Merge pull request #971 from brianteeman/typos-1

Fix typos/Spelling

docs/docs/tools/describe.md

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ If you prefer to have the file summaries appear in the "Files changed" tab on ev
 
 ![Diffview table](https://codium.ai/images/pr_agent/diffview-table.png){width=512}
 
-- `true`: A collapsable file comment with changes title and a changes summary for each file in the PR.
+- `true`: A collapsible file comment with changes title and a changes summary for each file in the PR.
 
 ![Diffview changes](https://codium.ai/images/pr_agent/diffview_changes.png){width=512}
 
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ The description should be comprehensive and detailed, indicating when to add the
     ```
     pr_commands = ["/describe", ...]
     ```
-    meaning the `describe` tool will run automatically on every PR, with the default configurations. 
+    meaning the `describe` tool will run automatically on every PR, with the default configurations.
 
 
    - Markers are an alternative way to control the generated description, to give maximal control to the user. If you set:

docs/docs/tools/improve.md

@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ the tool can automatically approve the PR when the user checks the self-review c
 
 !!! tip "Extra instructions"
 
-    Extra instructions are very important for the `imrpove` tool, since they enable you to guide the model to suggestions that are more relevant to the specific needs of the project.
+    Extra instructions are very important for the `improve` tool, since they enable you to guide the model to suggestions that are more relevant to the specific needs of the project.
     
     Be specific, clear, and concise in the instructions. With extra instructions, you are the prompter. Specify relevant aspects that you want the model to focus on.
     
@@ -190,6 +190,6 @@ the tool can automatically approve the PR when the user checks the self-review c
     - Only if the `Category` header is relevant, the user should move to the summarized suggestion description
     - Only if the summarized suggestion description is relevant, the user should click on the collapsible, to read the full suggestion description with a code preview example.
 
-In addition, we recommend to use the `exra_instructions` field to guide the model to suggestions that are more relevant to the specific needs of the project. 
+In addition, we recommend to use the `extra_instructions` field to guide the model to suggestions that are more relevant to the specific needs of the project. 
 <br>
 Consider also trying the [Custom Prompt Tool](./custom_prompt.md) 💎, that will **only** propose code suggestions that follow specific guidelines defined by user.

pr_agent/git_providers/bitbucket_provider.py

@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ class BitbucketProvider(GitProvider):
         except Exception as e:
             get_logger().exception(f"Failed to remove comment, error: {e}")
 
-    # funtion to create_inline_comment
+    # function to create_inline_comment
     def create_inline_comment(self, body: str, relevant_file: str, relevant_line_in_file: str, absolute_position: int = None):
         position, absolute_position = find_line_number_of_relevant_line_in_file(self.get_diff_files(),
                                                                             relevant_file.strip('`'),
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ class BitbucketProvider(GitProvider):
 
     def get_commit_messages(self):
         return ""  # not implemented yet
-    
+
     # bitbucket does not support labels
     def publish_description(self, pr_title: str, description: str):
         payload = json.dumps({
@@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ class BitbucketProvider(GitProvider):
     # bitbucket does not support labels
     def publish_labels(self, pr_types: list):
         pass
-    
+
     # bitbucket does not support labels
     def get_pr_labels(self, update=False):
         pass

pr_agent/git_providers/bitbucket_server_provider.py

@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ class BitbucketServerProvider(GitProvider):
     def remove_comment(self, comment):
         pass
 
-    # funtion to create_inline_comment
+    # function to create_inline_comment
     def create_inline_comment(self, body: str, relevant_file: str, relevant_line_in_file: str,
                               absolute_position: int = None):
 

pr_agent/git_providers/github_provider.py

@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ class GithubProvider(GitProvider):
             git_files = context.get("git_files", None)
             if git_files:
                 return git_files
-            self.git_files = list(self.pr.get_files()) # 'list' to hanlde pagination
+            self.git_files = list(self.pr.get_files()) # 'list' to handle pagination
             context["git_files"] = self.git_files
             return self.git_files
         except Exception:

pr_agent/servers/azuredevops_server_webhook.py

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ def handle_request(
 ):
     log_context["action"] = body
     log_context["api_url"] = url
-    
+
     async def inner():
         try:
             with get_logger().contextualize(**log_context):
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ async def handle_webhook(background_tasks: BackgroundTasks, request: Request):
     get_logger().info(json.dumps(data))
 
     actions = []
-    if data["eventType"] == "git.pullrequest.created": 
+    if data["eventType"] == "git.pullrequest.created":
         # API V1 (latest)
         pr_url = unquote(data["resource"]["_links"]["web"]["href"].replace("_apis/git/repositories", "_git"))
         log_context["event"] = data["eventType"]
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ async def handle_webhook(background_tasks: BackgroundTasks, request: Request):
                 repo = data["resource"]["pullRequest"]["repository"]["webUrl"]
                 pr_url = unquote(f'{repo}/pullrequest/{data["resource"]["pullRequest"]["pullRequestId"]}')
                 actions = [data["resource"]["comment"]["content"]]
-            else: 
+            else:
                 # API V1 not supported as it does not contain the PR URL
                 return JSONResponse(
                     status_code=status.HTTP_400_BAD_REQUEST,
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ async def handle_webhook(background_tasks: BackgroundTasks, request: Request):
 
     log_context["event"] = data["eventType"]
     log_context["api_url"] = pr_url
-    
+
     for action in actions:
         try:
             handle_request(background_tasks, pr_url, action, log_context)
@@ -131,13 +131,13 @@ async def handle_webhook(background_tasks: BackgroundTasks, request: Request):
                 content=json.dumps({"message": "Internal server error"}),
             )
     return JSONResponse(
-        status_code=status.HTTP_202_ACCEPTED, content=jsonable_encoder({"message": "webhook triggerd successfully"})
+        status_code=status.HTTP_202_ACCEPTED, content=jsonable_encoder({"message": "webhook triggered successfully"})
     )
 
 @router.get("/")
 async def root():
     return {"status": "ok"}
-    
+
 def start():
     app = FastAPI(middleware=[Middleware(RawContextMiddleware)])
     app.include_router(router)

pr_agent/settings/pr_evaluate_prompt_response.toml

@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ After that, rank each response. Criterions to rank each response:
 - How well does the response follow the specific task instructions and requirements?
 - How well does the response analyze and understand the PR code diff?
 - How well will a person perceive it as a good response that correctly addresses the task?
-- How well does the reponse prioritize key feedback, related to the task instructions, that a human reader seeing that feedback would also consider as important?
+- How well does the response prioritize key feedback, related to the task instructions, that a human reader seeing that feedback would also consider as important?
-- Don't neccessarily rank higher a response that is longer. A shorter response might be better if it is more concise, and still addresses the task better.
+- Don't necessarily rank higher a response that is longer. A shorter response might be better if it is more concise, and still addresses the task better.
 
 
 The output must be a YAML object equivalent to type $PRRankRespones, according to the following Pydantic definitions:

pr_agent/settings/pr_reviewer_prompts.toml

@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ class Review(BaseModel):
     security_concerns: str = Field(description="does this PR code introduce possible vulnerabilities such as exposure of sensitive information (e.g., API keys, secrets, passwords), or security concerns like SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, and others ? Answer 'No' if there are no possible issues. If there are security concerns or issues, start your answer with a short header, such as: 'Sensitive information exposure: ...', 'SQL injection: ...' etc. Explain your answer. Be specific and give examples if possible")
 {%- endif %}
 {%- if require_can_be_split_review %}
-    can_be_split: List[SubPR] = Field(min_items=0, max_items=3, description="Can this PR, which contains {{ num_pr_files }} changed files in total, be divided into smaller sub-PRs with distinct tasks that can be reviewed and merged independently, regardless of the order ? Make sure that the sub-PRs are indeed independent, with no code dependencies between them, and that each sub-PR represent a meaningfull independent task. Output an empty list if the PR code does not needd to be split.")
+    can_be_split: List[SubPR] = Field(min_items=0, max_items=3, description="Can this PR, which contains {{ num_pr_files }} changed files in total, be divided into smaller sub-PRs with distinct tasks that can be reviewed and merged independently, regardless of the order ? Make sure that the sub-PRs are indeed independent, with no code dependencies between them, and that each sub-PR represent a meaningful independent task. Output an empty list if the PR code does not need to be split.")
 {%- endif %}
 {%- if num_code_suggestions > 0 %}