upgrade clerk/next, pnpm and turbo repo #313
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 3b6b09c in 40 seconds
More details
- Looked at
65lines of code in5files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
11drafted comments based on config settings.
1. apps/app-config/package.json:12
- Draft comment:
Ensure breaking changes in @clerk/nextjs v6 are handled. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that breaking changes in a specific library version are handled. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue in the code. It falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested.
2. apps/web/package.json:14
- Draft comment:
Verify compatibility of Next.js with updated @clerk/nextjs. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to verify compatibility, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to double-check things or ensure behavior. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue.
3. packages/api-v1/package.json:13
- Draft comment:
Confirm that server-side integration remains compatible after the version bump. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to confirm compatibility after a version bump, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue.
4. packages/api/package.json:13
- Draft comment:
Review API usage of @clerk/nextjs for potential breaking changes with the update. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to review the API usage for potential breaking changes, which falls under the category of asking the author to ensure the behavior is intended or to double-check things. This violates the rules.
5. packages/engine-backend/package.json:24
- Draft comment:
Ensure backend tests cover any changes due to new @clerk/nextjs version in devDependencies. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that tests cover changes due to a dependency update. It is related to dependencies and testing, which violates the rules.
6. apps/app-config/package.json:12
- Draft comment:
Major version bump for @clerk/nextjs; confirm migration guide for breaking changes. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is related to a major version bump of a dependency, which could imply breaking changes. However, it asks the PR author to confirm the migration guide, which is not allowed by the rules. The comment does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. Therefore, it should be removed.
7. apps/web/package.json:14
- Draft comment:
Ensure compatibility with Clerk v6 as this is a breaking change upgrade from v5. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to ensure compatibility with a new version of a dependency, which is not allowed according to the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue in the code.
8. packages/api-v1/package.json:13
- Draft comment:
Upgrade to Clerk v6 may have breaking changes; verify that API usage aligns with updated docs. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to verify that the API usage aligns with the updated documentation after upgrading to Clerk v6. This falls under the category of asking the author to double-check things, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
9. packages/api/package.json:13
- Draft comment:
Confirm that endpoints using @clerk/nextjs are compatible with the new v6.12.4 API. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to confirm compatibility with a new version of an API, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm or double-check things. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue in the code.
10. packages/engine-backend/package.json:24
- Draft comment:
Double-check if @clerk/nextjs is required as a devDependency; verify integration with backend tooling for Clerk v6. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to double-check the necessity of a devDependency and verify integration, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue.
11. apps/app-config/package.json:25
- Draft comment:
It looks like '@openint/connector-foreceipt' might be a typographical error. Please double-check if 'foreceipt' is the intended name or if it should be corrected (e.g., '@openint/connector-for-receipt'). - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
Workflow ID: wflow_1XgU6Eg3QAnazSGc
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Skipped PR review on 8dd92b9 because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 8ce34b3 in 56 seconds
More details
- Looked at
30lines of code in2files - Skipped
1files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
5drafted comments based on config settings.
1. apps/web/package.json:77
- Draft comment:
Removed pnpm overrides block. Confirm removal is safe. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to confirm the safety of removing a pnpm overrides block. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should not be approved.
2. package.json:81
- Draft comment:
Updated packageManager to [email protected]. Verify compatibility with CI/CD. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to verify compatibility with CI/CD, which falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure the behavior is intended or to double-check things. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.
3. apps/web/package.json:76
- Draft comment:
Removed local pnpm overrides; ensure the root config covers these. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the author to ensure that the root config covers the removed local pnpm overrides. This is a request for confirmation, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm or ensure something. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
4. package.json:81
- Draft comment:
Updated packageManager to [email protected]; verify compatibility with workspace. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to verify compatibility with the workspace after updating the package manager to a specific version. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure compatibility or verify behavior, which is not allowed.
5. apps/web/package.json:79
- Draft comment:
There's a minor typographical issue in the inline comment at line 79. Consider changing "v10 try to import stuff from v11" to "v10 trying to import stuff from v11" to improve clarity. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was on unchanged code.
Workflow ID: wflow_aVvk5eN4Ou079hsA
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 5837a8f in 1 minute and 21 seconds
More details
- Looked at
290lines of code in10files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
29drafted comments based on config settings.
1. apps/app-config/backendConfig.ts:19
- Draft comment:
Using createClerkClient with env vars looks correct. Just ensure that the required environment variables (CLERK_SECRET_KEY and NEXT_PUBLIC_CLERK_PUBLISHABLE_KEY) are always set in production. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
2. apps/web/__tests__/test-utils.ts:6
- Draft comment:
Test utils now use createClerkClient properly. No issues observed. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
3. apps/web/app/dashboard/org/[slug]/layout.tsx:24
- Draft comment:
Awaiting serverComponentGetAuth() is now necessary; verify error handling if auth fails. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
4. apps/web/lib-server/procedures.ts:10
- Draft comment:
Properly instantiating clerkClient in procedures; ensure that all paths using this client handle potential API changes from Clerk. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
5. apps/web/lib-server/server-helpers.ts:172
- Draft comment:
Using await serverComponentGetAuth() when no req is present is correct. Confirm that all other auth calls are updated accordingly. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
6. packages/api/authRouter.ts:18
- Draft comment:
The update to use createClerkClient and proper typing (ClerkClient) aligns with latest API. Ensure that getOrganization and getUser calls continue to work with new client. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
7. packages/api/createRouterHandler.ts:35
- Draft comment:
Initialization of clerkClient using createClerkClient in this file is updated appropriately. Confirm that all downstream calls remain compatible. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
8. packages/engine-backend/context.ts:34
- Draft comment:
Type for 'clerk' is now set as ReturnType. This is generic; if Clerk offers a specific type export, consider using it for stricter type checks. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
9. packages/engine-backend/router/pipelineRouter.ts:18
- Draft comment:
No functional changes observed except formatting. Ensure that added whitespace does not affect logic. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
10. packages/engine-backend/services/sync-service.ts:42
- Draft comment:
Usage of createClerkClient in sync-service is updated correctly. Verify that environment dependencies are properly configured when invoked in sync operations. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
11. apps/app-config/backendConfig.ts:1
- Draft comment:
Good replacement of the default clerkClient import with createClerkClient. Consider centralizing client initialization if it’s used across multiple modules for consistency and potential performance improvements. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
12. apps/web/__tests__/test-utils.ts:1
- Draft comment:
The tests now correctly use createClerkClient with env variables. Ensure the test environment provides valid keys to avoid unexpected failures. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
13. apps/web/app/dashboard/org/[slug]/layout.tsx:24
- Draft comment:
Awaiting serverComponentGetAuth is necessary with the updated async API. This change correctly aligns with the latest clerk/next version. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
14. apps/web/lib-server/procedures.ts:3
- Draft comment:
The change to use createClerkClient is straightforward. No issues detected; ensure that the env variables are correctly provided in all environments. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
15. apps/web/lib-server/server-helpers.ts:172
- Draft comment:
Good update: awaiting serverComponentGetAuth when it's not a request object. This aligns with the new asynchronous behavior of the Clerk API. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
16. packages/api/authRouter.ts:1
- Draft comment:
Switching to createClerkClient with explicit type alias improves clarity. Consider whether multiple instantiations across modules should be centralized into a shared module to avoid redundant initializations. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
17. packages/api/createRouterHandler.ts:35
- Draft comment:
The updated instantiation of clerkClient using createClerkClient is consistent. Double-check that the environment keys are correctly provided in all deployment contexts. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
18. packages/engine-backend/context.ts:34
- Draft comment:
Changing the type of the clerk property to ReturnType improves type safety. Ensure that downstream usage is compatible with this updated type. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
19. packages/engine-backend/router/pipelineRouter.ts:19
- Draft comment:
There are no significant changes regarding Clerk in this file. Just a minor formatting update; no issues noted. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
20. packages/engine-backend/services/sync-service.ts:2
- Draft comment:
The diff properly updates to use createClerkClient. Note the recurring pattern of instantiating a clerk client in multiple modules. It might be beneficial to centralize this instantiation to prevent potential redundant initializations and ease maintenance. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
21. apps/app-config/backendConfig.ts:56
- Draft comment:
Typographical error: In the comment, 'realy' should be corrected to 'really'. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
22. apps/app-config/backendConfig.ts:61
- Draft comment:
Typographical error: In the comment, 'transfomrations' should be corrected to 'transformations'. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
23. apps/web/lib-server/server-helpers.ts:168
- Draft comment:
Typo: The word 'ignoroing' appears in the comment. It should be 'ignoring'. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
24. packages/api/authRouter.ts:118
- Draft comment:
Typographical Issue: In the return object of getUserOmitPrivateMeta (line 118), the property 'unsafeMetadata' is being parsed from 'usr.publicMetadata'. Likely, this is a copy-paste error and should instead be 'usr.unsafeMetadata'. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
25. packages/api/createRouterHandler.ts:116
- Draft comment:
Typographical error: In the comment on line 116, 'ignoroing' should be corrected to 'ignoring'. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
26. packages/engine-backend/context.ts:18
- Draft comment:
The comment on line 18 uses 'hmm' and informal wording. Consider rephrasing it to more clearly indicate the intended action or note, so that it's more professional and easier to understand for future maintainers. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
27. packages/engine-backend/context.ts:124
- Draft comment:
On line 124, consider changing 'codepath' to 'code paths' for improved clarity and correctness. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
28. packages/engine-backend/services/sync-service.ts:105
- Draft comment:
Typo: 'sync-serivce' should be corrected to 'sync-service' in the log message at the creation of the default outgoing pipeline. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
29. packages/engine-backend/services/sync-service.ts:119
- Draft comment:
Typo: 'sync-serivce' should be corrected to 'sync-service' in the log message at the creation of the default incoming pipeline. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
Workflow ID: wflow_hdatoga5m44hXyqz
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on ad442eb in 1 minute and 35 seconds
More details
- Looked at
49lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
6drafted comments based on config settings.
1. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:35
- Draft comment:
Consistently upgrading the pnpm version to 10.6.1. Ensure the new version is compatible with all workflow caching and lockfile expectations. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:0%<= threshold50%
None
2. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:35
- Draft comment:
Updated pnpm/action-setup version to 10.6.1 in the Install pnpm step. Verify that any changes in defaults or behavior in this version won’t affect dependency installation. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to verify changes in defaults or behavior, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of behavior. It is related to a dependency change, which is also not allowed to be commented on unless it's a specific version issue that needs confirmation.
3. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:61
- Draft comment:
The typecheck job now uses pnpm/action-setup version 10.6.1. Confirm that this update doesn’t introduce unexpected side effects. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to confirm that an update to a dependency doesn't introduce side effects. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm intentions or ensure behavior. Additionally, it comments on a dependency change, which is not allowed.
4. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:83
- Draft comment:
Lint job: Updated pnpm/action-setup version to 10.6.1. Please check caching and install behavior remain intact. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is related to a dependency change, specifically updating the version of a tool. It asks the author to check the behavior, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of behavior. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
5. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:132
- Draft comment:
Tests job: pnpm/action-setup version bumped to 10.6.1. Ensure the new version does not affect our cache or test setup. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is related to a dependency version change, specifically thepnpm/action-setupversion bump. The comment asks to ensure that the new version does not affect the cache or test setup, which falls under the rule of not commenting on dependency changes or asking the author to ensure behavior. Therefore, this comment should be removed.
6. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:180
- Draft comment:
Storybook job: Confirm that updating to pnpm/action-setup 10.6.1 is fully compatible with the build and deployment flow. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to confirm compatibility of a dependency update, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification of intentions. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue.
Workflow ID: wflow_YU7G6b2ZufIp7GgU
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on b0c0461 in 37 seconds
More details
- Looked at
13lines of code in1files - Skipped
1files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
2drafted comments based on config settings.
1. package.json:79
- Draft comment:
Turbo version upgraded from 1.x to 2.x. Verify configuration/upgrades for breaking changes. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is about a version upgrade of a dependency, which falls under the rule of not commenting on pure dependency changes. The comment asks the author to verify configuration/upgrades for breaking changes, which is not allowed as it asks the author to ensure something.
2. package.json:79
- Draft comment:
Turbo version upgraded to 2.4.4. Confirm no breaking config changes are needed for Turbo v2. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to confirm that no breaking changes are needed for the Turbo version upgrade. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm or ensure behavior, which is not allowed.
Workflow ID: wflow_H2rBkHStsnmCBp2K
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on cb59338 in 47 seconds
More details
- Looked at
89lines of code in2files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
7drafted comments based on config settings.
1. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:29
- Draft comment:
Using node-version-file requires your package.json to include the engines.node field. Ensure it's defined to lock the correct Node version. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =20%<= threshold50%
The comment is informative, explaining a requirement for usingnode-version-file. It doesn't suggest a specific code change or ask for confirmation of intent. It seems to be more of a reminder or guideline rather than a direct actionable comment.
2. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:33
- Draft comment:
Removed explicit pnpm version input. Confirm that the default pnpm version from the action is acceptable. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to confirm if the default pnpm version is acceptable. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention, which is against the rules.
3. turbo.json:3
- Draft comment:
Renamed 'pipeline' to 'tasks' per the latest Turbo schema. Verify that this change is compatible with your CI and local tooling. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to verify compatibility with CI and local tooling, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.
4. turbo.json:17
- Draft comment:
Minor formatting change for 'pub' task. Confirm that this does not affect any tooling expecting a specific format. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:30%<= threshold50%
None
5. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:30
- Draft comment:
Using 'node-version-file: package.json' centralizes Node version configuration—ensure your package.json (or another file) properly specifies the desired Node version. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
6. .github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml:35
- Draft comment:
The explicit pnpm version (10.6.1) has been removed. Confirm that using the default version from pnpm/action-setup@v4 meets your requirements. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
7. turbo.json:3
- Draft comment:
The key 'pipeline' has been updated to 'tasks' per the latest Turbo schema. Verify that all related configurations and documentation are updated accordingly. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
Workflow ID: wflow_4fIuunhXsHpWjBfU
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 088f316 in 41 seconds
More details
- Looked at
38lines of code in2files - Skipped
1files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
4drafted comments based on config settings.
1. package.json:76
- Draft comment:
Removal of the turbo dependency. Ensure this change is intentional and doesn't affect any build scripts relying on Turbo. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the removal of a dependency is intentional and doesn't affect build scripts. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior is intended. Therefore, it should be removed.
2. turbo.json:1
- Draft comment:
The entire turbo.json config file is deleted. Confirm that no build processes depend on it. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
3. package.json:76
- Draft comment:
Removal of the turbo dependency: confirm no scripts or config rely on it. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that no scripts or config rely on the removed dependency. This violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or to double-check things.
4. turbo.json:1
- Draft comment:
Deletion of turbo.json: ensure its config is no longer needed. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.
Workflow ID: wflow_xJxaKyZPTfvHbAgg
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
This reverts commit 088f316.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 4f17f2c in 1 minute and 4 seconds
More details
- Looked at
11lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
2drafted comments based on config settings.
1. turbo.json:3
- Draft comment:
Ensure these DB URLs should be globally available; review potential security exposure. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
The comment starts with "Ensure..." which is a red flag according to our rules. It's asking the author to verify their intention and double-check security implications. This is exactly the kind of speculative, verification-seeking comment we want to avoid. The author deliberately added these env vars to the global pass-through list, so they likely know what they're doing.
Maybe there could be genuine security concerns about exposing database URLs globally in the build configuration. Perhaps this deserves more investigation.
While security is important, the comment isn't providing concrete evidence of an issue - it's just asking for verification. If there was a specific security vulnerability, that would be different.
Delete this comment as it violates our rules by asking for verification and making speculative security concerns without concrete evidence of an issue.
2. turbo.json:3
- Draft comment:
Consider adding a brief comment explaining why DATABASE_URL and DATABASE_URL_UNPOOLED are globally passed. This aids future maintainers in understanding its purpose and security implications. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:33%<= threshold50%
None
Workflow ID: wflow_XIRIAQVGkrs5g0DZ
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 9608599 in 1 minute and 8 seconds
More details
- Looked at
16lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
2drafted comments based on config settings.
1. turbo.json:4
- Draft comment:
Confirm if including JWT_SECRET as a global passthrough is safe for all tasks. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
This comment violates several rules. It asks the author to "confirm" something, which is explicitly against the rules. It's speculative about safety concerns without providing concrete evidence of an issue. If there was a real security concern, it should be stated directly with evidence. Additionally, environment variable configuration is a deliberate choice by the author.
Perhaps there could be a genuine security concern about exposing JWT_SECRET to all tasks that I'm overlooking. Maybe some tasks shouldn't have access to this secret.
While security is important, without specific evidence of a problem, we must trust that the author has considered the implications. The comment as written doesn't provide actionable feedback, just asks for confirmation.
Delete this comment as it violates the rules by asking for confirmation and making speculative security concerns without evidence.
2. turbo.json:3
- Draft comment:
Ensure JWT_SECRET is intentionally added; verify it’s set in all environments to avoid auth issues. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
The comment starts with "Ensure" and asks for verification, which is explicitly against our rules. It's asking the author to double-check their own change, which we should assume they've already done. The comment is speculative about potential auth issues rather than pointing out a concrete problem.
Maybe ensuring JWT_SECRET is set everywhere is actually a critical security concern that deserves attention? Maybe this could prevent deployment issues?
While security is important, we must assume the author has already considered this. If JWT_SECRET isn't set, it would be caught immediately in testing or deployment, making this comment unnecessary.
Delete this comment as it violates our rules by asking for verification and making speculative statements about potential issues.
Workflow ID: wflow_1vqQi0mSIYyV6I2j
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 0c90ee7 in 1 minute and 35 seconds
More details
- Looked at
57lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
8drafted comments based on config settings.
1. turbo.json:4
- Draft comment:
Ensure that secret-related vars (e.g., CLERK_SECRET_KEY, NEXT_PUBLIC_CLERK_PUBLISHABLE_KEY) are documented and managed securely. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that secret-related variables are documented and managed securely. It is not making a specific code suggestion or pointing out a specific issue in the code. It is more of a general reminder or best practice, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure something is done.
2. turbo.json:28
- Draft comment:
Verify that naming conventions (e.g., double underscores in ccfg_hubspot__SCOPE) are intentional and consistent. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the PR author to verify the intention behind the naming conventions, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation of intention. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue.
3. turbo.json:28
- Draft comment:
Naming inconsistency: 'ccfg_hubspot__SCOPE' uses a double underscore while other hubspot variables (e.g. ccfg_hubspot_CLIENT_ID) use a single underscore. Verify if this is intentional. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
The comment asks to "verify if this is intentional" which violates our rules about not asking for verification. Additionally, this seems like a minor naming inconsistency that may have valid reasons (like matching external system requirements) that we can't determine from just this file. Without more context about the naming conventions or requirements, we shouldn't assume this is a problem.
The naming inconsistency could indicate a real issue that needs fixing. Different naming patterns could lead to confusion or bugs.
While consistency is good, we don't have enough context to know if this naming pattern is required by some external system or convention. More importantly, the comment asks for verification rather than making a clear suggestion for change.
Delete this comment because it asks for verification rather than making a clear suggestion, and we don't have enough context to know if the naming pattern is actually problematic.
4. turbo.json:4
- Draft comment:
Maintainability: Consider organizing (e.g., alphabetizing or grouping) these env variables for easier future management. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:50%<= threshold50%
None
5. turbo.json:6
- Draft comment:
Verify removal: 'DATABASE_URL_UNPOOLED' was removed. Confirm that it is no longer required and that its removal doesn't break dependencies. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful =0%<= threshold50%
The comment is asking the author to confirm the removal of a specific variable and its impact on dependencies. This falls under asking the author to confirm their intention and ensure the behavior is intended, which is against the rules.
6. turbo.json:30
- Draft comment:
Typographical Inconsistency: The variable name 'ccfg_hubspot__SCOPE' uses a double underscore which is inconsistent with the naming convention used in other hubspot variables (e.g., 'ccfg_hubspot_CLIENT_ID'). Please verify if the extra underscore is intentional. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
The comment points out a real inconsistency, but looking at the full context, this appears to be an intentional pattern. Different prefixes and underscore patterns seem to denote different types of configurations. This is likely a deliberate choice rather than a mistake. Additionally, this is part of a large addition of new environment variables, and the pattern is consistent within each group.
I might be wrong about the intentionality of the naming patterns. There could be a real inconsistency that needs to be fixed.
Even if I'm wrong, asking for verification of intention violates our rules - we shouldn't ask authors to confirm their intentions. We should only flag clear issues.
The comment should be deleted as it's asking for verification of intention and the apparent inconsistency seems to be part of a deliberate naming scheme.
7. turbo.json:40
- Draft comment:
Typographical Error: The environment variable 'int_heron__apiKey' is not fully uppercase as expected for env vars. Consider renaming it to a consistent uppercase format (e.g., 'INT_HERON__API_KEY') for consistency. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
While uppercase env vars are common practice, I see a clear pattern here where variables with ccfg_ and int_ prefixes use a different casing convention. This suggests it's an intentional naming scheme, not a mistake. The comment appears to be suggesting a change that goes against the established pattern in the codebase.
Maybe there's a good reason to standardize all env vars to uppercase. The comment could be helping establish better practices.
The consistent use of mixed case for ccfg_ and int_ prefixed variables strongly suggests this is an intentional pattern. We shouldn't try to change an established convention without more context.
Delete the comment as it appears to be suggesting a change that goes against an intentional naming convention in the codebase.
8. turbo.json:43
- Draft comment:
Typographical Error: The environment variable 'int_merge__apiKey' is not fully uppercase. To maintain consistent naming for environment variables, please update it to an all-uppercase version (e.g., 'INT_MERGE__API_KEY'). - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
There seems to be a deliberate pattern where integration-related vars use 'int_' prefix and mixed case. Similar variables like int_heron__apiKey and int_discord__CLIENT_ID follow this pattern. The comment assumes all env vars should be uppercase, but the codebase clearly has an established different convention for these integration variables.
I could be wrong about the intentionality of the naming pattern. Maybe the mixed casing is actually inconsistent and should be standardized.
The consistent use of prefixes like 'int_' and similar casing patterns across multiple variables strongly suggests this is an intentional convention rather than a mistake.
The comment should be deleted as it incorrectly assumes all env vars must be uppercase, when the codebase clearly has an established different convention for integration-related variables.
Workflow ID: wflow_Zj2u2KdJQa1SL8nw
Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
openint-bot
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Important
Upgrade
@clerk/nextjsto^6.12.4, update Node.js version management in workflows, and enhance environment configuration inturbo.json.@clerk/nextjsto^6.12.4inapps/app-config/package.json,apps/web/package.json,packages/api-v1/package.json,packages/api/package.json, andpackages/engine-backend/package.json.turboto^2.4.4andpnpmto10.6.1inpackage.json.node-version-file: package.jsonin.github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml.pnpmversion in.github/workflows/parallel-workflow-validate.yml.globalPassThroughEnvinturbo.json.clerkClientwithcreateClerkClientin various files such asbackendConfig.ts,test-utils.ts,layout.tsx,procedures.ts,server-helpers.ts,authRouter.ts,createRouterHandler.ts,context.ts, andsync-service.ts.This description was created by
for 0c90ee7. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.