Skip to content

Conversation

@ktechmidas
Copy link
Contributor

@ktechmidas ktechmidas commented Oct 17, 2025

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Release order is currently incorrect

What was done?

Move visualize to be higher so grovedb-path does not fail

How Has This Been Tested?

Manually

Breaking Changes

None

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation

For repository code-owners and collaborators only

  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Optimized release workflow process ordering to improve build efficiency.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 17, 2025

Walkthrough

The grovedb-visualize crate publish step is relocated in the release workflow, moving from after grovedbg-types to before grovedb-path. No crates are added or removed; only the publication sequence is reordered.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Workflow step reordering
.github/workflows/release-crates.yml
Relocates grovedb-visualize publish command in release sequence

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

🐰 A step was moved, left here, right there,
In workflows, order's but fresh air!
Visualize now leads the dance so merry,
Before the path, all light and airy. 🎯

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check ✅ Passed The title "chore: Fix release order" directly and accurately summarizes the main change in the pull request. The changeset reorders the grovedb-visualize publish step to execute before grovedb-path in the release workflow, which is exactly what the title conveys. The title is concise, clear, and uses specific terminology that a teammate scanning history would understand—it avoids vague terms and directly communicates the core fix. The title aligns perfectly with the PR objective stated in the description: "Release order is currently incorrect" and "Move visualize to be higher so grovedb-path does not fail."
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix-order-actions

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 97b8779 and 28138c4.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/release-crates.yml (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (4)
  • GitHub Check: Compilation errors
  • GitHub Check: Linting
  • GitHub Check: Tests
  • GitHub Check: Code Coverage
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/release-crates.yml (1)

31-32: Correctly resolves the publication dependency order.

Moving grovedb-visualize before grovedb-path makes logical sense: if grovedb-path depends on grovedb-visualize, it must be published first to crates.io so the dependency is available when grovedb-path publishes. The fix directly addresses the stated issue.

To ensure no other publication order issues exist, please verify that grovedb-visualize has no dependencies on any crates that appear later in the sequence (lines 32–37), and that grovedb-path and subsequent crates have all their upstream dependencies satisfied by this new order.


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

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

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