chore: Added Prompt for code rabbit on how to review src/hiero_sdk_python/file by mukundkumarjha · Pull Request #1713 · hiero-ledger/hiero-sdk-python

mukundkumarjha · 2026-02-05T07:51:07Z

Description:

Related issue(s):

Fixes #1697

Notes for reviewer:

Checklist

Documented (Code comments, README, etc.)
Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

Signed-off-by: mukundkumarjha <mukundiiitg@gmail.com>

coderabbitai · 2026-02-05T07:53:50Z

Walkthrough

Configuration and documentation updates adding architecture-centric review guidance for file transaction modules in CodeRabbit configuration, with a corresponding changelog entry. No functional code changes or new features introduced.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CodeRabbit Configuration `.coderabbit.yaml`	Added review instructions block for `src/hiero_sdk_python/file/*/` covering API consistency, transaction builder pattern, chunking logic, error handling, backward compatibility, test coverage, performance, and security with structured health summary output format.
Changelog `CHANGELOG.md`	Added entry under Added section documenting the CodeRabbit review prompt for file transaction modules.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Linked Issues check	⚠️ Warning	The PR partially addresses issue `#1697` by adding review instructions to .coderabbit.yaml, but lacks comprehensive tests, updated documentation/examples, and proper commit signing as required by acceptance criteria.	Add comprehensive tests for the review instructions, update relevant documentation/examples, ensure all CI checks pass, verify GPG commit signing, and confirm the changelog entry is present.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The PR title clearly describes the main change: adding a prompt for CodeRabbit to review the src/hiero_sdk_python/file directory.
Description check	✅ Passed	The PR description is related to the changeset, referencing issue `#1697` and indicating the purpose is to add a prompt for CodeRabbit review.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes are narrowly scoped to adding review instructions to .coderabbit.yaml and a changelog entry, both directly related to issue `#1697` requirements.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

.coderabbit.yaml

exploreriii

This is a solid improvement, but is too generic, it still won’t reliably catch multi-chunk lifecycle and signature bugs, which are the highest-risk failures in this module.
File transactions have a parent of transaction
File queries have a parent of query
These should be handled differently
Overall, you can be much more specific as to what you'd consider safe behaviour in a file PR

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:11:58Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+        This module handles:
+          - File creation
+          - File append (chunking logic)
+          - File update


File queries (info & contents)

you can add a separate file query instruction area, and explain how this differs from file transaction services

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:12:11Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+          - Memo handling
+          - Large content segmentation
+
+        This is a critical SDK component. Review must be architecture-aware.


Reviews must be architecture-aware and transaction-lifecycle aware, not just stylistic.

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:14:44Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+
+        Context:
+          - SDK uses protobuf-based transaction bodies
+          - Follows builder pattern across transactions


maybe be specific eg
Uses a builder pattern

Transactions follow freeze() → sign() → execute()

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:15:17Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+          - Must preserve backward compatibility
+          - Supports freeze(), sign(), and execution logic
+          - Chunked operations must be deterministic
+


Any change to transaction identity (transaction ID, node account, chunk index) requires rebuilding body bytes and invalidates old signatures.

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:15:50Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+          - Must preserve backward compatibility
+          - Supports freeze(), sign(), and execution logic
+          - Chunked operations must be deterministic
+


Any change to transaction identity (transaction ID, node account, chunk index) requires rebuilding body bytes and invalidates old signatures.

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:24:45Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+          - No unvalidated input
+          - No replay issues with transaction IDs
+
+        Output format:


Query-Specific Safety (File Queries)
we need a section on query file services rather than just rtansaction file services

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:25:09Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+          - Serialization format unchanged
+
+        6) Test Coverage
+          Ensure tests exist for:


can you specify some extent of what these tests should look like and best practices

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:25:52Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+
+        6) Test Coverage
+          Ensure tests exist for:
+          - Large file chunking


be more specific what you are looking for so code rabbit knows

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:29:22Z

.coderabbit.yaml

@@ -293,6 +293,82 @@ reviews:
      - Instead, aggregate all out-of-scope issues into a single comment with a list of recommendations for one or more follow-up issues that can be created.


This is a solid improvement, but is too generic, it still won’t reliably catch multi-chunk lifecycle and signature bugs, which are the highest-risk failures in this module.
File transactions have a parent of transaction
File queries have a parent of query
These should be handled differently
Overall, you can be much more specific as to what you'd consider safe behaviour in a file PR
You have to be explicit to an untrained reviewer, so they know what is correct and not correct

exploreriii · 2026-02-05T11:31:14Z

.coderabbit.yaml

+          - Regression cases
+
+        7) Performance
+          - Avoid unnecessary byte copying


I would recommend changing some of the file transaction and queries, and see how your prompt is doing - see if code rabbit picks up on the errors in a useful way

aceppaluni

@mukundkumarjha This is great work!

Once feedback is addressed happy to do another review

github-actions · 2026-02-05T17:12:13Z

Hi, this is MergeConflictBot.
Your pull request cannot be merged because it contains merge conflicts.

Please resolve these conflicts locally and push the changes.

Quick Fix for CHANGELOG.md Conflicts

If your conflict is only in CHANGELOG.md, you can resolve it easily using the GitHub web editor:

Click on the "Resolve conflicts" button in the PR
Accept both changes (keep both changelog entries)
Click "Mark as resolved"
Commit the merge

For all other merge conflicts, please read:

Thank you for contributing!

mukundkumarjha added 2 commits February 5, 2026 13:16

Added Prompt for code rabbit on how to review src/hiero_sdk_python/file

62f3f74

Signed-off-by: mukundkumarjha <mukundiiitg@gmail.com>

Added Prompt for code rabbit on how to review src/hiero_sdk_python/file

33bba84

Signed-off-by: mukundkumarjha <mukundiiitg@gmail.com>

mukundkumarjha requested a review from a team as a code owner February 5, 2026 07:51

mukundkumarjha requested a review from rbair23 February 5, 2026 07:51

coderabbitai bot reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

.coderabbit.yaml Show resolved Hide resolved

exploreriii requested changes Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

exploreriii marked this pull request as draft February 5, 2026 11:45

aceppaluni reviewed Feb 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

exploreriii added the status: needs developer revision PR has requested changes that the developer needs to implement label Feb 6, 2026

		@@ -293,6 +293,82 @@ reviews:
		- Instead, aggregate all out-of-scope issues into a single comment with a list of recommendations for one or more follow-up issues that can be created.

Conversation

mukundkumarjha commented Feb 5, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

exploreriii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aceppaluni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 5, 2026

Quick Fix for CHANGELOG.md Conflicts

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants