Skip to content

Rename ebpfverifier library to prevail in CMakeLists.txt #873

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 15, 2025

Conversation

elazarg
Copy link
Collaborator

@elazarg elazarg commented Apr 15, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Renamed the main library and related references from "ebpfverifier" to "prevail" in the build configuration.
    • Updated comments and internal identifiers to reflect the new library name.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Apr 15, 2025

Walkthrough

The CMakeLists.txt file was updated to rename the main library target and all associated references from ebpfverifier to prevail. This includes changes to target declarations, compile definitions, include directories, compile options, link libraries, test executable linkages, and the internal project GUID variable. No other build configuration, source files, or dependency declarations were altered.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
CMakeLists.txt Renamed all occurrences of the library target and related variables from ebpfverifier to prevail, including in add_library, target_compile_definitions, target_include_directories, target_compile_options, target_link_libraries, test linkage, and project GUID variable. Updated comments accordingly.

Possibly related PRs

Tip

⚡💬 Agentic Chat (Pro Plan, General Availability)
  • We're introducing multi-step agentic chat in review comments and issue comments, within and outside of PR's. This feature enhances review and issue discussions with the CodeRabbit agentic chat by enabling advanced interactions, including the ability to create pull requests directly from comments and add commits to existing pull requests.

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 74aa868 and dc7469f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • CMakeLists.txt (4 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (10)
  • GitHub Check: build_ubuntu (Debug, tests)
  • GitHub Check: build_ubuntu (Release)
  • GitHub Check: build_windows (Debug, tests)
  • GitHub Check: build_windows (Release, tests)
  • GitHub Check: build_ubuntu (Release, library)
  • GitHub Check: build_windows (Debug, library)
  • GitHub Check: build_windows (Release, library)
  • GitHub Check: build_ubuntu (Release, tests)
  • GitHub Check: build_ubuntu (Debug)
  • GitHub Check: Analyze (cpp)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
CMakeLists.txt (1)

137-218:

❓ Verification inconclusive

All references to the library target have been consistently renamed from ebpfverifier to prevail.

This is a mechanical rename with no logic changes. All build, linkage, and test references are updated. No issues found.

Run this script to confirm there are no lingering references to ebpfverifier in the repository:


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to 'ebpfverifier' in the codebase.
rg 'ebpfverifier'

Length of output: 17


Verify library rename consistency.

All references to the old target "ebpfverifier" appear to have been replaced with "prevail" in the CMake file. The mechanical renaming updated all build targets, linkages, includes, and GUID variables. However, the rg 'ebpfverifier' search produced no output, which might be an inconclusive indication due to the low-quality inference of the command. Please manually verify that there are no lingering mentions of "ebpfverifier" in the repository.

  • Confirm that no files contain stray references to "ebpfverifier" (manual check may be needed).
  • Confirm that all test executables and linkage targets correctly reference "prevail".
  • Verify that the updated GUID variables are in sync with the changes.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@elazarg elazarg merged commit 4550c76 into main Apr 15, 2025
16 checks passed
@elazarg elazarg deleted the rename-library branch April 15, 2025 13:20
@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 14469251068

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 88.164%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 14468435895: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 8633
Relevant Lines: 9792

💛 - Coveralls

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants