Skip to content

Conversation

@solveforceapp
Copy link
Owner

No description provided.

@solveforceapp solveforceapp merged commit 047f91b into main Nov 24, 2025
3 checks passed
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

Summary of Changes

Hello @solveforceapp, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on refining the build_notebooks.py script. The changes primarily involve enhancing code readability through docstring reformatting and the removal of superfluous comments and empty lines. Additionally, the script's path handling mechanism has been made more resilient by introducing a try-except block for relative path conversions, ensuring more stable operation.

Highlights

  • Docstring Formatting: The main docstring in scripts/build_notebooks.py has been reformatted for conciseness, removing unnecessary line breaks to improve readability.
  • Code Cleanup: Redundant comments and empty lines between function definitions have been removed from scripts/build_notebooks.py to streamline the code and enhance clarity.
  • Path Handling Robustness: The logic for handling relative paths in scripts/build_notebooks.py has been improved by wrapping nb.relative_to(Path.cwd()) in a try-except block for more robust error handling.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request provides some good cleanups to the build_notebooks.py script, including reformatting the docstring and removing superfluous comments and newlines. I have two suggestions for improvement: one is to catch a more specific exception type for better error handling, and the other is to restore the trailing newline at the end of the file to adhere to PEP 8 conventions.

Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR performs code cleanup on the build_notebooks.py script, addressing formatting issues including fixing docstring formatting and removing extraneous whitespace. The changes also include a modification to path handling logic and removal of several explanatory comments.

Key changes:

  • Consolidated multi-line docstring descriptions to single lines for improved readability
  • Changed absolute path handling from explicit is_absolute() check to try/except pattern
  • Removed blank lines and some inline comments throughout the file
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

scripts/build_notebooks.py:71

  • [nitpick] The removed comment explaining that the placeholder HTML is created "so CI pages report which notebooks failed" provided valuable context about the purpose of this error handling. Consider keeping this comment as it explains a non-obvious design decision that might not be immediately clear to future maintainers.
            fail_html = target_dir.joinpath(nb.stem + ".html")
            with open(fail_html, "w", encoding="utf-8") as fh:
                error_msg = (
                    f"<html><body><h1>Execution failed for {nb}</h1>"
                    f"<pre>{e}</pre></body></html>"
                )
                fh.write(error_msg)

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@solveforceapp solveforceapp deleted the fix/build-notebooks branch November 29, 2025 23:00
Copy link
Owner Author

@solveforceapp solveforceapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

r

@solveforceapp
Copy link
Owner Author

@copilot open a new pull request to apply changes based on the comments in this thread

1 similar comment
@solveforceapp
Copy link
Owner Author

@copilot open a new pull request to apply changes based on the comments in this thread

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.

2 participants