Skip to content

Conversation

@swillemin-dh
Copy link
Contributor

@swillemin-dh swillemin-dh commented Oct 6, 2025

Pull request

Proposed changes

Add Bit Philology project page

Types of changes

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • Enhancement (non-breaking change which enhances functionality)
  • Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change).

Checklist

  • I have read the README document.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 6, 2025

Walkthrough

Adds a new content page describing the Bit Philology research project with front matter and narrative sections on scope, methodology, team roles, collaboration, funding/start date, and links. No code or executable logic; content-only addition.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary of changes
Bit Philology project content
content/projects/bitphilology/index.qmd
New project page with front matter (title, status, type, categories) and detailed narrative; includes team roles, collaboration scope, starting details, funding (SNSF Starting Grants), and links. No code changes.

Possibly related issues

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Description Check ⚠️ Warning The pull request description applies the repository’s template but leaves critical sections unfilled: no change type is selected under “Types of changes,” the checklist does not acknowledge that this is a documentation update, and the “Proposed changes” section is too terse to explain what the new project page contains. This omission obscures the nature and scope of the change and prevents reviewers from quickly assessing impact. Because required sections remain blank or incomplete, the description does not meet the repository’s standards. Please complete the “Types of changes” section by marking the appropriate box (e.g., new feature or enhancement), update the checklist to indicate that documentation has been added and updated, and expand the “Proposed changes” section with a brief summary of what the Bit Philology project page includes.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title Check ✅ Passed The pull request title “Add Bit Philology project page” clearly and concisely summarizes the primary change of introducing a new project page without extraneous detail or ambiguity, making it immediately understandable to reviewers.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d9db09d and 5a3e437.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • content/projects/bitphilology/index.qmd (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
content/projects/bitphilology/index.qmd (3)

1-8: LGTM!

The front matter is well-structured with appropriate metadata for a project page.


10-14: LGTM!

The project description is clear, comprehensive, and well-articulated. The content effectively communicates the project's scope, context, and methodological approach.


20-24: All team member profile URLs are accessible – each link returned HTTP 200, no changes needed.

Copy link
Contributor

@vvvyyynet vvvyyynet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good to me. Sorry for taking that long for reviewing this. I approve so you can merge.

@vvvyyynet
Copy link
Contributor

@flicksolutions do you understand, why the two checks are failing? Is it because @swillemin-dh made the pull-request via the fork and not inside the DHBern repo?

@flicksolutions
Copy link
Member

@flicksolutions do you understand, why the two checks are failing? Is it because @swillemin-dh made the pull-request via the fork and not inside the DHBern repo?

@vvvyyynet changed the rules so the checks are allowed to fail. Because just because there is a lintin issue should block...

@flicksolutions flicksolutions merged commit bf8e666 into DHBern:main Nov 6, 2025
4 of 6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants