### For Commit Messages (Conventional Commits style) -1. Analyze this `git diff` and write a commit message following the Conventional Commits specification (e.g., feat:, fix:). Keep the subject line under 50 characters. +1. Analyze this `git diff` and write a commit message following the Conventional Commits specification (e.g., feat:, fix:). + - Subject line: Under 50 characters, imperative mood. + - Body (if needed): Wrapped at ~72 characters, separated from subject by a blank line. Explain *why* the change was made, not just what.
5-10: Add examples to illustrate the expected output.The PR description template is clear in structure but could benefit from concrete examples or more detailed guidance on what each section should contain. For instance, the "Testing" section guidance ("how these changes can be verified") is quite general—examples of unit tests, integration tests, manual verification steps, etc. would help clarify expectations.
🔎 Suggested enhancement
### For Pull Request Descriptions 1. Analyze git diff and write a PR description. Use the following format: - Overview: High-level summary of the goal. - Changes: Bulleted list of specific technical modifications. - - Testing: How these changes can be verified. + - Testing: How these changes can be verified (e.g., unit tests added, manual verification steps, integration test coverage). + + Example: + **Overview:** Adds support for parallel widget rendering to improve dashboard load times. + **Changes:** + - Refactored `WidgetRenderer` to use concurrent workers + - Added caching layer for widget metadata + - Updated tests to validate concurrent execution + **Testing:** Run `npm test` to verify new concurrency tests. Manual verification: load dashboard with 50+ widgets; confirm render time < 2s.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to Reviews -> Disable Knowledge Base setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.claude/commands/pr-desc-claude.md
vikram-raj
force-pushed
the
pr-desc-claude
branch
from
df2125f to
34f2358
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.claude/commands/pr-desc-claude.md (1)
14-19: Fix formatting of the Testing section in the example.The
**Testing:**section should be separated from the Changes list with a blank line and positioned at the root indentation level (consistent with**Changes:**) rather than indented within the Changes block. This improves readability and ensures the example accurately reflects the intended structure.🔎 Proposed formatting fix
**Changes:** - Refactored `WidgetRenderer` to use concurrent workers - Added caching layer for widget metadata - Updated tests to validate concurrent execution - **Testing:** Run `npm test` to verify new concurrency tests. Manual verification: load dashboard with 50+ widgets; confirm render time < 2s. + **Testing:** Run `npm test` to verify new concurrency tests. Manual verification: load dashboard with 50+ widgets; confirm render time < 2s.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to Reviews -> Disable Knowledge Base setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.claude/commands/pr-desc-claude.md
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.claude/commands/pr-desc-claude.md (1)
1-11: Guidelines are clear and well-structured.The Conventional Commits guidance (with examples) and the PR description format (Overview, Changes, Testing) provide Claude with actionable structure. The format is practical and aligns with industry standards for clear, descriptive commits and PRs.
vikram-raj
force-pushed
the
pr-desc-claude
branch
from
34f2358 to
026ae1d
Compare
|
@vikram-raj: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
jhadvig
left a comment
jhadvig
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @vikram-raj 👍
I would suggest to also add JIRA Auto-detection, by automatically extracting JIRA ticket IDs from branch names matching CONSOLE- or OCPBUGS- patterns.
Check "JIRA Auto-detection" section in https://github.com/openshift/console-operator/pull/1064/changes
2 participants
Claude slash command to generate a commit message and PR description after analyzing the changes using
git diff