docs: enhance FAQ page #145
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces substantial structural and content changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
🪧 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 (
|
Deploying coderabbit-docs with
|
| Latest commit: |
df7d82a
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://55e546a8.coderabbit-docs.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://faq-page-update.coderabbit-docs.pages.dev |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
docs/faq.md (1)
32-44: Consider adding more specific security detailsWhile the tabbed layout effectively organizes the information, consider enhancing the security section with:
- Specific encryption standards used
- Data retention timeframes
- Compliance certifications (if any)
<TabItem value="storage" label="Code Storage" default> - No persistent code storage - Temporary cloning during review only - Complete data isolation - Immediate disposal post-review + - Industry-standard encryption in transit + - Maximum retention period: X hours + - Compliant with SOC 2 standards </TabItem>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
static/img/faq/full-review.pngis excluded by!**/*.png,!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/faq.md(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
docs/faq.md (4)
Line range hint 1-9: LGTM! Well-structured document header
The frontmatter and imports are properly configured following Docusaurus conventions.
82-84: LGTM! Well-structured admonitions
The tip and note admonitions are properly formatted and effectively highlight important information throughout the document.
Also applies to: 109-111, 121-123, 139-141
91-91: Verify internal documentation links
Multiple references to the Review Instructions guide need verification.
Also applies to: 107-107
✅ Verification successful
Internal documentation links are valid ✓
The referenced documentation file docs/guides/review-instructions.md exists in the expected location.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the referenced documentation files exist
# Check if the Review Instructions guide exists
fd -t f "review-instructions.md" docs/guides/
Length of output: 80
54-55: Verify referenced images exist
The document references light and dark mode images for the organization switcher.
✅ Verification successful
Images exist at the correct location
Both light and dark mode organization switcher images are present at the expected location in static/img/faq/.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the referenced images exist in the correct location
# Check if the images exist
fd -t f "cr_support_orgs_(light|dark).png" static/img/faq/
Length of output: 141
tyaga001
force-pushed
the
faq-page-update
branch
from
18f1144
to
d059573
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
docs/faq.md (2)
32-44: Enhance tab accessibilityWhile the tabbed interface is well-structured, consider adding ARIA labels for better screen reader support.
-<Tabs> +<Tabs aria-label="Data Security Information"> <TabItem value="storage" label="Code Storage" default>
54-55: Enhance image accessibility with descriptive alt textThe current alt text "Organization Switcher" could be more descriptive to better serve users with screen readers.
- - + +
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/faq.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/faq.md
[uncategorized] ~140-~140: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ..../about/support.md) page for additional assistance or reach out to our team on [discord](h...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
docs/faq.md (4)
8-9: LGTM! Clean import statements.
The imports are properly structured and correctly used for the tabbed sections in the document.
115-119: Previous comment about Pro Plan limits remains unaddressed
139-140: Style and security improvements needed
- The previous comment about using HTTPS for the Discord link remains unaddressed.
- Consider adding a comma after "assistance" for better readability.
-Visit our [Support](./about/support.md) page for additional assistance or reach out to our team on [discord](http://discord.gg/coderabbit).
+Visit our [Support](./about/support.md) page for additional assistance, or reach out to our team on [discord](https://discord.gg/coderabbit).🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[uncategorized] ~140-~140: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ..../about/support.md) page for additional assistance or reach out to our team on [discord](h...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
11-133: Well-structured documentation improvements!
The reorganization of content with clear sections, concise explanations, and improved navigation makes the FAQ more user-friendly and informative.
NatoBoram
force-pushed
the
faq-page-update
branch
from
d059573
to
ba64f86
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
docs/faq.md (4)
15-15: Consider removing unnecessary blockquoteThe blockquote syntax (
>) isn't needed here as this is a direct answer rather than a quote.-> CodeRabbit demonstrates high accuracy in code reviews based on early adoption results. While 100% accuracy isn't guaranteed due to AI's evolving nature, our technology continuously improves through: +CodeRabbit demonstrates high accuracy in code reviews based on early adoption results. While 100% accuracy isn't guaranteed due to AI's evolving nature, our technology continuously improves through:
24-28: Consider adding specific language examplesTo make the language support information more concrete, consider adding examples of popular languages and their support levels.
CodeRabbit works with all programming languages, with varying proficiency based on: - Language popularity - Available training data - Community usage patterns + +Popular languages with extensive support: +- JavaScript/TypeScript +- Python +- Java +- Go
32-44: Consider adding compliance informationThe security section could be enhanced with information about compliance standards and data handling certifications.
<TabItem value="storage" label="Code Storage" default> - No persistent code storage - Temporary cloning during review only - Complete data isolation - Immediate disposal post-review + - SOC 2 Type II compliant + - GDPR compliant </TabItem>
59-59: Consider condensing the explanationThe current explanation is verbose. Consider a more concise version that maintains the key points.
-> Code reviews remain essential, whether the code is written by a human or a bot. This is mainly because the perspective of the reviewer differs from that of the code generator, whether human or machine. This distinction is precisely why human peer reviews have been effective for so long. While AI-powered code-generation tools like GitHub Copilot hold immense potential, it's important to recognize that these generators are still in their early stages and may not be equipped to auto-generate meaningful code for moderately complex applications. +> Code reviews remain essential regardless of whether code is written by humans or AI. The reviewer's perspective differs from the code generator's, which is why peer reviews are valuable. While AI code generators like GitHub Copilot show promise, they're still evolving and may not handle complex applications effectively.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
static/img/faq/full-review.pngis excluded by!**/*.png,!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/faq.md(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
docs/faq.md (3)
Line range hint 1-9: LGTM! Well-structured document header
The frontmatter and component imports are properly configured for Docusaurus.
115-119: Skip - Pro Plan limits issue already raised
A previous review has already suggested adding specific limits for the Pro Plan.
140-140: Skip - HTTPS link issue already raised
A previous review has already suggested using HTTPS for the Discord link.
tyaga001
force-pushed
the
faq-page-update
branch
from
ba64f86
to
c7c444c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
docs/faq.md (3)
32-44: Consider adding compliance information to the Data Security section.The security information is well-organized, but could be enhanced by adding a third tab for compliance information (e.g., GDPR, SOC 2, etc.) to address enterprise customer concerns.
<Tabs> <TabItem value="storage" label="Code Storage" default> - No persistent code storage - Temporary cloning during review only - Complete data isolation - Immediate disposal post-review </TabItem> <TabItem value="training" label="Training Data"> - Uses only public datasets - No proprietary code usage - Private repositories excluded </TabItem> + <TabItem value="compliance" label="Compliance"> + - GDPR compliance status + - SOC 2 certification details + - Data residency information + </TabItem> </Tabs>
102-107: Move customization point to appropriate section.The last point about customization via Review Instructions doesn't fit with the interaction-specific items in this list. Consider moving it to the Customization Options section.
Interact with CodeRabbit by: 1. Replying directly to CodeRabbit comments 2. Tagging `@coderabbitai` in PR discussions 3. Adding review comments for specific lines -4. Customize via [Review Instructions](./guides/review-instructions.md)Then add it to the Customization Options section:
- **Review Rules**: Customize via [Review Instructions](./guides/review-instructions.md) + **Review Rules**: + - Basic configuration via repository settings + - Advanced customization via [Review Instructions](./guides/review-instructions.md)
129-131: Separate platform-specific requirements.The GitLab-specific requirement is mixed with general prerequisites. Consider using a tabbed interface to separate requirements by platform.
-### Prerequisites +### Prerequisites + +<Tabs> + <TabItem value="github" label="GitHub" default> + - Organization admin access + - Default branch configuration + </TabItem> + <TabItem value="gitlab" label="GitLab"> + - Organization admin access + - Domain allowlist (add `coderabbit.ai`) + - Default branch configuration + </TabItem> +</Tabs>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
static/img/faq/full-review.pngis excluded by!**/*.png,!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/faq.md(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
docs/faq.md (4)
54-55: Image paths need to be updated with 'static' prefix.
This issue was previously identified and remains unaddressed.
82-84: Grammatical issue in tip text remains unfixed.
This grammatical issue was previously identified and remains unaddressed.
115-119: Pro Plan limits need specific numbers.
This issue about specifying exact numbers for the Pro Plan was previously identified and remains unaddressed.
140-140: Use HTTPS for Discord link.
This security best practice issue was previously identified and remains unaddressed.
tyaga001
force-pushed
the
faq-page-update
branch
from
c7c444c
to
99acac9
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
docs/faq.md (1)
63-65: Consider adding specific examples to AI comparisonWhile the current points are valid, consider adding concrete examples of how CodeRabbit complements code generation tools. For instance:
- Code style consistency checks
- Security vulnerability detection
- Architecture pattern validation
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
static/img/faq/full-review.pngis excluded by!**/*.png,!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/faq.md(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
docs/faq.md (5)
8-9: Well-structured tab components!
Good use of Docusaurus tab components to organize the content about code storage and training data. The implementation is clean and follows best practices.
Also applies to: 32-44
83-83: Previous grammar issue remains unfixed
118-119: Previous suggestion about Pro Plan limits remains unaddressed
140-140: Previous security suggestion about HTTPS link remains unaddressed
90-92: Clear and accurate customization documentation!
The customization options are well-documented with correct references to configuration capabilities.
tyaga001
force-pushed
the
faq-page-update
branch
from
e5084f1
to
616634f
Compare
Signed-off-by: Ankur Tyagi <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ankur Tyagi <[email protected]>
tyaga001
force-pushed
the
faq-page-update
branch
from
616634f
to
df7d82a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
docs/faq.md (1)
104-107: Maintain consistent formatting in listsThe lists have inconsistent punctuation and formatting. Consider standardizing:
-1. Replying directly to CodeRabbit comments -2. Tagging `@coderabbitai` in PR discussions -3. Adding review comments for specific lines -4. Customize via [Review Instructions](./guides/review-instructions.md) +1. Reply directly to CodeRabbit comments +2. Tag `@coderabbitai` in PR discussions +3. Add review comments for specific lines +4. Customize via [Review Instructions](./guides/review-instructions.md) -Organization admin access -Domain allowlist (GitLab: add `coderabbit.ai`) -Default branch configuration +- Organization admin access +- Domain allowlist (GitLab: add `coderabbit.ai`) +- Default branch configurationAlso applies to: 129-131
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
static/img/faq/full-review.pngis excluded by!**/*.png,!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
docs/faq.md(1 hunks)docs/self-hosted/github.md(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/faq.md
[uncategorized] ~140-~140: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ..../about/support.md) page for additional assistance or reach out to our team on [discord](h...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
docs/self-hosted/github.md (1)
Line range hint 1-114: Consider separating documentation changes
The changes to this file appear to be outside the scope of the PR's stated objective of enhancing the FAQ page. Consider:
- Moving these changes to a separate PR focused on self-hosted documentation updates
- Updating the PR title and description to reflect all documentation changes
- Adding a reference to these new configuration options in the FAQ if they're related
Let's verify if these changes are referenced in the FAQ:
docs/faq.md (3)
8-9: LGTM!
The Docusaurus tab component imports are correctly placed and properly utilized in the document.
32-44: Well-structured tabbed content!
The Data Security section effectively uses tabs to organize information about code storage and training data. The content is clear and concise.
83-83: Previously identified issues remain unfixed
The following previously reported issues still need to be addressed:
- Grammatical issue in the Pro Tip section
- Missing specific limits for Pro Plan in the Usage Limits table
- HTTP Discord link needs to be updated to HTTPS
Also applies to: 118-119, 140-140
| # Set to true to use the knowledge base features. | ||
| ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE=[true] | ||
| # The branch which CodeRabbit will store the knowledge base json files in. | ||
| ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE_BRANCH=[coderabbitai/data] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance documentation for knowledge base configuration
The new environment variables need more detailed documentation to help users make informed decisions:
- What are the "knowledge base features"?
- When should users enable these features?
- What are the implications of enabling/disabling them?
- What's the expected format and default value for the branch name?
Consider expanding the documentation like this:
# Set to true to use the knowledge base features.
+# Knowledge base features allow CodeRabbit to store and learn from previous reviews,
+# improving the quality of future code reviews.
ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE=[true]
+
# The branch which CodeRabbit will store the knowledge base json files in.
+# Default: coderabbitai/data
+# This branch will be created automatically if it doesn't exist.
+# Ensure the GitHub App has necessary permissions to create and write to this branch.
ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE_BRANCH=[coderabbitai/data]📝 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.
| # Set to true to use the knowledge base features. | |
| ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE=[true] | |
| # The branch which CodeRabbit will store the knowledge base json files in. | |
| ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE_BRANCH=[coderabbitai/data] | |
| # Set to true to use the knowledge base features. | |
| # Knowledge base features allow CodeRabbit to store and learn from previous reviews, | |
| # improving the quality of future code reviews. | |
| ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE=[true] | |
| # The branch which CodeRabbit will store the knowledge base json files in. | |
| # Default: coderabbitai/data | |
| # This branch will be created automatically if it doesn't exist. | |
| # Ensure the GitHub App has necessary permissions to create and write to this branch. | |
| ON_PREM_KNOWLEDGE_BASE_BRANCH=[coderabbitai/data] |
No description provided.