-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
fix(function): fix strip_formatting function regex #874
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Reviewer's GuideThis PR refines the strip_formatting function by updating the regex patterns used for triple and single backtick code blocks to capture and retain inner content instead of removing it entirely, ensuring strings with code block ticks are processed correctly by is_harmful functions. Sequence Diagram: Impact of
|
Change | Details | Files |
---|---|---|
Updated regex for triple backtick code blocks to preserve inner content |
|
tux/utils/functions.py |
Updated regex for single backtick code blocks to preserve inner content |
|
tux/utils/functions.py |
Tips and commands
Interacting with Sourcery
- Trigger a new review: Comment
@sourcery-ai review
on the pull request. - Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
- Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
review comment with@sourcery-ai issue
to create an issue from it. - Generate a pull request title: Write
@sourcery-ai
anywhere in the pull
request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
@sourcery-ai title
on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time. - Generate a pull request summary: Write
@sourcery-ai summary
anywhere in
the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
want it. You can also comment@sourcery-ai summary
on the pull request to
(re-)generate the summary at any time. - Generate reviewer's guide: Comment
@sourcery-ai guide
on the pull
request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time. - Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment
@sourcery-ai resolve
on the
pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore. - Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment
@sourcery-ai dismiss
on the pull
request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
@sourcery-ai review
to trigger a new review!
Customizing Your Experience
Access your dashboard to:
- Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
summary, the reviewer's guide, and others. - Change the review language.
- Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
- Adjust other review settings.
Getting Help
- Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
- Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
- Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @CapnRyna - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
@@ -96,9 +96,9 @@ def strip_formatting(content: str) -> str: | |||
The string with formatting stripped. | |||
""" | |||
# Remove triple backtick blocks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nitpick: Update comment to reflect new behavior
Consider renaming to clarify that only triple backtick formatting is removed, not entire code blocks.
Description
fixes the strip_formatting function regex that caused strings with codeblock ticks to return a empty string and not trigger the is_harmful functions
Guidelines
My code follows the style guidelines of this project (formatted with Ruff)
I have performed a self-review of my own code
I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
I have made corresponding changes to the documentation if needed
My changes generate no new warnings
I have tested this change
Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
I have added all appropriate labels to this PR
I have followed all of these guidelines.
How Has This Been Tested? (if applicable)
locally hosted and tested in ATL's dev server
Summary by Sourcery
Fix strip_formatting to preserve text within Markdown code fences instead of removing it, ensuring harmful content detection triggers correctly for backtick-enclosed strings.
Bug Fixes: