Issue Description:

Currently, our system does not mandate the selection of a valid GPT model before processing pull requests, which can lead to inconsistent results or errors. To enhance the robustness and reliability of our processing pipeline, we should implement a requirement that a valid GPT model must be selected before any pull request is processed.

Proposed Solution:

Introduce a validation step in our pull request processing workflow that checks for the selection of a valid GPT model. If no model is selected, or an invalid option is chosen, the system should prevent the processing of the pull request and prompt the user to select a valid model.

Expected Benefits:

Ensures consistency and accuracy in processing results.
Prevents errors related to missing or invalid model selections.
Enhances user experience by guiding them to make necessary selections before processing.

Request for Action:

We need to update the workflow logic to include this validation check and modify the user interface to clearly indicate the requirement of selecting a valid GPT model. I suggest we prioritize this issue in our upcoming development cycle.

Feedback and Contributions:

Any suggestions or contributions towards implementing this feature are welcome. Please share your thoughts or submit a pull request with proposed changes.

Add option to save the code review to a .MD file on disk.

Description:

There is an issue in our current application where the "Play" button can be pressed multiple times in quick succession. This leads to multiple requests being sent to OpenAI's API, resulting in unnecessary token consumption. This behavior is undesirable as it can lead to faster depletion of our allocated tokens, potentially increasing costs.

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Open the application.
2. Navigate to the section where the "Play" button is available.
3. Click the "Play" button multiple times in rapid succession. (Don't really).

Expected Behavior:
The "Play" button should become disabled or unresponsive after the first click, preventing further requests until the initial request is completed and the system is ready for a new one.

Actual Behavior:
Clicking the "Play" button multiple times sends multiple API requests to OpenAI, consuming additional tokens.

Possible Solutions:

• Implement a flag that gets set when the "Play" button is clicked. This flag will prevent further requests until the first one is completed.
• Change the state of the "Play" button to 'disabled' immediately after the first click and reset it back once the API response is received.

Impact:
Addressing this issue will help in efficient token usage, reduce unnecessary costs, and ensure consistent user experience.

Feel free to assign this ticket as needed, Kevin. Let me know if any further details are required.

Description

There's an issue with the layout responsiveness in our UI. When the right panel, intended to display a diff, is populated with data, the left panel, which displays a markdown report, shrinks excessively, hampering readability and usability.

Expected Behavior

The left panel should maintain a minimum width to ensure the markdown report is readable and the UI remains user-friendly, regardless of the amount of data in the right panel.

Actual Behavior

Upon loading data into the right panel, the left panel's width decreases significantly, which makes the markdown report hard to read and interact with.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open the application and navigate to the relevant UI with the split panels.
2. Ensure the left panel is displaying a markdown report.
3. Load data (e.g., a diff) into the right panel.
4. Observe that the left panel becomes too narrow.

Impact

This issue affects the usability of the application, making it difficult for users to read and understand the markdown reports, which is a significant part of the user interface experience.

Environment

• Operating System: Mac OS

Additional Context

Some diffs can be quite large. Sometimes those large diffs include changes that are not relevant to a code review, like dependency updates.

Sending these diffs to OpenAI will consume credits unecessarily.

Implement a relief valve and budget manager for token usage.
The ability to set a token limit.

This article from Microsoft introduces a strategy for prompt compression with no loss.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05736

Users should be able to set configuration options like API Key and default model and persist those preferences. The user should be able to do this visually through a modal.

Description

We are encountering a display issue in the markdown panel of our application. The content in this panel is not wrapping or breaking lines as expected. Instead, it continues to flow off the right edge of the panel, making it difficult to read without horizontal scrolling.

Expected Behavior

Content in the markdown panel should automatically wrap to the next line when it reaches the edge of the panel. This would ensure that all the content is easily readable without the need for horizontal scrolling.

Actual Behavior

Currently, the text in the markdown panel extends beyond the right boundary of the panel. Users have to scroll horizontally to read the entire line, which is not a user-friendly experience.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open the application and navigate to the markdown panel.
2. Insert or view long lines of text in the markdown panel.
3. Observe that the text does not wrap and extends beyond the panel's right edge.

Impact

This issue affects the readability of the markdown content, requiring users to scroll horizontally to read each line, which is not ideal for user experience.

Overview

The file logger.go currently lacks unit tests. To maintain high code quality and reliability, we need to create comprehensive unit tests for this file.

Expected Behavior

Each function and method within logger.go should have corresponding unit tests to validate its expected behavior in a variety of scenarios, including edge cases.

Possible Solution

• Review the logger.go file and identify all functions and methods.
• Write tests for these functions to cover a wide range of inputs, including boundary conditions.
• Use a mocking framework where necessary to isolate the logger behavior.
• Ensure that the tests assert on correct log output, error handling, and any logger state changes.

Steps to Reproduce (for bugs)

N/A

Context

Adding unit tests for the logger will help us catch potential issues early in the development cycle. It also provides a safety net for future changes and enhancements to the logging functionality.

Your Environment

• Version used:
• Environment name and version (e.g., Go 1.16, etc.):
• Operating System and version (desktop or mobile):
• Link to your project: (if public)

Please let me know if I can provide any further information or assistance.

Thanks

Setting the default to 0 here will cause an 'instant timeout.' Perhaps if this value is < 1, we forego the context w/ timeout?

As I believe I do not have the required model on my account gpt-4-1106 I am unable to use the app. I believe this should be configurable on the user's end, or possibly another option that will allow me to still use the app.

Repetition of You will... on each line of the prompt is superflous. The prompt should be optimized for both token spend and instruction quality.

ChatGPT 3.5 suggests this change:

 Please review the pull request's diff for the following aspects:

Bugs and common mistakes
Best practices specific to the language used
Security vulnerabilities
Performance issues
Readability
Maintainability
Testability
Scalability
Extensibility
Reusability
Modularity
Simplicity
Once you've completed the review, provide a concise code review summary in markdown format. Remember to break lines before 60 characters.

ChatGPT 4 suggests:

Please review the attached pull request diff with the following considerations in mind:

Bug Detection: Identify any bugs or common mistakes.
Best Practices: Evaluate adherence to language-specific best practices.
Security: Check for potential security vulnerabilities.
Performance: Assess any performance issues.
Readability: Ensure the code is easily understandable.
Maintainability: Consider long-term maintainability.
Testability: Evaluate ease of testing.
Scalability: Assess scalability potential.
Extensibility: Check for extensibility features.
Reusability: Determine code reusability.
Modularity: Evaluate the modularity of the code.
Simplicity: Ensure the code is not overly complex.
Provide a comprehensive code review in markdown format, ensuring line breaks before 60 characters for readability.

A better prompt altogether:

## Code Review Request

**Pull Request Overview**:
- Brief description of changes:
- Purpose and scope of the PR:

**Specific Concerns**:
- Highlight areas needing detailed review:
- Any complex logic or new implementations:

**Security Aspects**:
- Security-sensitive sections of the code:

**Performance Considerations**:
- Performance-critical sections:

**Readability and Maintainability**:
- Feedback on naming conventions, structure, and comments:

**Testing**:
- Description of testing done:
- Suggestions for additional tests:

**Dependencies**:
- New or changed dependencies:

**Compliance with Best Practices**:
- Review of compliance with language/framework best practices:

**Documentation**:
- Review of updated/added documentation:

**Questions for Reviewers**:
- Any specific questions or areas where feedback is sought:

%s

Suggestion

Update the RichTextStyles for markdown elements to look like the GitHub theme:

More Info

Fyne allows you to apply custom styles to segments of text in the RichTextEntry widget:

https://developer.fyne.io/api/v2.4/widget/richtextstyle.html
https://developer.fyne.io/api/v2.4/widget/richtextblock.html

type RichTextStyle struct {
	Alignment fyne.TextAlign
	ColorName fyne.ThemeColorName
	Inline    bool
	SizeName  fyne.ThemeSizeName
	TextStyle fyne.TextStyle
}

Example

The actual use of this function is to prompt the user for a GitHub pull request URL. The current name is an artifact from an older time.

This function name should be updated to reflect its actual purpose.

Overview

It has come to our attention that the file config.go is currently missing unit tests.
To ensure the maintainability and reliability of our codebase, it is critical that all
modules have appropriate unit tests.

Expected Behavior

Each function within config.go should have corresponding unit tests that validate its expected
behavior under various conditions.

It has come to our attention that given the existing code paths, adding the ability to generate the title and description for the pull request itself should be trivial.

I propose adding a feature where a user can choose to 'regenerate' the report as a pull request description.

Description

When installing and starting the application, the linker (ld) emits a warning indicating that it is ignoring duplicate libraries, specifically -lobjc.

Error Message

ld: warning: ignoring duplicate libraries: '-lobjc'

Expected Behavior

The installation and startup process should occur without any warnings from the linker about duplicate libraries.

Actual Behavior

The linker outputs a warning about duplicate libraries, which could indicate a potential misconfiguration in the build settings or script.

Possible Solution

• Review the build settings and linker flags to ensure that the -lobjc flag is not included multiple times.
• Check any custom build scripts or makefiles for duplicate inclusion of libraries.
• Investigate the order and structure of the build process to identify where the duplication might occur.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Run the installation command or build process.
2. Observe the warning during the linking phase.

Impact

While this is currently a warning and does not prevent the application from running, it could mask other linking issues and may lead to undefined behavior if not addressed.

Environment

• Application version: [specify version]
• Operating System: [specify OS and version]
• Compiler/Linker version: [specify compiler/linker and version]

Additional Information

• If there are multiple build configurations, specify if this occurs in all or specific ones.

These errors should display a modal to the user

Description

We are experiencing an issue with the pull request modal in our application. When reopening the modal to analyze a new pull request, it incorrectly displays the URL of the previously analyzed PR instead of being reset or updated for the new PR.

Expected Behavior

Each time the pull request modal is opened, it should either be reset to a blank state or updated to reflect the information relevant to the current PR being analyzed.

Actual Behavior

The modal retains and displays the URL of the previous PR that was analyzed, leading to potential confusion and errors in PR analysis.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open the application and navigate to the feature where PR analysis is performed.
2. Analyze a pull request, observing the URL displayed in the modal.
3. Close the modal after analysis.
4. Reopen the modal to analyze a different PR.
5. Notice that the URL from the previously analyzed PR is still displayed.

Impact

This issue could lead to confusion among users, as they might inadvertently analyze the wrong PR or make decisions based on outdated information. It affects the usability and reliability of the PR analysis feature.

Consider implementing a context with a timeout.