docs: clarify DevContainer onboarding flow - #75
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe README Quick Start flow now separates repository cloning, Dev Container setup, and bootstrapping, then renumbers environment setup and local infrastructure startup steps. ChangesOnboarding documentation
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@README.md`:
- Around line 90-98: Update the README environment guidance around “Open the
project in a Dev Container” and the manual uv setup section so it is consistent:
either remove the manual setup instructions or explicitly label them unsupported
and outside the documented development flow, while preserving the Dev Container
as the supported path.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
|
Thanks for the contribution. I would not merge this as-is because the README now says the project only supports development inside a Dev Container. The repository guidance is DevContainer-first, but external contributors can still use the documented local checks when available. Could you please soften this wording to something like “Recommended: open the project in the Dev Container before running make commands” and keep the non-DevContainer fallback clear? |
|
Thanks for the detailed feedback! That makes sense. I'll update the wording to recommend using the Dev Container while keeping the non-DevContainer workflow clear. I'll push an update shortly. |
Summary
Updated the README Quick Start section to align with the Makefile onboarding guidance.
Issue: Fixes #70
Change Type
Validation Evidence
Reviewed the updated README to ensure the Quick Start instructions now match the Makefile onboarding guidance.
Validation performed:
makecommands.Risk and Rollback
Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit