feat(backend): build system backend generation #139
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces new test suites to validate the build sequence functionality and enhances several build handlers. Changes include modifications to backend code generation, prompt restructuring, and updates to frontend code validation via renamed classes and parameters. New template files for database initialization, Express server setup, and logging utilities have been added, along with configuration updates in package.json. Minor prompt adjustments and cleanup in UX datamap examples are also included. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant T as Test Runner
participant BC as BuilderContext
participant N as Node Handlers
T->>BC: Instantiate with BuildSequence
BC->>N: Execute each node (e.g., ProjectInitHandler, PRDHandler, etc.)
N-->>BC: Return node results
BC-->>T: Build sequence executed successfully
sequenceDiagram
participant BCH as BackendCodeHandler
participant Chat as chatSyncWithClocker
participant CTQ as CodeTaskQueue
participant CQ as CodeQueueProcessor
BCH->>Chat: Send prompt for backend code (model: o3-mini-high)
Chat-->>BCH: Receive generated backend code
BCH->>CTQ: Enqueue code generation task
CQ->>CTQ: Process queued tasks
CQ-->>BCH: Return processed result
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/schemas.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 ESLint couldn't find the plugin "eslint-plugin-prettier". (The package "eslint-plugin-prettier" was not found when loaded as a Node module from the directory "/backend".) It's likely that the plugin isn't installed correctly. Try reinstalling by running the following: The plugin "eslint-plugin-prettier" was referenced from the config file in "backend/.eslintrc.js". If you still can't figure out the problem, please stop by https://eslint.org/chat/help to chat with the team. backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/prompt.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 ESLint couldn't find the plugin "eslint-plugin-prettier". (The package "eslint-plugin-prettier" was not found when loaded as a Node module from the directory "/backend".) It's likely that the plugin isn't installed correctly. Try reinstalling by running the following: The plugin "eslint-plugin-prettier" was referenced from the config file in "backend/.eslintrc.js". If you still can't figure out the problem, please stop by https://eslint.org/chat/help to chat with the team. backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 ESLint couldn't find the plugin "eslint-plugin-prettier". (The package "eslint-plugin-prettier" was not found when loaded as a Node module from the directory "/backend".) It's likely that the plugin isn't installed correctly. Try reinstalling by running the following: The plugin "eslint-plugin-prettier" was referenced from the config file in "backend/.eslintrc.js". If you still can't figure out the problem, please stop by https://eslint.org/chat/help to chat with the team.
✨ Finishing Touches
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🔭 Outside diff range comments (3)
backend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.ts (1)
1-4: 💡 Verification agent🧩 Analysis chain
Fix missing module dependency.
The pipeline failure indicates an issue with importing 'codefox-common'. This dependency needs to be resolved for the tests to pass.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check for codefox-common imports in the repository rg "from 'codefox-common'" --type ts rg "from \"codefox-common\"" --type ts # Check package.json for codefox-common dependency grep -r "codefox-common" --include="package*.json" .Length of output: 2624
Pipeline Failure: Missing Module Dependency for
codefox-commonThe file
backend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.tsis currently not importingcodefox-common, which is causing the pipeline failure. Other test files in thebackend/src/build-system/__tests__folder (e.g.copy-project-template.spec.tsandtest-file-create-and-path.spec.ts) correctly import functions fromcodefox-common, and the dependency is properly declared in the package.json. To resolve the issue, please add an appropriate import statement (for example, a side-effect import such asimport 'codefox-common';or a specific import if certain functionalities are required) at the top offullstack-gen.spec.ts.
- Location:
backend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.ts(lines 1-4)🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Run tests and upload coverage
[error] 4-4: TS2307: Cannot find module 'codefox-common' or its corresponding type declarations.
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/prompt.ts (1)
178-243: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionNew multi-file prompt generator.
Great for modular code generation. However, address the unused variables flagged by static analysis:
fileType(line 182) is never used.error(line 197) is declared but unused.Consider removing or prefixing with an underscore to acknowledge their unused status:
- fileType: string = 'javascript', + _fileType: string = 'javascript',- } catch (error) { + } catch (_err) {🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: autofix
[warning] 182-182:
'fileType' is assigned a value but never used. Allowed unused args must match /^_/u
[warning] 197-197:
'error' is defined but never usedbackend/src/build-system/handlers/file-manager/backend-file-struct/index.ts (1)
1-533: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
⚠️ Potential issueComplete review of new file.
Pipeline error:
.overviewusage
The pipeline reports:
"TS2339: Property 'overview' does not exist on type 'string'."
Occurring at lines 240 and 255, where you callbackendRequirementDoc.overview. IfbackendRequirementDocis stored as a string, you must remove or revise the.overviewreferences.Prompt definitions
Thepromptsobject is well-structured for generating user instructions. However, be mindful that returning a large tree can cause LLM tokens overhead.Validation logic
The expansions invalidateInputs()andvalidateJsonData()are well-specified. FordbSchemaandbackendRequirementDoc, ensure minimal risk ofanyusage, or consider using a typed interface.
VirtualDirectoryusage
Building the virtual directory and verifying dependencies withbuildDependencyGraphis an excellent approach. Make sure the new structure is tested with actual directories.Looping logic around
invalidFiles
The while loop at lines 384+ re-invokes the generation prompt if invalid files remain. Confirm it is not infinite looping on repeated failures.Error handling
Catching multiple error types is robust. The finalreturn { success: false }blocks in catch statements clarifies failure reasons.Model usage
Defaulting to'gpt-4o-mini'or other models fromcontext.defaultModelensures flexibility. Confirm it aligns with your production environment.General consistency
The file structure is consistent with your new queue-based flow. This handler purely manages the architecture document, leaving actual code generation to other classes.Remove or adjust the
.overviewreferences to fix the pipeline error. For example:- const docOverview = backendRequirementDoc.overview; + const docOverview = backendRequirementDoc; // If it's just a string🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Run tests and upload coverage
[error] 240-240: TS2339: Property 'overview' does not exist on type 'string'.
[error] 255-255: TS2339: Property 'overview' does not exist on type 'string'.
🧹 Nitpick comments (12)
backend/template/template-backend/database_config.js (2)
7-7: Consider making the database path configurable.The database path is hardcoded relative to
__dirname. For better flexibility across different environments, consider making this configurable through environment variables.-const dbPath = path.join(__dirname, '../database.sqlite'); +const dbPath = process.env.DB_PATH || path.join(__dirname, '../database.sqlite');
14-16: Potential race condition in directory creation.The directory creation logic could experience a race condition if multiple instances try to create the directory simultaneously. Consider using a more robust approach.
- if (!fs.existsSync(dbDir)) { - fs.mkdirSync(dbDir, { recursive: true }); - } + try { + await fs.promises.mkdir(dbDir, { recursive: true }); + } catch (error) { + // Ignore error if directory already exists + if (error.code !== 'EEXIST') { + throw error; + } + }backend/src/build-system/__tests__/backend-gen.spec.ts (3)
19-19: Fix typo in project name.There's a spelling error in the project name.
- name: 'Wrtie a Cool personal website', + name: 'Write a Cool personal website',
44-54: Uncomment or remove commented dependency requirements.There are commented dependency requirements in several nodes. If these dependencies are important for proper handler execution, they should be uncommented. Otherwise, the commented code should be removed to improve readability.
- // requires: ['op:UX:DATAMAP:DOC'], + requires: ['op:UX:DATAMAP:DOC'],Or remove the commented lines entirely if not needed.
77-77: Excessively long test timeout.The test has a timeout of 2,000,000 ms (33.3 minutes), which is unusually long for unit tests. Consider reducing this to a more reasonable value or adding a comment explaining why such a long timeout is necessary.
- }, 2000000); + }, 300000); // 5 minutes should be sufficient for most integration testsbackend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.ts (2)
22-22: Minor style improvement with template literals.Converting the description string to use template literals maintains the same functionality while making the code style more consistent.
74-82: Consider removing commented out code or adding explanatory comments.These commented-out handlers (
BackendFileStructureAndArchitectureHandlerandBackendFileReviewHandler) appear to be placeholders for future implementations. Consider either removing them if they're no longer needed, or adding a TODO comment explaining why they're kept.- // // { - // // handler: BackendFileStructureAndArchitectureHandler, - // // name: 'Backend File Structure and Architecture', - // // }, - // { - // handler: BackendFileReviewHandler, - // name: 'Backend File review Node', - // }, + // TODO: Future enhancement - implement these handlers + // { + // handler: BackendFileStructureAndArchitectureHandler, + // name: 'Backend File Structure and Architecture', + // }, + // { + // handler: BackendFileReviewHandler, + // name: 'Backend File review Node', + // },backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/index.ts (2)
287-294: Remove commented out code for clean codebase.These commented-out blocks related to UX datamap appear to be no longer needed since the flow has changed to focus on backend requirements. Consider removing this commented code to improve code cleanliness.
- // To DO need to dynamically add the UX Datamap Documentation and Backend Requirement Documentation based on the file generate - // { - // role: 'user' as const, - // content: `This is the UX Datamap Documentation: - // ${uxDataMapDoc} - - // Next will provide UX Datamap Documentation.`, - // },
325-328: Remove unused commented code.These commented-out blocks add noise to the codebase without providing value. Consider removing this comment to improve code cleanliness.
- // { - // role: 'assistant', - // content: codeReviewPrompt, - // },backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts (3)
76-77: New constructor parameters.
projectPartandprojectPathprovide flexibility for different project types. Be sure to validate them (e.g.,'frontend'vs'backend') before usage.
199-199: Commented-out model.
The comment referencing'o3-mini-high'is fine. Confirm whether it’s still needed or removable.
308-308: Repeated doc message.
Double check for repetitive instructing lines; repeated statements might bloat the final prompt.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
backend/template/template-backend/package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
backend/src/build-system/__tests__/backend-gen.spec.ts(1 hunks)backend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.ts(2 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/index.ts(4 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/prompt.ts(6 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/file-review/file-review.ts(2 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/index.ts(4 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts(2 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/requirements-document/prompt.ts(3 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/file-manager/backend-file-struct/index.ts(1 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts(13 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeValidator.ts(4 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/index.ts(6 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/ux/datamap/prompt.ts(0 hunks)backend/template/template-backend/database_config.js(1 hunks)backend/template/template-backend/index.js(1 hunks)backend/template/template-backend/logger.js(1 hunks)backend/template/template-backend/package.json(1 hunks)backend/template/template-backend/tsconfig.json(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
- backend/src/build-system/handlers/ux/datamap/prompt.ts
- backend/template/template-backend/tsconfig.json
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- backend/template/template-backend/index.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Run tests and upload coverage
backend/src/build-system/__tests__/backend-gen.spec.ts
[error] 4-4: TS2307: Cannot find module 'codefox-common' or its corresponding type declarations.
backend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.ts
[error] 4-4: TS2307: Cannot find module 'codefox-common' or its corresponding type declarations.
backend/src/build-system/handlers/file-manager/backend-file-struct/index.ts
[error] 240-240: TS2339: Property 'overview' does not exist on type 'string'.
[error] 255-255: TS2339: Property 'overview' does not exist on type 'string'.
🪛 GitHub Check: autofix
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/prompt.ts
[warning] 182-182:
'fileType' is assigned a value but never used. Allowed unused args must match /^_/u
[warning] 197-197:
'error' is defined but never used
🔇 Additional comments (75)
backend/template/template-backend/database_config.js (1)
1-8: Appropriate imports for database configuration.The file correctly imports all necessary modules for SQLite database configuration, including the database driver, filesystem utilities, path handling, and logger.
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/file-review/file-review.ts (2)
47-47:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify data structure compatibility after API change.
The retrieval of backend requirements has been simplified from likely accessing a property (e.g.,
context.getNodeData(BackendRequirementHandler)?.overview) to directly using the result. Ensure that subsequent code expecting a specific structure still works correctly with this change.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check how BackendRequirementHandler is used in other parts of the application echo "Checking BackendRequirementHandler implementation:" find backend/src -name "*requirements-document*" -type f -exec grep -l "BackendRequirementHandler" {} \; | xargs cat echo "Checking return type and usage in other files:" grep -r "context.getNodeData(BackendRequirementHandler)" --include="*.ts" backend/srcLength of output: 832
Revisit backend requirements API usage for compatibility with existing consumers.
- In
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/file-review/file-review.ts, the code now directly assigns the value returned fromcontext.getNodeData(BackendRequirementHandler)rather than accessing a nested property like.overview.- In
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/index.ts, notice the use of a fallback (|| '') along with a commented-out reference to the previous approach (?.overview). This suggests that while the API simplification is intentional, some consuming code might still expect a structured response.- Action: Please verify that all parts of the codebase consuming the backend requirement data can safely handle the updated data structure. If the consumers were originally designed to work with an object containing an
overviewproperty, consider updating them accordingly or maintaining compatibility.
120-120:✅ Verification successful
Model change from 'gpt-4o-mini' to 'o3-mini-high'.
The model used for generating file modifications has been changed. Verify that 'o3-mini-high' is a valid model identifier and provides similar or better quality output than the previous model.
🌐 Web query:
What is the o3-mini-high model? How does it compare to gpt-4o-mini?💡 Result:
The o3-mini-high is a variant of OpenAI's o3-mini model optimized for deep reasoning in STEM tasks, offering enhanced coding consistency and accuracy at higher computational cost. Compared to GPT-4o Mini, it trades multimodal capabilities for specialized technical performance while being significantly more expensive. Here's a detailed comparison:
Key Features
o3-mini-high
- Specializes in science, math, and coding with three reasoning effort levels (low/medium/high) [4][9]
- 200K token context window and 100K output token limit [3]
- Achieves 87.7% on GPQA Diamond benchmark (expert-level science questions) and 71.7% on SWE-bench coding tests [9]
- Uses deliberative alignment for safety - reasons about policy compliance through chain-of-thought [1][4]
GPT-4o Mini
- General-purpose model with text/image input (future video/audio support planned) [2][8]
- 128K token context window and 16.4K output token limit [3][5]
- Scores 82% on MMLU benchmark (general knowledge) [8]
- Optimized for cost efficiency at $0.15/million input tokens [2][3]
Performance Comparison
Aspect o3-mini-high GPT-4o Mini Coding Consistency 8% failure rate in one-shot coding vs o1's 16% [1] Not specialized for coding Reasoning Depth Leads AidenBench coding benchmark [1] Focused on general-purpose tasks Vision Capabilities Limited object detection accuracy [7] Supports image processing [2][3] Feedback Utilization Struggles with iterative refinement [1] N/A (no comparable data) Pricing
Model Input Cost (per million tokens) Output Cost (per million tokens) o3-mini-high $1.10 [3] $4.40 [3] GPT-4o Mini $0.15 [2][3] $0.60 [2][3] GPT-4o Mini is 7.3x cheaper for input tokens and 7.3x cheaper for output tokens compared to o3-mini-high [3].
Use Case Recommendations
Choose o3-mini-high for:
- Technical documentation analysis (200K context) [3]
- Error-free code generation requiring minimal iterations [1]
- Advanced mathematical problem-solving [9]
Choose GPT-4o Mini for:
- High-volume customer support chatbots [5][8]
- Cost-sensitive applications needing image analysis [2][3]
- Real-time interactions requiring <85ms response latency [2]
While o3-mini-high excels in technical domains, GPT-4o Mini remains the better choice for most general applications due to its multimodal capabilities and dramatically lower cost. Developers requiring cutting-edge STEM reasoning might combine both - using o3-mini-high for specialized tasks and GPT-4o Mini for routine operations.
Citations:
- 1: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/srdxEAcdmetdAiGcz/o3-mini-early-days
- 2: https://www.datacamp.com/blog/gpt-4o-mini
- 3: https://docsbot.ai/models/compare/o3-mini/gpt-4o-mini
- 4: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/OpenAI-o3-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know
- 5: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/GPT-4o-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know
- 6: https://docsbot.ai/models/compare/o3/gpt-4o-mini
- 7: https://blog.roboflow.com/o3-mini-multimodal/
- 8: https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-mini-advancing-cost-efficient-intelligence/
- 9: https://yourgpt.ai/blog/updates/open-ai-o3-vs-gpt-4-top-differences-that-you-should-know-in-2025
- 10: https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
Subject: Verified Model Change to 'o3-mini-high'
After reviewing the web query results, it’s confirmed that the
'o3-mini-high'model is a valid identifier. This model is a specialized variant of the o3-mini lineup—optimized for deep reasoning in STEM tasks with enhanced coding consistency and accuracy—albeit at a higher computational cost. Ensure that these trade-offs align with your application's requirements and that the increased cost is acceptable for your use case.
- File:
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/file-review/file-review.ts- Line 120: The change from
'gpt-4o-mini'to'o3-mini-high'is valid and intentional given its specialized performance attributes.- Action: Confirm that the higher computational cost of
'o3-mini-high'is justified in the context of its improved technical performance.backend/src/build-system/__tests__/fullstack-gen.spec.ts (3)
9-13: Good addition of required handlers for a more comprehensive build pipeline.The addition of
DBSchemaHandler,UXSMSHandler, andBackendCodeHandlerimports enhances the build sequence by providing database schema handling and backend code generation capabilities.
56-60: Good addition of database schema handling.Adding the
DBSchemaHandlernode expands the build sequence capabilities to include database schema management, which is a logical extension of the pipeline after database requirements.
66-69: Good addition of backend code generation.The new
BackendCodeHandlernode complements the existing code generation pipeline by adding backend code generation capabilities, which is essential for a comprehensive fullstack code generation system.backend/template/template-backend/package.json (5)
2-2: Good modernization using ES modules.Setting
"type": "module"enables using ES modules natively in Node.js, which is a modern approach that aligns with current JavaScript practices.
6-6: Simplified entry point configuration.Changing the main entry point from "dist/index.js" to "index.js" eliminates the need for a build step, which simplifies the template structure.
8-10: Improved development workflow with helpful scripts.The updated scripts provide:
- A simplified start command that matches the new main entry point
- A new dev script using nodemon for automatic reloading during development
- A check script for syntax validation without execution
These changes improve the developer experience when using this template.
18-20: Good addition of essential backend dependencies.Adding
dotenvfor environment variable management andjsonwebtokenfor authentication support enhances the template's functionality for common backend requirements.
26-26: Simplified dev dependencies for easier maintenance.Removing TypeScript-related dependencies and keeping only nodemon reduces complexity and makes the template more straightforward to use.
backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/index.ts (4)
20-22: Improved code reusability through generalized class naming.Renaming
FrontendQueueProcessortoCodeQueueProcessorand importingCodeValidatorinstead ofFrontendCodeValidatorindicates these components have been generalized for broader use, which is good for code reuse between frontend and backend processing.
161-161: Enhanced code generation with backend requirements focus.Replacing
uxDataMapDocwithbackendRequirementDocin thegenerateFileCodemethod shifts the focus to API contracts and backend requirements, which likely provides more relevant context for frontend code generation that needs to interact with APIs.
295-304: Improved interaction flow for API documentation.The new messages added for API documentation create a more natural conversation flow with the LLM, guiding it to focus on API requirements when generating frontend code.
198-205: Added context parameter for more flexible queue processing.The addition of the 'frontend' parameter to the
CodeQueueProcessorconstructor indicates this component is now handling different types of code (frontend/backend), making it more versatile.backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeValidator.ts (4)
14-15: Good refactoring to a more generic validator.Renaming from
FrontendCodeValidatortoCodeValidatormakes this class more generic and reusable across different parts of the application, improving code organization.
20-25: Well-designed constructor with backward compatibility.The refactored constructor:
- Renames
frontendPathto the more genericprojectPath- Adds a new optional
projectPartparameter- Includes a default value of 'frontend' for backward compatibility
This approach maintains existing functionality while enabling new use cases.
39-50: Good implementation of conditional validation logic.The added conditional logic intelligently chooses the appropriate validation command based on the project part:
- For frontend: runs
npm run build(likely for compiled code)- For other parts (e.g., backend): runs
npm run check(likely for interpreted code)This approach addresses the different validation needs of various project components.
81-83: Improved logging with context information.Updating the log messages to include the
projectPartprovides more informative logs, which helps with debugging and monitoring, especially when handling different types of code validation.backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts (9)
4-4: Add parameter usage check.The new
dbSchemaparameter is introduced but ensure it is utilized downstream. If you are already using it in the generated prompt or further logic, that's fine. Otherwise, consider removing it to prevent confusion.
10-12: Clear introduction to the prompt.The new intro lines provide a concise and well-scoped prompt. Nicely done.
33-37: Proper emphasis on public vs authenticated endpoints.This added clarification should help avoid confusion about authentication requirements. Good addition.
40-40: Neat instruction on prompt bounding.Requiring "" tags makes extracting the generated content easier. This is a helpful approach.
43-43: No concerns.
47-47: No concerns.
51-51: No concerns.
53-58: No concerns.
60-63: No concerns.backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/requirements-document/prompt.ts (3)
13-19: Explicit requirements reduce scope creep.Requiring only explicitly mentioned features is a good way to keep the design concise and consistent with the UX Datamap. Nicely done.
62-65: Strict data privacy guardrails.These lines effectively ensure you only consider security requirements for truly sensitive or explicitly requested data. This is a helpful constraint.
99-100: Selective approach for access control.This refinement ensures no unnecessary authentication logic is introduced. Good job.
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/index.ts (9)
14-15: New imports seem valid.Ensuring we import
DBSchemaHandlerandMessageInterfaceis consistent with the new code references.
33-34: Updated dependencies in the BuildNodeRequire.Revising required handlers to include
DBSchemaHandleris in line with the new approach.
37-37: Updated generic type.Changing the handler output type to
Promise<BuildResult<string>>aligns with the new requirement to return a single text output.
48-48: Fetching new dbSchema node data.Pulling
dbSchemafromDBSchemaHandlerclarifies the updated approach for database-related data.
50-56: Improved error feedback.Including
dbSchemachecks in the missing parameters log is consistent and helpful for debugging.
62-62: Prompt arguments updated.This ensures the
generateBackendOverviewPromptcall is consistent with new parameter usage.
69-95: Multiple user messages for clarity.Splitting content into multiple message objects is a clear way to structure the chat input. This fosters better context for each step.
104-104: No concerns.
116-116: Clean final data.Removing code fences from the output helps produce a cleaner string result. Good approach.
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/prompt.ts (8)
5-5: fileType defaults to 'Javascript'.Using a capital “J” is fine if consistent. Double-check that other references to fileType match the same case.
9-11: Dependency versions updated.Upgrading or simplifying dependencies (sqlite3, express, jsonwebtoken) is a clear approach. Good job verifying compatibility.
25-28: Refined introduction for single-file code generation.This text clarifies the "Role" and "Task" for code generation. A well-structured prompt.
51-51: Middleware detail is helpful.Suggesting CORS usage is beneficial, but confirm if the project needs extra security configurations.
54-54: Clarity on schema loading path.Explicitly requiring schema execution from
./schema.sqlis a thoughtful approach.
95-117: SQLite guidelines.Nicely covers both basic and performance-critical use cases. Encouraging prepared statements is a solid best practice.
166-167: No concerns.
168-176: Structured output format.The
<GENERATE>tag usage ensures consistent extraction of generated code. Good addition.backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts (18)
10-10: No issues found for the comment update aboutCodeValidatorusage.
28-28: Ensure alignment of import path.
The import path toCodeValidatorlooks correct. Verify that./CodeValidatorstill exists and exports the symbol properly if recently renamed.
60-60: Docblock maintenance.
Using “QueueProcessor” in the doc comment is consistent with the newly renamed class. No issues here.
64-64: Confirm code comment consistency.
This note accurately documents the usage ofCodeValidator. Looks good.
69-70: Renamed class and logger.
The rename fromFrontendQueueProcessortoCodeQueueProcessorclarifies broader usage beyond frontend. The logger name is consistent with the new class.
73-73: Constructor parameter typed withCodeValidator.
Ensure that all references tovalidatorin your codebase handle the correct type.
109-109: File resolution usingpath.resolve.
This is correct for ensuring absolute paths. No issues found.
133-133: Fixing file withfixFileGeneric.
This extraction into a separate method is a good design choice, promoting modularity.
141-141: Re-resolving newly renamed file path.
This logic to update the file path after a fix attempt looks appropriate.
189-190: Dependency injection for project path and rename map.
PassingprojectPathandrenameMapoffers improved flexibility for file operations. No immediate concerns.
200-200: Model changed to'gpt-4o-mini'.
Make sure this is consistent with usage throughout the codebase if the model was revised.
201-201: User messages configuration.
Ensure the message array is correct and tested, so the LLM receives the entire prompt context.
237-238: Naming clarity for LLM calls.
When callingchatSyncWithClocker, these descriptive labels are helpful for debugging.
259-260: File reading with correct encoding.
Usingpath.resolveand'utf-8'is standard. No concerns here.
272-274: Conditional logging ofcommonIssuePrompt.
Includes the prompt only for'frontend'. Confirm if'backend'also needs similar logic.
280-281: Different model usage.
Swapping'o3-mini-high'vs.'gpt-4o-mini'is OK, but confirm you’re aligned with your final LLM choice.
305-306: EmbeddingcommonIssuePromptconditionally.
Combining dynamic text in the string is a concise approach—just ensure the prompt’s correct usage.
323-323: Secondary label for LLM call.
Reference label'CodeQueueProcessor'is consistent with previous usage.backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/code-generate/index.ts (9)
18-25: New imports for queue-based code generation approach.
Imports likeMessageInterface,CodeQueueProcessor,CodeTaskQueue, andCodeValidatorappear to unify the new queue-driven workflow. This is a cleaner approach than older direct file writes.
32-33: Simplified@BuildNodeRequire.
Removing or adjusting additional dependencies here is valid if they are no longer necessary for backend generation. Double check it does not break references to the removedUXSMDHandlerin other parts.
34-34:BackendCodeHandlerupdate.
Renaming or refactoring references in the class is consistent with the new approach. Validate thoroughly in tests.
36-36: Logger usage.
Introducing a logger is highly recommended for tracing. Looks good.
63-66: Initializing validator and queue.
Creating aCodeValidatorandCodeTaskQueueis aligned with the new queue-based architecture. The'backend'input for the validator clarifies the project part—this is consistent with your approach.
120-125: Swapped out the model for'o3-mini-high'.
Ensure that this choice is consistent across the entire backend pipeline for uniform generation.
126-138: Queueing generated code.
Removing direct file writes and shifting toenqueueis a welcome approach for staged processing. This offers more flexibility for build-fix loops.
144-153: InstantiatingCodeQueueProcessorand processing tasks.
This code triggers the queue to handle build validation and error fixing. Good modular design. Verify integration with other backend steps.
160-161: Return statement.
ReturninggeneratedCodeensures clarity for the final build result. Looks good.
| export const initializeDatabase = async () => { | ||
| try { | ||
| // Ensure directory exists | ||
| const dbDir = path.dirname(dbPath); | ||
| logger.info(dbDir); | ||
| if (!fs.existsSync(dbDir)) { | ||
| fs.mkdirSync(dbDir, { recursive: true }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Open the database | ||
| const db = await open({ | ||
| filename: dbPath, | ||
| driver: sqlite3.Database, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Enable foreign keys | ||
| await db.exec('PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON'); | ||
|
|
||
| logger.info('Database initialized successfully'); | ||
| return db; | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| logger.error('Database initialization failed', error); | ||
| throw error; | ||
| } | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Database initialization function well-structured but missing connection management.
The initialization function is well-organized with proper error handling, but it lacks database connection management features.
Two important additions would improve this implementation:
- Add a mechanism to close the database connection
- Implement connection pooling or singleton pattern to prevent multiple connections
Consider adding a function to close the connection:
+export const closeDatabase = async (db) => {
+ try {
+ await db.close();
+ logger.info('Database connection closed successfully');
+ } catch (error) {
+ logger.error('Error closing database connection', error);
+ throw error;
+ }
+};📝 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.
| export const initializeDatabase = async () => { | |
| try { | |
| // Ensure directory exists | |
| const dbDir = path.dirname(dbPath); | |
| logger.info(dbDir); | |
| if (!fs.existsSync(dbDir)) { | |
| fs.mkdirSync(dbDir, { recursive: true }); | |
| } | |
| // Open the database | |
| const db = await open({ | |
| filename: dbPath, | |
| driver: sqlite3.Database, | |
| }); | |
| // Enable foreign keys | |
| await db.exec('PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON'); | |
| logger.info('Database initialized successfully'); | |
| return db; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| logger.error('Database initialization failed', error); | |
| throw error; | |
| } | |
| }; | |
| export const initializeDatabase = async () => { | |
| try { | |
| // Ensure directory exists | |
| const dbDir = path.dirname(dbPath); | |
| logger.info(dbDir); | |
| if (!fs.existsSync(dbDir)) { | |
| fs.mkdirSync(dbDir, { recursive: true }); | |
| } | |
| // Open the database | |
| const db = await open({ | |
| filename: dbPath, | |
| driver: sqlite3.Database, | |
| }); | |
| // Enable foreign keys | |
| await db.exec('PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON'); | |
| logger.info('Database initialized successfully'); | |
| return db; | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| logger.error('Database initialization failed', error); | |
| throw error; | |
| } | |
| }; | |
| export const closeDatabase = async (db) => { | |
| try { | |
| await db.close(); | |
| logger.info('Database connection closed successfully'); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| logger.error('Error closing database connection', error); | |
| throw error; | |
| } | |
| }; |
| import { isIntegrationTest } from 'src/common/utils'; | ||
| import { BuildSequence } from '../types'; | ||
| import { ProjectInitHandler } from '../handlers/project-init'; | ||
| import { PRDHandler } from '../handlers/product-manager/product-requirements-document/prd'; | ||
| import { UXSMDHandler } from '../handlers/ux/sitemap-document'; | ||
| import { DBRequirementHandler } from '../handlers/database/requirements-document'; | ||
| import { UXDMDHandler } from '../handlers/ux/datamap'; | ||
| import { BuilderContext } from '../context'; | ||
| import { DBSchemaHandler } from '../handlers/database/schemas/schemas'; | ||
| import { BackendRequirementHandler } from '../handlers/backend/requirements-document'; | ||
| import { BackendCodeHandler } from '../handlers/backend/code-generate'; | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix import path error from pipeline failure.
The pipeline is failing with error: TS2307: Cannot find module 'codefox-common' or its corresponding type declarations. Check for the correct import path for isIntegrationTest.
-import { isIntegrationTest } from 'src/common/utils';
+import { isIntegrationTest } from '../../../common/utils';📝 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.
| import { isIntegrationTest } from 'src/common/utils'; | |
| import { BuildSequence } from '../types'; | |
| import { ProjectInitHandler } from '../handlers/project-init'; | |
| import { PRDHandler } from '../handlers/product-manager/product-requirements-document/prd'; | |
| import { UXSMDHandler } from '../handlers/ux/sitemap-document'; | |
| import { DBRequirementHandler } from '../handlers/database/requirements-document'; | |
| import { UXDMDHandler } from '../handlers/ux/datamap'; | |
| import { BuilderContext } from '../context'; | |
| import { DBSchemaHandler } from '../handlers/database/schemas/schemas'; | |
| import { BackendRequirementHandler } from '../handlers/backend/requirements-document'; | |
| import { BackendCodeHandler } from '../handlers/backend/code-generate'; | |
| import { isIntegrationTest } from '../../../common/utils'; | |
| import { BuildSequence } from '../types'; | |
| import { ProjectInitHandler } from '../handlers/project-init'; | |
| import { PRDHandler } from '../handlers/product-manager/product-requirements-document/prd'; | |
| import { UXSMDHandler } from '../handlers/ux/sitemap-document'; | |
| import { DBRequirementHandler } from '../handlers/database/requirements-document'; | |
| import { UXDMDHandler } from '../handlers/ux/datamap'; | |
| import { BuilderContext } from '../context'; | |
| import { DBSchemaHandler } from '../handlers/database/schemas/schemas'; | |
| import { BackendRequirementHandler } from '../handlers/backend/requirements-document'; | |
| import { BackendCodeHandler } from '../handlers/backend/code-generate'; |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Run tests and upload coverage
[error] 4-4: TS2307: Cannot find module 'codefox-common' or its corresponding type declarations.
| // // { | ||
| // // handler: BackendFileStructureAndArchitectureHandler, | ||
| // // name: 'Backend File Structure and Architecture', | ||
| // // }, | ||
| { | ||
| handler: BackendCodeHandler, | ||
| name: 'Backend Code Generator Node', | ||
| }, | ||
| // { | ||
| // handler: BackendFileReviewHandler, | ||
| // name: 'Backend File review Node', | ||
| // }, | ||
| // { | ||
| // handler: FrontendCodeHandler, | ||
| // name: 'Frontend Code Generator Node', | ||
| // }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Consider completing the test by uncommenting additional handlers.
The test has several commented out handlers which suggests incomplete testing. Consider either uncommenting these handlers if they're meant to be part of the test or removing the commented code if they're not needed.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if the commented handlers are implemented and available
echo "Checking if BackendFileStructureAndArchitectureHandler exists:"
find backend/src -name "*backend-file-struct*" -o -name "*backend-architecture*"
echo "Checking if BackendFileReviewHandler exists:"
find backend/src -name "*file-review*"
echo "Checking if FrontendCodeHandler exists:"
find backend/src -name "*frontend*code*"Length of output: 807
Action: Finalize test coverage for all handlers
Our verification confirms that the implementations for the commented handlers exist in the repository. In the test file (backend/src/build-system/tests/backend-gen.spec.ts), aside from the active test for Backend Code Generator Node, the following handlers are commented out:
BackendFileStructureAndArchitectureHandlerBackendFileReviewHandlerFrontendCodeHandler
To ensure comprehensive testing and maintain code clarity, please either:
- Uncomment these handlers if they are intended to be covered by the test, or
- Remove the commented-out code if these handlers are not meant to be part of the test.
| // /** | ||
| // * Simple logger utility for application logging | ||
| // */ | ||
| // export const logger = { | ||
| // info: (message: string) => { | ||
| // console.log(`[INFO] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | ||
| // }, | ||
| // error: (message: string, error?: any) => { | ||
| // console.error(`[ERROR] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | ||
| // if (error) { | ||
| // console.error(error); | ||
| // } | ||
| // }, | ||
| // warn: (message: string) => { | ||
| // console.warn(`[WARN] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | ||
| // }, | ||
| // debug: (message: string) => { | ||
| // if (process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production') { | ||
| // console.debug(`[DEBUG] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | ||
| // } | ||
| // }, | ||
| // }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove commented code or uncomment the logger implementation.
The entire file contains commented code, making it non-functional. Either uncomment the logger implementation if it's intended to be used or remove the file entirely.
Uncomment the logger implementation if this is intended to be a working file:
-// /**
-// * Simple logger utility for application logging
-// */
-// export const logger = {
-// info: (message: string) => {
-// console.log(`[INFO] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
-// },
-// error: (message: string, error?: any) => {
-// console.error(`[ERROR] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
-// if (error) {
-// console.error(error);
-// }
-// },
-// warn: (message: string) => {
-// console.warn(`[WARN] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
-// },
-// debug: (message: string) => {
-// if (process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production') {
-// console.debug(`[DEBUG] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
-// }
-// },
-// };
+/**
+ * Simple logger utility for application logging
+ */
+export const logger = {
+ info: (message: string) => {
+ console.log(`[INFO] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
+ },
+ error: (message: string, error?: any) => {
+ console.error(`[ERROR] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
+ if (error) {
+ console.error(error);
+ }
+ },
+ warn: (message: string) => {
+ console.warn(`[WARN] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
+ },
+ debug: (message: string) => {
+ if (process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production') {
+ console.debug(`[DEBUG] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`);
+ }
+ },
+};📝 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.
| // /** | |
| // * Simple logger utility for application logging | |
| // */ | |
| // export const logger = { | |
| // info: (message: string) => { | |
| // console.log(`[INFO] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| // }, | |
| // error: (message: string, error?: any) => { | |
| // console.error(`[ERROR] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| // if (error) { | |
| // console.error(error); | |
| // } | |
| // }, | |
| // warn: (message: string) => { | |
| // console.warn(`[WARN] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| // }, | |
| // debug: (message: string) => { | |
| // if (process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production') { | |
| // console.debug(`[DEBUG] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| // } | |
| // }, | |
| // }; | |
| /** | |
| * Simple logger utility for application logging | |
| */ | |
| export const logger = { | |
| info: (message: string) => { | |
| console.log(`[INFO] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| }, | |
| error: (message: string, error?: any) => { | |
| console.error(`[ERROR] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| if (error) { | |
| console.error(error); | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| warn: (message: string) => { | |
| console.warn(`[WARN] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| }, | |
| debug: (message: string) => { | |
| if (process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'production') { | |
| console.debug(`[DEBUG] ${new Date().toISOString()}: ${message}`); | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| }; |
| context.getNodeData(BackendRequirementHandler) || ''; | ||
| const backendPath = context.getGlobalContext('backendPath'); | ||
| this.logger.log('backendPath: ' + backendPath); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Retrieving backendRequirementDoc and backendPath.
Confirm that backendRequirementDoc is the correct format. The pipeline complains about overview usage. Be sure it’s an object if you plan to call backendRequirementDoc.overview.
Use a condition or transform your code to remove .overview if backendRequirementDoc is just a string:
- const backendRequirementDoc = context.getNodeData(BackendRequirementHandler) || '';
- ...
- const someText = backendRequirementDoc.overview;
+ const backendRequirementDocData = context.getNodeData(BackendRequirementHandler);
+ // If the data is simply a string, remove references to .overviewCommittable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🔭 Outside diff range comments (2)
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts (1)
29-29:⚠️ Potential issueInconsistency with removed sitemapDoc parameter.
Line 29 still references SiteMap as an input source for API endpoints, but according to the AI summary, the
sitemapDocparameter has been removed. This may cause confusion in the generated content.- 3. Define API endpoints based on: - - Database entity relationships - - Frontend data requirements from the DataMap - - Site structure and navigation flows from the SiteMap + 3. Define API endpoints based on: + - Database entity relationships and schema + - Frontend data requirements from the DataMapbackend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts (1)
196-201: 💡 Verification agent🧩 Analysis chain
Update model name to match actual API usage.
The model name 'o3-mini-high' should be updated to match the AI summary mention of model changing to 'gpt-4o-mini'. The same applies to the second instance at line 278.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check where the model is being used in the codebase and what the expected value is # Search for o3-mini-high to see if it's used elsewhere rg "o3-mini-high" --type ts # Search for gpt-4o-mini references to see if that's the intended replacement rg "gpt-4o-mini" --type ts # Look at the chatSyncWithClocker function to see what models it accepts rg -A 10 "chatSyncWithClocker\s*=\s*" --type tsLength of output: 2839
Action: Update Model Reference in CodeReview.ts
Please update the model name from
'o3-mini-high'to'gpt-4o-mini'in thechatSyncWithClockercall. Specifically, change the model value at lines 196–201 and the second instance at line 278 to ensure consistency with the current API usage as seen in the rest of the codebase.
🧹 Nitpick comments (13)
backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/prompt.ts (3)
29-32: Consider making the backend address configurable rather than hardcoded.Hardcoding "localhost:3000" in the prompt may cause issues in different environments (development, staging, production). It would be better to make this value configurable.
Consider updating the function signature to accept a
backendUrlparameter:export function generateFrontEndCodePrompt( currentFile: string, dependencyFilePath: string, theme: string, + backendUrl: string = "localhost:3000", ): string { // ... 13. API Documentation: // ... - The backend address is "localhost:3000". + The backend address is "${backendUrl}".This would allow the calling code to specify the appropriate backend URL based on the current environment.
29-32: Enhance API documentation guidance with more comprehensive instructions.The current API documentation section lacks important details about handling API responses, authentication, and error cases.
Consider expanding the API documentation instructions to cover more aspects:
13. API Documentation: If user provided, read carfully details in Api Document remeber to use correct request format then use the api. Use the correct method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint. Do not use Options. The backend address is "localhost:3000". + - Handle API responses appropriately, including loading states and error scenarios. + - If authentication is required, ensure you include the necessary headers or tokens. + - Consider implementing retry logic for failed API calls when appropriate. + - Use proper data typing for request payloads and response objects.
29-32: Connect this new API documentation section with the existing error handling instruction.In line 24, there's already an error handling instruction for API calls, but the new API documentation section doesn't reference or build upon it.
8. Error Handling: Implement proper error handling in API calls and interactions with external modules. // ... 13. API Documentation: If user provided, read carfully details in Api Document remeber to use correct request format then use the api. Use the correct method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint. Do not use Options. The backend address is "localhost:3000". + Refer to instruction 8 for implementing proper error handling in your API calls.backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts (2)
10-13: Default dependencies are now explicitly defined in the function body.Moving default dependencies inside the function makes them accessible within the prompt template, allowing for clearer documentation. However, consider extracting these values to a configuration file to improve maintainability.
- const defaultDependencies = { - sqlite3: '^5', - express: '^4', - }; + import { DEFAULT_BACKEND_DEPENDENCIES } from '../../../config/dependencies';
44-65: Restructured API documentation format.The new format for API documentation is more structured and JSON-oriented, which should make it easier to parse and use programmatically. The explicit categorization of request/response components will lead to more consistent outputs.
However, the response structure provides minimal guidance on what should be included in "success" and "errors" objects.
Response: { "success": {}, "errors": {} }Could be enhanced to:
Response: { "success": { - "status": 200, - "data": { "example response fields": "values" } }, "errors": { - "status": 400, - "message": "Example error message" } }backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/prompt.ts (1)
99-106: Fix minor typographical error.
There is a typo "appliaction" instead of "application" in line 101.Apply this diff to correct it:
-2. Mock data should relate to the purpose of the appliaction. +2. Mock data should relate to the purpose of the application.backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts (7)
2-12: Update file documentation to match the new class name.The file header still references the old class name "FrontendQueueProcessor" while the implementation has been renamed to "CodeQueueProcessor". Also, line 10 mentions "CodeValidator" which matches the import but doesn't match the original class name in the comment.
-/** - * FrontendQueueProcessor.ts - * - * This file defines: - * 1) The `FileTask` interface, which describes the basic structure - * of tasks that the queue will handle. - * 2) The `CodeTaskQueue` class, a simple FIFO queue for tasks. - * 3) The `FrontendQueueProcessor` class, which orchestrates: - * - Writing files - * - Validating builds via `CodeValidator` - * - Attempting fixes (via LLM) if builds fail - */ +/** + * CodeReview.ts + * + * This file defines: + * 1) The `FileTask` interface, which describes the basic structure + * of tasks that the queue will handle. + * 2) The `CodeTaskQueue` class, a simple FIFO queue for tasks. + * 3) The `CodeQueueProcessor` class, which orchestrates: + * - Writing files + * - Validating builds via `CodeValidator` + * - Attempting fixes (via LLM) if builds fail + */
59-68: Update class documentation comment to match new class name.The comment block still refers to "QueueProcessor" rather than "CodeQueueProcessor".
/** - * QueueProcessor + * CodeQueueProcessor * * * This class orchestrates how each `FileTask` is handled: * 1. Writes the file content to disk. * 2. Runs a build/validation step (via `CodeValidator`). * 3. If there is a build error, attempts to fix the file by * invoking an LLM and performing the suggested operations. * 4. Repeats until build succeeds or max attempts are reached. */
270-272: Make conditional logging more informative.The current logging statement only outputs the
commonIssuePromptcontent ifprojectPart === 'frontend', but doesn't provide context for why this is being logged or what it contains.-this.logger.log( - this.projectPart === 'frontend' ? commonIssuePrompt : '', -); +if (this.projectPart === 'frontend') { + this.logger.log('Applied frontend common issue checks: ' + commonIssuePrompt); +}
306-307: Better handling of conditional prompt inclusion.The conditional inclusion of
commonIssuePromptis good, but the formatting makes the code less readable.- Let me check some common issue to make sure my thinking is correct ${this.projectPart === 'frontend' ? commonIssuePrompt : ''}. + Let me check some common issue to make sure my thinking is correct${this.projectPart === 'frontend' ? ' ' + commonIssuePrompt : ''}. I must follow the output format`,
153-161: Consider implementing a more robust fallback strategy.The code has commented out the error throwing logic, opting instead to log an error and continue. While this prevents the entire process from failing, it might lead to silent failures if multiple files have build issues.
Consider tracking failed files and providing a summary at the end of processing:
+ private failedFiles: string[] = []; + private async processSingleTask(task: FileTask): Promise<void> { // ... existing code ... // If we reached here, we failed all attempts - // if we want to end all generate - // throw new Error( - // `Failed to fix build for file ${task.filePath} after ${maxFixAttempts} attempts.`, - // ); - - // if we dont want to end the process this.logger.error( `Failed to fix build for file ${task.filePath} after ${maxFixAttempts} attempts.`, ); + this.failedFiles.push(task.filePath); } + public async processAllTasks(): Promise<void> { + // ... existing code ... + + this.logger.log('All tasks processed successfully!'); + + if (this.failedFiles.length > 0) { + this.logger.warn(`${this.failedFiles.length} files failed to build:`); + this.failedFiles.forEach(file => this.logger.warn(` - ${file}`)); + } + }
277-318: Consider refactoring duplicate LLM call logic.There are two very similar calls to
chatSyncWithClockerwith almost identical message structures. This could be refactored to reduce duplication.Extract the common structure to a helper method:
private async getFixResponseFromLLM( fixPrompt: string, originalContent: string, rawErrorText: string, dependenciesContent: string = '' ): Promise<string> { const messages = [ { role: 'system', content: fixPrompt }, { role: 'user', content: `## Current Code \n ${originalContent}\n `, }, { role: 'user', content: `## Error messages: \n ${rawErrorText}`, }, { role: 'assistant', content: "Good, now provider your Internal dependencies, it's okay dependencies are empty, which means you don't have any dependencies", }, { role: 'user', content: dependenciesContent, }, { role: 'assistant', content: `Let me analysis the current file. Why error message occour ${dependenciesContent ? 'This time I shouldn\'t use the read tool because previous context already use it.' : ''} Let me check some common issue to make sure my thinking is correct ${this.projectPart === 'frontend' ? commonIssuePrompt : ''}. I must follow the output format`, }, { role: 'user', content: `Now you should start fix the current code error.`, }, { role: 'assistant', content: `Let me check my result and I must follow the output format`, }, ]; return await chatSyncWithClocker( this.context, { model: 'o3-mini-high', messages, }, 'fix code (generic)', 'CodeQueueProcessor', ); }
105-161: Consider adding retry mechanism with exponential backoff.The current implementation makes a fixed number of attempts to fix a file. Consider implementing an exponential backoff strategy to handle more complex fixes.
Here's a suggestion for implementing an exponential backoff strategy:
private async processSingleTask(task: FileTask): Promise<void> { this.logger.log(`Processing file task: ${task.filePath}`); let currentFullFilePath = normalizePath( path.resolve(this.projectPath, task.filePath), ); // 1. Write the file to disk await createFileWithRetries(currentFullFilePath, task.fileContents); - const maxFixAttempts = 2; + const maxFixAttempts = 3; + const initialWaitTime = 500; // milliseconds for (let attempt = 1; attempt <= maxFixAttempts; attempt++) { const validationResult = await this.validator.validate(); if (validationResult.success) { this.logger.log( `File ${task.filePath} build succeeded on attempt #${attempt}.`, ); return; // done, move on } this.logger.warn( `Build failed on attempt #${attempt} for file ${task.filePath}.`, ); // 3. Fix the file try { const newFilePath = await this.fixFileGeneric( currentFullFilePath, task, validationResult.error ?? '', ); if (newFilePath !== null) { task.filePath = newFilePath; currentFullFilePath = normalizePath( path.resolve(this.projectPath, newFilePath), ); } + + // If we're not on the last attempt, wait with exponential backoff + if (attempt < maxFixAttempts) { + const waitTime = initialWaitTime * Math.pow(2, attempt - 1); + this.logger.log(`Waiting ${waitTime}ms before next attempt...`); + await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, waitTime)); + } } catch (error) { this.logger.error( 'Fix File Generic failed, get error: ' + error.messages, ); } } // If we reached here, we failed all attempts this.logger.error( `Failed to fix build for file ${task.filePath} after ${maxFixAttempts} attempts.`, ); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts(2 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/prompt.ts(3 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/schemas.ts(4 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts(12 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeValidator.ts(4 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/index.ts(6 hunks)backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/prompt.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/index.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: autofix
🔇 Additional comments (11)
backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts (4)
3-4: Added new dbSchema parameter while removing sitemapDoc parameter.This change appears to better reflect the architectural approach by focusing on database schema rather than sitemap for backend code generation. This aligns with best practices where backend API design is driven more by data structures than frontend navigation.
14-14: Improved prompt structure with clear role definition.Starting with "Role:" creates a clearer instruction format for LLMs, which can improve the quality of generated content.
16-16: Task description improves prompt clarity.The explicit "Task:" label helps structure the prompt and provides better context for the LLM.
41-41:The updated format using `` and `` appears to be safe based on our search, which did not find any references to the old code block delimiter (` ```BackendOverview`). However, please manually verify that any parser or dependent code expecting the previous format has been updated to support the new delimiters.❓ Verification inconclusive
Changed response format delimiter.
Switching from code block format to tagged format (
<GENERATE>and</GENERATE>) may impact existing code that parses the response. Ensure that the parser has been updated accordingly.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if other parts of the codebase expect the previous format rg "```BackendOverview" --type tsLength of output: 116
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Re-run the search with improved quoting to check for usage of the old code block format ("```BackendOverview") # in TypeScript files to ensure our parser delimiter change does not negatively impact the code. rg '```BackendOverview' --type tsLength of output: 35
backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/prompt.ts (1)
89-89: Rename is more descriptive.
This updated heading clarifies the context of the generation rules.backend/src/build-system/handlers/database/schemas/schemas.ts (1)
107-107: Verify forced 'sqlite3' validator usage.
The validator is always initialized with'sqlite3', which may not reflect the user’s chosendatabaseType. Confirm that this is intentional and that it will not cause confusion for non-sqlite3 builds.backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeValidator.ts (4)
10-13: Documentation update confirms broader scope.
Renaming from frontend-specific to universal usage is a positive improvement, ensuring the docs reflect the new scope of code validation.
14-25: Constructor signature enhancement looks good.
PassingprojectPartextends the validator to multiple use cases (frontend, backend, or other). This is cleaner than separate specialized validators.
87-89: Logging improvement is helpful.
Provides clearer indication of which step completed successfully.
104-106: NPM dependency installation logs are more explicit.
Logging the path clarifies where installation occurs, aiding debugging.backend/src/build-system/handlers/frontend-code-generate/CodeReview.ts (1)
73-77: Good refactoring to make the class more generic.The refactoring of the parameter names and addition of
projectPartmakes the class more flexible and reusable across different parts of the project, not just frontend.
| 13. API Documentation: | ||
| If user provided, read carfully details in Api Document remeber to use correct request format then use the api. | ||
| Use the correct method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint. Do not use Options. | ||
| The backend address is "localhost:3000". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Fix typos and improve clarity in API documentation instructions.
The API documentation section contains several typos and unclear instructions that could lead to confusion:
- "carfully" → "carefully"
- "remeber" → "remember"
- "Api Document" → "API documentation"
- The sentence structure in line 30 is awkward and hard to understand
13. API Documentation:
- If user provided, read carfully details in Api Document remeber to use correct request format then use the api.
- Use the correct method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint. Do not use Options.
- The backend address is "localhost:3000".
+ If API documentation is provided by the user, read it carefully to understand the endpoints and request formats.
+ Always use the correct HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint as specified in the documentation. Do not use OPTIONS.
+ The backend address is "localhost:3000".📝 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.
| 13. API Documentation: | |
| If user provided, read carfully details in Api Document remeber to use correct request format then use the api. | |
| Use the correct method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint. Do not use Options. | |
| The backend address is "localhost:3000". | |
| 13. API Documentation: | |
| If API documentation is provided by the user, read it carefully to understand the endpoints and request formats. | |
| Always use the correct HTTP method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) and endpoint as specified in the documentation. Do not use OPTIONS. | |
| The backend address is "localhost:3000". |
| ${sitemapDoc} | ||
| Generate a Backend Overview Document following these guidelines: | ||
| - Key Packages: ${JSON.stringify(defaultDependencies)} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential issue with package handling.
The code is now using defaultDependencies but ignores the packages parameter that's passed into the function. This could lead to custom packages being ignored in the prompt.
- - Key Packages: ${JSON.stringify(defaultDependencies)}
+ - Key Packages: ${JSON.stringify({...defaultDependencies, ...packages})}📝 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.
| - Key Packages: ${JSON.stringify(defaultDependencies)} | |
| // ... previous lines of code (if any) | |
| Key Packages: ${JSON.stringify({...defaultDependencies, ...packages})} | |
| // ... subsequent lines of code (if any) |
| 5. IMPORTANT: Carefully differentiate between public and authenticated endpoints: | ||
| - Public endpoints (No Auth) | ||
| 6. For authenticated endpoints only, include authentication in the headers section using "Authorization": "Bearer {token}" | ||
| 7. Don't add authentication requirements to public-facing read operations (GET requests for viewing content) | ||
| 8. Do not add login when no documentation mentioned. | ||
| 9. It MUST be COMPLETE DO NOTE write TODO, and Future for api. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Enhanced authentication guidance for API endpoints.
The added instructions provide clearer direction on handling authentication in the generated API documentation, which is a significant improvement. However, there's a grammatical error in line 39.
- 9. It MUST be COMPLETE DO NOTE write TODO, and Future for api.
+ 9. It MUST be COMPLETE. DO NOT write TODO or mention future work for API endpoints.Also, line 35 mentions "Public endpoints (No Auth)" but doesn't fully complete the thought or provide a counterpart for authenticated endpoints.
I'll run a shell script to display lines 34–39 from the file so we can verify the current content (and confirm the grammatical error and any wording gaps in the public versus authenticated endpoints guidance). Please run the following script:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
echo "Extracting lines 34 to 39 from 'backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.ts':"
sed -n '34,39p' backend/src/build-system/handlers/backend/requirements-document/prompt.tsLength of output: 782
Enhanced Authentication Guidance for API Endpoints
- Grammar Correction (Line 9):
Please update line 9 to:- 9. It MUST be COMPLETE DO NOTE write TODO, and Future for api. + 9. It MUST be COMPLETE. DO NOT write TODO or mention future work for API endpoints.
- Clarification on Endpoint Guidance:
Although authenticated endpoints are clearly described in line 6, the bullet for public endpoints ("Public endpoints (No Auth)") feels incomplete. Consider expanding or reformatting this section so that both public and authenticated endpoints have symmetric and clear instructions. For example, you might explicitly state that public endpoints should not include any authentication headers, mirroring the detailed guidance provided for authenticated endpoints.
📝 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.
| 5. IMPORTANT: Carefully differentiate between public and authenticated endpoints: | |
| - Public endpoints (No Auth) | |
| 6. For authenticated endpoints only, include authentication in the headers section using "Authorization": "Bearer {token}" | |
| 7. Don't add authentication requirements to public-facing read operations (GET requests for viewing content) | |
| 8. Do not add login when no documentation mentioned. | |
| 9. It MUST be COMPLETE DO NOTE write TODO, and Future for api. | |
| 5. IMPORTANT: Carefully differentiate between public and authenticated endpoints: | |
| - Public endpoints (No Auth) | |
| 6. For authenticated endpoints only, include authentication in the headers section using "Authorization": "Bearer {token}" | |
| 7. Don't add authentication requirements to public-facing read operations (GET requests for viewing content) | |
| 8. Do not add login when no documentation mentioned. | |
| 9. It MUST be COMPLETE. DO NOT write TODO or mention future work for API endpoints. |
| -- Mock data for users | ||
| INSERT INTO users (email, username, password_hash, subscription_type) VALUES | ||
| ('user1@example.com', 'user1', 'hash1', 'premium'), | ||
| ('user2@example.com', 'user2', 'hash2', 'free'), | ||
| ('user3@example.com', 'user3', 'hash3', 'premium'), | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Prevent SQL syntax error due to trailing comma.
The trailing comma at line 127 without a final insert row breaks this statement in many SQL engines.
Apply this diff to finalize the last row:
-('user3@example.com', 'user3', 'hash3', 'premium'),
+('user3@example.com', 'user3', 'hash3', 'premium');📝 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.
| -- Mock data for users | |
| INSERT INTO users (email, username, password_hash, subscription_type) VALUES | |
| ('user1@example.com', 'user1', 'hash1', 'premium'), | |
| ('user2@example.com', 'user2', 'hash2', 'free'), | |
| ('user3@example.com', 'user3', 'hash3', 'premium'), | |
| -- Mock data for users | |
| INSERT INTO users (email, username, password_hash, subscription_type) VALUES | |
| ('user1@example.com', 'user1', 'hash1', 'premium'), | |
| ('user2@example.com', 'user2', 'hash2', 'free'), | |
| ('user3@example.com', 'user3', 'hash3', 'premium'); |
| const validationPrompt = prompts.validateDatabaseSchema( | ||
| schemaContent, | ||
| databaseType, | ||
| ); | ||
| try { | ||
| const validationResponse = await chatSyncWithClocker( | ||
| context, | ||
| { | ||
| model: 'gpt-4o-mini', | ||
| messages: [ | ||
| { content: validationPrompt, role: 'system' }, | ||
| { | ||
| role: 'user', | ||
| content: | ||
| 'help me fix my schema code if there is any failed validation, generate full validated version schemas for me, with <GENERATE></GENERATE> xml tag', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| 'validateDatabaseSchema', | ||
| DBSchemaHandler.name, | ||
| ); | ||
| schemaContent = formatResponse(validationResponse); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| throw new ModelUnavailableError( | ||
| `Model unavailable during validation: ${error}`, | ||
| const maxFixAttempts = 2; | ||
| const schemaValidator = new CodeValidator(backendPath, 'sqlite3'); | ||
| for (let attempt = 1; attempt <= maxFixAttempts; attempt++) { | ||
| this.logger.debug('Validating generated schema...'); | ||
|
|
||
| // Write schema to file | ||
| const schemaFileName = `schema.${fileExtension}`; | ||
|
|
||
| try { | ||
| await saveGeneratedCode( | ||
| path.join(uuid, 'backend', schemaFileName), | ||
| schemaContent, | ||
| ); | ||
| this.logger.log( | ||
| `Schema file (${schemaFileName}) written successfully.`, | ||
| ); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| throw new FileWriteError( | ||
| `Failed to write schema file: ${error.message}`, | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const validationResult = await schemaValidator.validate(); | ||
|
|
||
| if (validationResult.success) { | ||
| this.logger.log( | ||
| `Sqlite3 Schema build succeeded on attempt #${attempt}.`, | ||
| ); | ||
| break; // done, move on | ||
| } | ||
| this.logger.warn( | ||
| `Build failed on attempt #${attempt} for file Sqlite3 Schema.`, | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Write schema to file | ||
| const schemaFileName = `schema.${fileExtension}`; | ||
| try { | ||
| saveGeneratedCode( | ||
| path.join(uuid, 'backend', schemaFileName), | ||
| const validationPrompt = prompts.validateDatabaseSchema( | ||
| schemaContent, | ||
| databaseType, | ||
| ); | ||
| this.logger.log( | ||
| `Schema file (${schemaFileName}) written successfully.`, | ||
| ); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| throw new FileWriteError( | ||
| `Failed to write schema file: ${error.message}`, | ||
| ); | ||
| try { | ||
| const validationResponse = await chatSyncWithClocker( | ||
| context, | ||
| { | ||
| model: 'o3-mini-high', | ||
| messages: [ | ||
| { content: validationPrompt, role: 'system' }, | ||
| { | ||
| role: 'user', | ||
| content: `This is the error ${validationResult.error} | ||
| Help me fix my schema code if there is any failed validation, generate full validated version schemas for me, with <GENERATE></GENERATE> xml tag`, | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| 'validateDatabaseSchema', | ||
| DBSchemaHandler.name, | ||
| ); | ||
| schemaContent = formatResponse(validationResponse); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| throw new ModelUnavailableError( | ||
| `Model unavailable during validation: ${error}`, | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure the process fails if each validation attempt fails.
Currently, if both fix attempts fail, the code proceeds to return success: true inadvertently. This logic prevents appropriate error handling.
Consider applying a check after the loop to confirm validation success, for example:
for (let attempt = 1; attempt <= maxFixAttempts; attempt++) {
...
}
- return {
- success: true,
- data: schemaContent,
- };
+ // After attempts finish:
+ if (validationResult && validationResult.success) {
+ return {
+ success: true,
+ data: schemaContent,
+ };
+ } else {
+ return {
+ success: false,
+ error: new Error('Schema validation failed after maximum attempts.'),
+ };
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| this.logger.log(`Starting ${this.projectPart} code validation...`); | ||
| // Spawn the npm build process in the provided project path. | ||
| let npmProcess; | ||
| if (this.projectPart === 'frontend') { | ||
| npmProcess = spawn('npm', ['run', 'build'], { | ||
| cwd: this.projectPath, | ||
| shell: true, | ||
| }); | ||
| } else if (this.projectPart === 'backend') { | ||
| npmProcess = spawn('npm', ['run', 'check'], { | ||
| cwd: this.projectPath, | ||
| shell: true, | ||
| }); | ||
| } else if (this.projectPart === 'sqlite3') { | ||
| // Run SQLite in-memory check on the schema file | ||
| npmProcess = spawn('sqlite3', [':memory:', '".read schema.sql"'], { | ||
| cwd: this.projectPath, | ||
| shell: true, | ||
| }); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| this.logger.log('Running npm build command in', this.projectPath); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Handle unrecognized projectPart to avoid undefined process spawn.
If projectPart is none of 'frontend', 'backend', or 'sqlite3', the npmProcess remains undefined. Consider throwing an error or providing a fallback.
+ } else {
+ this.logger.error(`Unrecognized projectPart: ${this.projectPart}`);
+ return resolve({
+ success: false,
+ error: 'No validation command available for this projectPart',
+ });
+ }📝 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.
| this.logger.log(`Starting ${this.projectPart} code validation...`); | |
| // Spawn the npm build process in the provided project path. | |
| let npmProcess; | |
| if (this.projectPart === 'frontend') { | |
| npmProcess = spawn('npm', ['run', 'build'], { | |
| cwd: this.projectPath, | |
| shell: true, | |
| }); | |
| } else if (this.projectPart === 'backend') { | |
| npmProcess = spawn('npm', ['run', 'check'], { | |
| cwd: this.projectPath, | |
| shell: true, | |
| }); | |
| } else if (this.projectPart === 'sqlite3') { | |
| // Run SQLite in-memory check on the schema file | |
| npmProcess = spawn('sqlite3', [':memory:', '".read schema.sql"'], { | |
| cwd: this.projectPath, | |
| shell: true, | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| this.logger.log('Running npm build command in', this.projectPath); | |
| this.logger.log(`Starting ${this.projectPart} code validation...`); | |
| // Spawn the npm build process in the provided project path. | |
| let npmProcess; | |
| if (this.projectPart === 'frontend') { | |
| npmProcess = spawn('npm', ['run', 'build'], { | |
| cwd: this.projectPath, | |
| shell: true, | |
| }); | |
| } else if (this.projectPart === 'backend') { | |
| npmProcess = spawn('npm', ['run', 'check'], { | |
| cwd: this.projectPath, | |
| shell: true, | |
| }); | |
| } else if (this.projectPart === 'sqlite3') { | |
| // Run SQLite in-memory check on the schema file | |
| npmProcess = spawn('sqlite3', [':memory:', '".read schema.sql"'], { | |
| cwd: this.projectPath, | |
| shell: true, | |
| }); | |
| } else { | |
| this.logger.error(`Unrecognized projectPart: ${this.projectPart}`); | |
| return resolve({ | |
| success: false, | |
| error: 'No validation command available for this projectPart', | |
| }); | |
| } | |
| this.logger.log('Running npm build command in', this.projectPath); |
Sma1lboy
changed the title
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Enhancements
Tests