feat(rivetkit): add asyncapi spec #3442
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
3 Skipped Deployments
|
Pull Request Review: AsyncAPI Spec GenerationThis PR adds AsyncAPI specification generation for RivetKit's WebSocket protocol. Overall, this is a solid addition that improves API documentation. Here are my findings: ✅ Strengths
🐛 Issues Found1. Missing
|
jog1t
changed the base branch from
graphite-base/3442
to
11-10-chore_rivetkit_add_actor_router_to_the_openapi_spec
NathanFlurry
force-pushed
the
11-10-feat_rivetkit_add_asyncapi_spec
branch
from
3b51494 to
9a434c7
Compare
NathanFlurry
force-pushed
the
11-10-chore_rivetkit_add_actor_router_to_the_openapi_spec
branch
from
1a8edc2 to
898bc9a
Compare
Code Review - AsyncAPI Specification GenerationThanks for adding AsyncAPI spec generation! This is a valuable addition for documenting the WebSocket protocol. Here's my review: ✅ Strengths
🔍 Code Quality Issues1. Missing error handling (dump-asyncapi.ts:323)The file write operation lacks error handling: fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);Should be: await fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);Impact: The script may exit before the file is fully written, potentially corrupting the output file. 2. Function should be asyncThe Should be: async function main() {
// ... existing code ...
await fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);
}
main().catch((error) => {
console.error("Failed to dump AsyncAPI spec:", error);
process.exit(1);
});3. Unused helper function (dump-asyncapi.ts:44-54)The 4. Type safety could be improvedSeveral uses of
Consider using proper TypeScript types or at least 📋 Missing Features1. No validation of generated specConsider adding validation to ensure the generated AsyncAPI spec is valid. You could use the 2. Missing testsNo tests found for the AsyncAPI generation. Consider adding:
3. Incomplete turbo.json inputsThe "inputs": [
"package.json",
"packages/rivetkit/src/manager/router.ts"
]But the script actually depends on:
Missing these inputs means the task might not rebuild when these files change. 🔒 Security ConsiderationsNo security concerns identified. The script:
⚡ Performance ConsiderationsPerformance is acceptable for a build-time script. The schema conversions are straightforward and the output is cached by Turbo. 🎯 RecommendationsHigh Priority:
Medium Priority: Low Priority: 📝 DocumentationThe generated AsyncAPI spec looks good and is well-documented with descriptions and examples. Consider adding:
Overall, this is a solid addition! The main concern is the missing |
Code Review: AsyncAPI Spec GenerationThis PR adds AsyncAPI specification generation for RivetKit's WebSocket protocol. Overall, the implementation is clean and follows good patterns. Here are my findings: ✅ Strengths
🐛 Critical BugMissing fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);This should be: await fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);Without
|
NathanFlurry
changed the base branch from
11-10-chore_rivetkit_add_actor_router_to_the_openapi_spec
to
graphite-base/3442
Merge activity
|
NathanFlurry
force-pushed
the
11-10-feat_rivetkit_add_asyncapi_spec
branch
from
9a434c7 to
f539782
Compare
NathanFlurry
force-pushed
the
graphite-base/3442
branch
from
898bc9a to
82cbd70
Compare
NathanFlurry
changed the base branch from
graphite-base/3442
to
11-10-chore_rivetkit_add_actor_router_to_the_openapi_spec
PR Review: AsyncAPI Spec GenerationThis PR adds AsyncAPI specification generation for the RivetKit WebSocket protocol. Overall, the implementation is solid and follows good patterns from the existing ✅ Strengths
🔧 Code Quality Issues
📋 Suggestions
🔒 Security & Performance
🧪 Testing
📦 Dependencies
Priority IssuesMust fix before merge:
Should consider: Overall AssessmentThis is a well-structured PR that adds valuable API documentation. The main issue is the missing Recommendation: Approve with required changes ✅ Reviewed using Claude Code - following CLAUDE.md conventions |
Pull Request Review: AsyncAPI Spec GenerationI've reviewed PR #3442 which adds AsyncAPI specification generation for the RivetKit WebSocket protocol. Overall, this is a solid addition that improves documentation and enables better tooling integration. Here are my findings: ✅ Strengths
🔍 Issues & Concerns1. Missing Error Handling (Medium Priority)Location: fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);Issue: No error handling or await for the async file write operation. If the write fails, it will fail silently. Recommendation: await fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);Also consider adding try-catch for better error messages: try {
await fs.writeFile(outputPath, JSON.stringify(asyncApiSpec, null, 2));
console.log("Dumped AsyncAPI spec to", outputPath);
} catch (error) {
console.error("Failed to write AsyncAPI spec:", error);
process.exit(1);
}2. Dead Code (Low Priority)Location: The 3. Type Safety Issue (Medium Priority)Location: Throughout the script Heavy use of
Recommendation: Define proper TypeScript types for JSON Schema objects, or at least use 4. Schema Metadata Inconsistency (Low Priority)Location: The metadata: z.unknown().optional()But in the generated AsyncAPI spec (line 111 of asyncapi.json), it appears as: "metadata": {}This doesn't preserve the "optional" nature. Consider verifying the JSON Schema conversion handles optionality correctly. 5. Integer Format Inconsistency (Low Priority)In the generated spec, "type": "integer",
"format": "int64"But this comes from 📋 Additional Observations
🎯 Recommendations PriorityMust Fix:
Should Fix:
Nice to Have:
✨ SummaryThis is a useful feature that will help developers understand and integrate with the WebSocket protocol. The implementation is clean and follows existing patterns. The main concern is the missing Recommended Action: Request changes for the missing |
No description provided.