-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
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
[installer] POSIX compliant #192
Conversation
Warning Rate limit exceeded@goldyfruit has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 21 minutes and 29 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe changes in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
installer.sh (2)
Line range hint
26-27
: Add error handling for git clone operation.The git clone operation should have explicit error handling to provide clear feedback if the clone fails.
Consider adding error handling:
-git clone --quiet https://github.com/OpenVoiceOS/ovos-installer.git "$installer_path" -cd "$installer_path" || exit 1 +if ! git clone --quiet https://github.com/OpenVoiceOS/ovos-installer.git "$installer_path"; then + printf "\n\e[31m[fail]\e[0m Failed to clone installer repository.\n\n" + exit 1 +fi +cd "$installer_path" || { + printf "\n\e[31m[fail]\e[0m Failed to change to installer directory.\n\n" + exit 1 +}
Fix typo in git command verification
The review comment is correct. There is a typo in the git command verification where
gito
is used instead ofgit
. This will cause the installer to fail even when git is properly installed, preventing the fix for Issue #191 from working as intended.
- Line 14: Change
command -v gito
tocommand -v git
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-38
: Verify PR objectives implementation.While the changes improve POSIX compliance, the typo in the git command check (
gito
) would prevent this PR from fixing Issue #191. Please fix the typo to properly implement the git command check as intended.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the git command check implementation printf "Checking git command verification in installer scripts...\n" rg -l 'command.*git.*2>&1' .Length of output: 174
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Get the exact line with git command check for detailed analysis rg 'command.*git.*2>&1' ./installer.sh -A 3Length of output: 240
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- installer.sh (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
installer.sh (2)
1-11
: LGTM! Good improvement in POSIX compliance.The change from
bash
tosh
in the shebang line and the environment variable handling are both secure and POSIX-compliant.
21-21
: LGTM! Good POSIX compliance improvement.The change from double brackets
[[
to single brackets[
improves POSIX compliance.
Closes #191
Summary by CodeRabbit