Open
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 due to trivial changes (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdded documentation for workspace-level custom relation types and reorganized relation/dependency docs to distinguish scheduling dependencies from non-scheduling relations. A sidebar entry was added for the new custom relations page. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ 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 |
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md`:
- Line 10: The sentence in docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md
incorrectly states "three [default relation types]"; update that phrase to "four
[default relation types]" to match the linked core-concepts list (Relates To,
Duplicate, Implements, Implemented By) so the count in the paragraph containing
"Plane includes three [default relation types]" is correct.
In `@docs/core-concepts/issues/overview.md`:
- Around line 64-76: The link in the docs text "Timeline layout" points to the
wrong path (/core-concepts/issues/timeline-dependencies); update that markdown
link in docs/core-concepts/issues/overview.md to the correct target
(/core-concepts/issues/timeline-dependency or the exact filename
timeline-dependency.md) so the VitePress build can resolve the page; search for
the anchor text "Timeline layout" or the link string "timeline-dependencies" and
replace it with the singular "timeline-dependency" reference.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 73743abf-6500-43c9-b580-c1caff3700c8
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/.vitepress/config.tsdocs/advanced-management/custom-relations.mddocs/core-concepts/issues/overview.mddocs/core-concepts/issues/timeline-dependency.md
|
|
||
| Relations describe how work items are connected to each other. | ||
|
|
||
| Plane includes three [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the count of default relation types.
The text claims "three [default relation types]" but according to the linked documentation in docs/core-concepts/issues/overview.md (lines 77-85), there are actually four default relation types:
- Relates To
- Duplicate
- Implements
- Implemented By
📝 Proposed fix
-Plane includes three [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints.
+Plane includes four [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| Plane includes three [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints. | |
| Plane includes four [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints. |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md` at line 10, The sentence in
docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md incorrectly states "three [default
relation types]"; update that phrase to "four [default relation types]" to match
the linked core-concepts list (Relates To, Duplicate, Implements, Implemented
By) so the count in the paragraph containing "Plane includes three [default
relation types]" is correct.
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
1 participant
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
Type of Change
Screenshots and Media (if applicable)
Test Scenarios
References
Summary by CodeRabbit