docs: clarify PR review eligibility (#378) #396
Conversation
Signed-off-by: electricplayer <[email protected]>
WalkthroughThe documentation was updated to add a "Which pull requests get automatically reviewed" subsection under the code review overview. It specifies that CodeRabbit reviews all pull requests in public repositories by default for all subscription tiers, while private repository reviews require a Pro plan with an assigned seat. The Changes
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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}
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md
Outdated
| @@ -14,6 +16,15 @@ This information, usually added to pull requests within minutes, can help your t | |||
| The following sections present an overview of this feature. For a hands-on example that lets you experience a CodeRabbit code review using | |||
| a real repository, see [Quickstart](/getting-started/quickstart). | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Review eligibility {#eligibility} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since many of our headers start with imperative verbs, I am cautious about starting headers with "Review" as a noun like this, since it's ambiguous. This could be read as "Here is how you review something for eligibility."
How about moving this into a level-three section, after the "Events that trigger automated reviews" section? And retitling it "Which pull requests get automatically reviewed".
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| CodeRabbit will review your pull request if one of the following is true: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Public repositories:** CodeRabbit reviews every PR by default. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs a reword for clarity. How about:
"The pull request is part of a public repository. CodeRabbit automatically reviews pull requests against the main branch of your public repositories, by default. This feature is available to all subscription tiers, including the free plan."
Part of my nitpick here is that the list lead-in makes us expect a list or true-or-false statement, but "Public repositories" isn't really a statement that can be true or false. The bolded sentence I suggest above is true-or-false, though. Make sense?
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md
Outdated
| CodeRabbit will review your pull request if one of the following is true: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Public repositories:** CodeRabbit reviews every PR by default. | ||
| - **Private repositories:** CodeRabbit reviews PRs only when your organization has a Pro plan **and** you have an assigned seat. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Apply the same strategy as above to this one, too. (And let's spell out "pull request".)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wrote it as: The pull request is in a private repository and your organization is on the Pro plan with a seat assigned to you
Signed-off-by: electricplayer <[email protected]>
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md
Outdated
| CodeRabbit automatically reviews a pull request when **either** of the following statements is true: | ||
|
|
||
| - **The pull request is in a public repository.** CodeRabbit reviews pull requests against the main branch of your public repositories by default. This feature is available to every subscription tier, including the free plan. | ||
| - **The pull request is in a private repository and your organization is on the Pro plan with a seat assigned to you.** Only under this condition does CodeRabbit review private-repository pull requests. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that we're using full sentences, this looks like way too much bolding, heh. Let's un-bold the bold text from both of these bullets and I think we're good.
Signed-off-by: electricplayer <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md (1)
47-52: Tighten grammar & remove unnecessary formatting in the new eligibility list.Minor language issues slipped in:
-CodeRabbit automatically reviews a pull request when **either** of the following statements is true: +CodeRabbit automatically reviews a pull request when either of the following statements is true:- The pull request is in a public repository. CodeRabbit reviews pull requests against the main branch of your public repositories by default. This feature is available to every subscription tier, including the free plan.·· + The pull request is in a public repository. CodeRabbit reviews pull requests against the `main` branch of your public repositories by default. This feature is available to every subscription tier, including the free plan.- The pull request is in a private repository and your organization is on the Pro plan with a seat assigned to you. Only under this condition does CodeRabbit review private-repository pull requests. + The pull request is in a private repository, and your organization is on the Pro plan with a seat assigned to you. Only under this condition does CodeRabbit review private-repository pull requests.Changes:
• Drop bold on “either” – emphasis isn’t needed.
• Remove trailing double-space that forces a manual line-break inside the bullet.
• Add a comma before the coordinating conjunction to separate the two independent clauses.
• Optionally code-style the branch namemainfor clarity.Applying these keeps the list consistent with our style-guide.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: NatoBoram
PR: coderabbitai/coderabbit-docs#155
File: docs/overview/why-coderabbit.md:19-19
Timestamp: 2024-12-03T16:46:32.741Z
Learning: The phrasing "CodeRabbit currently processes over X pull requests across multiple languages including..." is acceptable.
Learnt from: aravindputrevu
PR: coderabbitai/coderabbit-docs#402
File: docs/guides/setup-best-practices.md:21-21
Timestamp: 2025-06-18T09:22:07.198Z
Learning: The word "CodeRabbit" should always have both C and R capitalized (not "coderabbit", "Coderabbit", or "CoderabbitAI"). The correct format is "CodeRabbit" and "CodeRabbitAI" for the service account. Proactively correct this capitalization in review comments when contributors mistype it.
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md (2)
Learnt from: NatoBoram
PR: coderabbitai/coderabbit-docs#155
File: docs/overview/why-coderabbit.md:19-19
Timestamp: 2024-12-03T16:46:32.741Z
Learning: The phrasing "CodeRabbit currently processes over X pull requests across multiple languages including..." is acceptable.
Learnt from: jmacdotorg
PR: coderabbitai/coderabbit-docs#297
File: docs/overview/introduction.md:51-51
Timestamp: 2025-04-24T16:02:45.684Z
Learning: In documentation following the Google developer documentation style guide, bullet-list items that are complete sentences should end with periods, while items that are verbless noun phrases should not have periods. This is not an inconsistency but an intentional style choice.
🪛 LanguageTool
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md
[grammar] ~7-~7: Use proper spacing conventions.
Context: ...'@site/src/components/ProPlanNotice.mdx' The central feature of CodeRabbit is its...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER_ERROR_IDS_000007)
[grammar] ~47-~47: There might be a mistake here.
Context: ...# Which pull requests get automatically reviewed {#eligibility} CodeRabbit automaticall...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER)
[grammar] ~47-~47: Use proper spacing conventions.
Context: ...et automatically reviewed {#eligibility} CodeRabbit automatically reviews a pull ...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER_ERROR_IDS_000007)
[grammar] ~49-~49: Use proper spacing conventions.
Context: ...r** of the following statements is true: - The pull request is in a public reposito...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER_ERROR_IDS_000007)
[grammar] ~51-~51: Use proper spacing conventions.
Context: ...scription tier, including the free plan. - The pull request is in a private reposit...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER_ERROR_IDS_000007)
[grammar] ~52-~52: Correctly pair commas and coordinating conjunctions.
Context: ...n. - The pull request is in a private repository and your organization is on the Pro pla...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER_ERROR_IDS_000073)
[grammar] ~52-~52: Use proper spacing conventions.
Context: ...review private-repository pull requests. ## Interact with CodeRabbit reviews {#inter...
(QB_NEW_EN_OTHER_ERROR_IDS_000007)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
docs/guides/code-review-overview.md (1)
7-8: Confirm the import path & extension forProPlanNotice.Docusaurus-MDX pages usually import components without the file-extension, e.g.:
import ProPlanNotice from '@site/src/components/ProPlanNotice'Including the
.mdxsuffix can break the build depending on the site’s MDX loader setup.
Please verify the docs site still compiles (runyarn build) and adjust if necessary.
Adds "Review eligibility" section to clarify which PRs CodeRabbit reviews.
Tackles #378