docs: clarify development setup and package-source checks#1101
Open
JMartinezRuiz wants to merge 2 commits intoCoplayDev:betafrom
Open
docs: clarify development setup and package-source checks#1101JMartinezRuiz wants to merge 2 commits intoCoplayDev:betafrom
JMartinezRuiz wants to merge 2 commits intoCoplayDev:betafrom
Conversation
Contributor
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughUpdates to the repository's developer-facing materials: the GitHub PR template and the developer README. The PR template gains structured checklists (including package/source fields) and revised testing/documentation prompts. The README expands local setup, package-source guidance, tool/resource authoring, testing examples, compatibility notes, and troubleshooting steps. ChangesDeveloper docs and PR template
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Tip 💬 Introducing Slack Agent: The best way for teams to turn conversations into code.Slack Agent is built on CodeRabbit's deep understanding of your code, so your team can collaborate across the entire SDLC without losing context.
Built for teams:
One agent for your entire SDLC. Right inside Slack. 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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.gh.lumenfield.work/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/pull_request_template.md (1)
20-28: ⚡ Quick winTighten checklist wording for traceability.
At Line 20 and Line 28, making the source of truth explicit and requiring a brief N/A rationale will reduce review back-and-forth.
Suggested wording update
- - Resolved package hash, if using a Git package URL: + - Resolved commit hash from `Packages/packages-lock.json` (if using a Git package URL): - - [ ] Not applicable + - [ ] Not applicable (explain why in Additional Notes)🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In @.github/pull_request_template.md around lines 20 - 28, Update the pull request checklist wording to make the source-of-truth explicit and require a brief rationale when marking items not applicable: change the "Resolved package hash, if using a Git package URL:" line to explicitly ask for the exact commit/tag/hash used (e.g., "Resolved package hash (if using a Git package URL): specify commit/tag/hash"), and change the "Not applicable" checkbox to "Not applicable — provide brief reason" (or similar) so reviewers must include a short N/A rationale for any skipped checks; apply these text edits in the checklist section that contains the Python/Unity test and package checks.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Nitpick comments:
In @.github/pull_request_template.md:
- Around line 20-28: Update the pull request checklist wording to make the
source-of-truth explicit and require a brief rationale when marking items not
applicable: change the "Resolved package hash, if using a Git package URL:" line
to explicitly ask for the exact commit/tag/hash used (e.g., "Resolved package
hash (if using a Git package URL): specify commit/tag/hash"), and change the
"Not applicable" checkbox to "Not applicable — provide brief reason" (or
similar) so reviewers must include a short N/A rationale for any skipped checks;
apply these text edits in the checklist section that contains the Python/Unity
test and package checks.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: bf568423-d281-4605-9d9b-1d00953bfdb0
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/pull_request_template.mddocs/development/README-DEV.md
Author
|
Updated the PR template wording based on the review suggestion: the package source field now points to |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Clarifies contributor docs for local server/package work and for reproducing Unity package-source issues.
Type of Change
Documentation update.
Changes Made
Packages/packages-lock.json, since Unity may resolve a Git package to a specific commit even whenmanifest.jsonuses a branch name.Packages/packages-lock.json, and the relevant test coverage.tools/UPDATE_DOCS.mdreference with manual review wording; the repo currently hastools/UPDATE_DOCS_PROMPT.md.Compatibility / Package Source
CoplayDev/unity-mcp#beta.Packages/packages-lock.json(if using a Git package URL): Not applicable.Testing/Screenshots/Recordings
Runtime/package tests were not run because this only changes contributor documentation and the PR template.
Validation performed:
git diff --checkDocumentation Updates
Related Issues
None
Additional Notes
This intentionally leaves workflow changes out of scope; the PR only updates contributor-facing documentation and the PR template.
Summary by CodeRabbit