fix: rename references to development to main #712
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily involve updates to configuration files in the GitHub repository. The Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
README.md (3)
3-3: Add alt text for better accessibilityPlease add descriptive alt text to the image for better accessibility.
-<img src="https://github.com/andromedaprotocol/andromeda-core/blob/main/asset/core-logo.png" width=1000> +<img src="https://github.com/andromedaprotocol/andromeda-core/blob/main/asset/core-logo.png" width=1000 alt="AndromedaOS Core Logo">🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
3-3: null
Images should have alternate text (alt text)(MD045, no-alt-text)
27-27: Consider these language improvements for better clarityA few minor language improvements could enhance readability:
- Add a period after "etc" (line 27)
- Replace "in order to" with "to" for conciseness (line 59)
- Add a comma after "which" (line 65)
-network, etc +network, etc. -teams in order to build +teams to build -25 ADOs which is +25 ADOs, which isAlso applies to: 59-59, 65-65
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[style] ~27-~27: In American English, abbreviations like “etc.” require a period.
Context: ...or referencing ADOs, services, network, etc
- [aOS Economics](https://docs.androm...
(ETC_PERIOD)
112-112: Fix grammatical issuesThere are a few grammatical issues to address:
- Remove duplicate article "an a" (line 112)
- Add hyphens to "all-in-one" (line 206)
-run an a sale +run a sale -an all in one tool +an all-in-one toolAlso applies to: 206-206
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~112-~112: Two determiners in a row. Choose either “an” or “a”.
Context: ...ontract that can receive an NFT and run an a sale on it. ...(DT_DT)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
.github/mergify.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/build.yml(2 hunks).github/workflows/changelog.yml(0 hunks).github/workflows/rust.yml(1 hunks)README.md(7 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .github/workflows/changelog.yml
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint (0.35.0)
README.md
3-3: null
Images should have alternate text (alt text)
(MD045, no-alt-text)
67-67: null
Spaces inside link text
(MD039, no-space-in-links)
🪛 LanguageTool
README.md
[style] ~27-~27: In American English, abbreviations like “etc.” require a period.
Context: ...or referencing ADOs, services, network, etc
- [aOS Economics](https://docs.androm...
(ETC_PERIOD)
[style] ~59-~59: Consider a shorter alternative to avoid wordiness.
Context: ...d need to hire a full development teams in order to build their projects and custom smart c...
(IN_ORDER_TO_PREMIUM)
[style] ~59-~59: As an alternative to the over-used intensifier ‘very’, consider replacing this phrase.
Context: ...omeda eliminates this need by providing a very large amount of custom smart contracts that u...
(EN_WEAK_ADJECTIVE)
[uncategorized] ~65-~65: Possible missing comma found.
Context: ...s it stands, the ALL contains around 25 ADOs which is the tip of the iceberg. More a...
(AI_HYDRA_LEO_MISSING_COMMA)
[uncategorized] ~85-~85: A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb ‘Currently’.
Context: ...lassified based on their functionality. Currently we have 7 different contract categories...
(SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA)
[grammar] ~90-~90: Consider using either the past participle “allowed” or the present participle “allowing” here.
Context: ... | Contracts that are allow interaction with different ecosystem pr...
(BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT)
[style] ~104-~104: The preposition ‘amongst’ is correct, but some people think that it is old-fashioned or literary. A more frequently used alternative is the preposition “among”.
Context: ...| Contract used to split any sent funds amongst defined addresses. ...
(AMONGST)
[grammar] ~112-~112: Two determiners in a row. Choose either “an” or “a”.
Context: ...ontract that can receive an NFT and run an a sale on it. ...
(DT_DT)
[typographical] ~206-~206: Consider adding a comma after ‘Usually’ for more clarity.
Context: ... deployed on many of the Cosmos chains. Usually this will require you to set up an envi...
(RB_LY_COMMA)
[grammar] ~206-~206: It seems that hyphens are missing.
Context: ...dromeda has built the Andromeda CLI, an all in one tool to build, interact, and manage ADO...
(ALL_IN_ONE_HYPHEN)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/mergify.yml (1)
10-10: LGTM! Branch references correctly updated.
The base branch references have been properly updated from 'development' to 'main' in both backporting rules.
Let's verify no other branch references were missed:
Also applies to: 18-18
✅ Verification successful
Branch references are correctly updated, no other occurrences found
After examining all YAML files in the repository, the only branch references are in the mergify.yml file, and they have been properly updated from 'development' to 'main'. No other instances of 'development' branch references were found that would need updating.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining 'development' references in yaml files
rg -l "development" --type yaml
Length of output: 31
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search for branch references in yaml files
rg -i "base.*=.*(?:development|main)" --type yaml
# Also search for any branch-related configurations
rg -i "branch.*:.*(?:development|main)" --type yaml
Length of output: 105
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the content of mergify.yml directly
cat .github/mergify.yml
# Also search for any yaml files that might contain branch configurations
fd -e yml -e yaml --exec cat {}
Length of output: 1461
.github/workflows/rust.yml (1)
7-7: LGTM! Workflow trigger updated correctly.
The pull request trigger has been properly updated to target the 'main' branch.
Let's verify the workflow trigger configuration:
✅ Verification successful
Branch trigger configuration is consistent across workflows
After reviewing all workflow files, the branch trigger configuration in rust.yml is correctly aligned with other workflow files:
build.ymltriggers on pull requests tomainbranchchangelog.ymltriggers on pull requests tomainbranchrust.ymltriggers on pull requests tomainbranchdeploy.ymlandrelease.ymluse different trigger conditions as they serve different purposes
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for consistent branch triggers across workflow files
echo "Checking workflow triggers across all workflow files..."
rg -A 5 "on:[^}]*pull_request:" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 173
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check workflow triggers
echo "Checking all workflow files for pull_request triggers..."
find .github/workflows -type f -name "*.yml" -exec sh -c 'echo "\nFile: {}"; cat {}' \;
Length of output: 14711
.github/workflows/build.yml (1)
4-4: LGTM! Build workflow trigger updated correctly.
The pull request trigger has been properly updated to target the 'main' branch.
Let's verify the deployment configuration:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the check-kernel step to understand the branch reference.
Let me check the actual implementation of the check-kernel step to understand how the branch is determined.
Branch references in deployment workflow are correctly configured
The verification shows that all branch references are properly configured:
- The
check-kernelstep dynamically sets branch to either 'develop' or 'testnet-staging' based on kernel address - The schema parser checkout uses this dynamic branch reference
- The deployment trigger in build.yml uses the current PR's ref
- No hardcoded 'development' branch references found
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any remaining branch references in deployment configurations
echo "Checking deployment workflow references..."
rg -A 5 "ref:|branch:|development" .github/workflows/deploy.yml || true
# Check for branch references in deployment scripts
echo "Checking deployment scripts..."
fd -t f . scripts/ -x rg -l "development" {} || true
Length of output: 644
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the check-kernel step definition and its outputs
echo "Checking check-kernel step..."
rg -B 5 -A 5 "check-kernel" .github/workflows/deploy.yml
# Check if there are any other workflow files that might reference development branch
echo "Checking other workflow files for branch references..."
fd -e yml -e yaml . .github/workflows/ -x rg -l "development|ref:|branch:" {} || true
Length of output: 1203
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get the full content of deploy.yml to analyze the check-kernel step implementation
echo "Checking check-kernel step implementation..."
rg -A 20 "id: check-kernel" .github/workflows/deploy.yml
# Check build.yml for any related configurations
echo "Checking build.yml contents..."
cat .github/workflows/build.yml
Length of output: 3949
README.md (1)
89-94: Verify all branch references are updated
The branch references have been updated correctly in the tables. Let's verify no references were missed.
Also applies to: 102-118
✅ Verification successful
Branch references have been successfully updated
The search results show that all instances of "development" in the markdown files are related to general development concepts and documentation, not to branch references. No remaining GitHub URLs or branch references containing "development" were found, confirming that the updates in the tables were comprehensive.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to the 'development' branch
# Search for 'development' branch references
echo "Checking for remaining 'development' branch references..."
rg -i "development.*branch|branch.*development" --type md
# Search for URLs containing 'development'
echo "Checking for URLs containing 'development'..."
rg -i "github\.com.*\/development\/" --type md
Length of output: 454
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining references to the 'development' branch with fixed regex
# Search for 'development' branch references
echo "Checking for remaining 'development' branch references..."
rg -i "development.*branch|branch.*development" README.md
# Search for URLs containing 'development'
echo "Checking for URLs containing 'development'..."
rg -i "github.com.*development" README.md
# Check all markdown files for any remaining 'development' references
echo "Checking all markdown files for 'development' references..."
fd -e md -x rg -i "development" {}
Length of output: 2706
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~90-~90: Consider using either the past participle “allowed” or the present participle “allowing” here.
Context: ... | Contracts that are allow interaction with different ecosystem pr...
(BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT)
It works off primary branch AFAIK. |
Motivation
The
developmentbranch has been renamed to main. These changes are to support this change.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
mainbranch for pull requests.Bug Fixes
mainbranch.Documentation