Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded
Your organization is not enrolled in usage-based pricing. Contact your admin to enable usage-based pricing to continue reviews beyond the rate limit, or try again in 14 minutes and 14 seconds. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. ℹ️ Review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughReplaces early dot-prefixed filtering with an async Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Caller
participant FileTreeState
participant FileSystem
participant Git as "git check-ignore"
Caller->>FileTreeState: load(worktreePath:)
FileTreeState->>FileSystem: scanDirectory(root)
FileSystem-->>FileTreeState: entries (including dot-prefixed)
FileTreeState->>FileTreeState: applyGitIgnore(nodes, root)
FileTreeState->>Git: computeGitIgnored(relativePaths...)
Git-->>FileTreeState: ignoredPaths
FileTreeState-->>FileTreeState: filter nodes & traverse expanded children
FileTreeState-->>Caller: rootNodes (filtered)
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (2 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d279e04a65
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| var nodes: [FileTreeNode] = [] | ||
| for name in contents { | ||
| if Self.hiddenNames.contains(name) || name.hasPrefix(".") { continue } | ||
| if Self.hiddenNames.contains(name) { continue } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Preserve gitignore filtering when including dotfiles
By removing the name.hasPrefix(".") guard here, dotfiles now enter the regular scan path, but refresh() still rebuilds rootNodes via scanDirectory without re-running computeGitIgnored/filterIgnored. In practice, a dotfile that is ignored (for example .env) is hidden right after load() but reappears after any watcher-triggered refresh, which is a regression from the previous behavior where dotfiles stayed hidden on refresh.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Remove blanket dot-file filter from scanDirectory so files like .gitignore, .env, .claude/, .pu/ are visible and editable — just like a real file system. The hiddenNames set (.git, .DS_Store, etc.) still filters noise. Dot files are excluded from gitignore checking so they always remain visible. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
7f2af16 to
12e61f1
Compare
Summary
name.hasPrefix(".")filter fromFileTreeState.scanDirectoryso dot files and directories (.gitignore,.env,.claude/,.pu/, etc.) appear in the file tree — just like a real file systemhiddenNamesset (.git,.DS_Store,.build,.swiftpm,xcuserdata,DerivedData,__pycache__,.tsbuildinfo,node_modules) still filters noiseTest plan
Cmd+U) — newFileTreeStateTestscovers dot file visibility, hidden name exclusion, and mixed content.gitand.DS_Storeare still hidden.env) still shows in the tree🤖 Generated with Claude Code