Fix warning for Elixir 1.18

[jackalcooper]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Expanded Elixir CI workflow to include version 1.18.0.
  • Added steps to check formatting of Elixir code in main and example directories.

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved error handling for unimplemented NIFs.

• Refactor

  • Restructured the use Kinda.CodeGen directive in the KindaExample.NIF module for clarity.
  • Enhanced the structure of NIF declarations and macro usage in the Kinda.CodeGen module.

• Chores

  • Updated version number of the Kinda application from 0.9.4-dev to 0.9.5-dev.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces updates to the Elixir CI workflow and the Kinda library's code generation mechanism. The changes focus on expanding the CI matrix to include a new Elixir version, adding code formatting checks, and refining the NIF (Native Implemented Function) code generation process. The modifications enhance the project's testing coverage and improve the macro-based code generation approach for native interfaces.

Changes

File	Change Summary
.github/workflows/elixir.yml	- Added Elixir version 1.18.0 to job matrix - Added exclusion rule for otp: "24.2" and elixir: "1.18.0" - Introduced two steps to check Elixir code formatting
lib/kinda_codegen.ex	- Modified __using__/1 macro to destructure nif_ast/4 result - Updated nif_ast/4 function handling of NIF declarations - Changed error handling for unimplemented NIFs
kinda_example/lib/kinda_example_nif.ex	- Restructured use Kinda.CodeGen declaration as module attribute @nifs
mix.exs	- Updated version from "0.9.4-dev" to "0.9.5-dev"

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant Workflow as CI Workflow
    participant CodeGen as Kinda.CodeGen
    participant NIF as NIF Module

    Workflow->>CodeGen: Generate NIF AST
    CodeGen-->>NIF: Evaluate AST
    NIF-->>CodeGen: Return Module and Function
    CodeGen-->>Workflow: Complete NIF Generation

Loading

Poem

🐰 Elixir's dance, a matrix so bright,
Workflows twirl with formatting's might,
NIFs leap through macros' embrace,
Code generation's elegant grace,
Rabbit's code hops with pure delight! 🚀

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8c18a20 and d7c5981.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• mix.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• mix.exs (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• mix.exs

---

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (4)

lib/kinda_codegen.ex (2)

Line range hint 32-47: Ensure correct struct-based pattern matching in NIFDecl.
It’s good practice to verify that the %NIFDecl{} struct includes all required fields for correct pattern matching. If future fields are introduced to the struct, their default handling or matching must be updated in this case block.

---

71-77: NIF error handling improvements.
Returning :erlang.nif_error(:not_loaded) ensures a graceful failure in production. However, it might be beneficial to log or track these errors in a more robust manner.

kinda_example/lib/kinda_exmaple_nif.ex (1)

2-5: Module attribute used for macro invocation.
Declaring “@nifs use Kinda.CodeGen…” is a stylistic choice that can improve readability by centralizing the arguments, but be mindful that it might confuse new contributors expecting a standard “use” at the top level. Consider adding a brief comment explaining the reason for using a module attribute if more contributors are expected to work on this code.

.github/workflows/elixir.yml (1)

26-29: Add matrix exclusion rationale.
Excluding the “otp: 24.2” and “elixir: 1.18.0” combination is valid if known incompatibilities exist. Documenting the reason for this exclusion can help future maintainers.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 04ae659 and 13efa4f.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/workflows/elixir.yml (1 hunks)
• kinda_example/lib/kinda_exmaple_nif.ex (1 hunks)
• lib/kinda_codegen.ex (4 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

lib/kinda_codegen.ex (3)

13-14: Confirm consistent usage of return tuple.
These two lines rely on tuple-destructuring the result of nif_ast (i.e., {ast, mf}). Ensure all upstream references to the AST and the mf align with this new approach so calling code doesn't rely on the previously piped approach.

---

30-31: Double-check potential duplication of NIF declarations.
Here, nifs are concatenated with extra_kind_nifs. If both contain overlapping or identical declarations, it may lead to conflicts or unexpected behavior. Consider deduplicating or verifying uniqueness before concatenation.

---

57-67: Conditionally define a wrapper function.
By checking if nif_name != wrapper_name, a second function definition is introduced only when needed. This is good, but watch out for edge cases involving name collisions (e.g., if wrapper_name is changed dynamically). A test covering that scenario would be beneficial.