Skip to content

Add Agent Playbook section for automated updates - #26

Merged
stefanvacareanu7 merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
docs/agent-update-playbook
Jul 30, 2026
Merged

Add Agent Playbook section for automated updates#26
stefanvacareanu7 merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
docs/agent-update-playbook

Conversation

@stefanvacareanu7

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Adds an "Agent Playbook: Updating This Repository End-to-End" section to README.md documenting how to bump the wrapped SQLint version and iterate on CI.
  • Documentation only — no functional changes.

Test plan

  • N/A (README-only change)

@codacy-production

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

Run reviewer

TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.

@codacy-production codacy-production Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

The PR introduces a comprehensive 'Agent Playbook' to README.md, aligning with the project's goal to facilitate automated updates. Codacy analysis indicates the changes are up to standards with no new quality issues. However, the documentation contains a path inconsistency in the testing instructions; the paths used in the validation steps do not match the project structure defined earlier in the document. This discrepancy should be corrected to ensure that both developers and AI agents can successfully execute the local validation commands without manual troubleshooting.

Test suggestions

  • Found: Verify README includes specific instructions for bumping the SQLint version in patterns.json.
  • Found: Verify README provides the correct sbt commands for local Docker builds and formatting checks.
  • Found: Verify documentation explains how to use codacy-plugins-test for local validation.
  • Found: Verify instructions for monitoring PR checks via the GitHub CLI or UI are included.

TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback

Comment thread README.md
2. There is no docs-generation step to run — `patterns.json` and `description.json` are hand-maintained and there's only one pattern, so no regeneration is needed. Just sanity-check that `description.json`'s `allIssues` entry still matches reality.
3. **Format/compile check:** `sbt "scalafmtCheckAll; scalafmtSbtCheck"` (matches what CI runs in `publish_docker_local`). Run `sbt scalafmt` first if it fails.
4. **Build the Docker image locally**: `sbt docker:publishLocal` (produces `codacy-sqlint:1.0` per `version in Docker`, or override the name/version to match CI: `sbt 'set name := "codacy-sqlint"' 'set Docker / version := "latest"' docker:publishLocal`).
5. **Run `codacy-plugins-test` locally** before pushing — clone https://github.com/codacy/codacy-plugins-test and run it against your local image tag, exercising both the single-pattern test (`docs/tests/test1.sql`) and the multiple-tests fixture (`docs/multiple-tests/with-config-file`).

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟡 MEDIUM RISK

Suggestion: The test fixture paths in step 5 (docs/tests/...) are inconsistent with the source paths established in section 1 (src/main/resources/docs/...). Using the full source path ensures the test runner can locate the files. Additionally, for an AI agent, using the official Docker image for codacy-plugins-test is more reliable than cloning the repository. Try running the following prompt in your coding agent: > Update the paths in step 5 of the README to use 'src/main/resources/docs/' instead of 'docs/' and provide a concrete 'docker run' command for 'codacy/codacy-plugins-test:latest' using the 'codacy-sqlint:latest' image.

@stefanvacareanu7
stefanvacareanu7 merged commit f32e63e into master Jul 30, 2026
4 checks passed
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