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 51 minutes and 8 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 (4)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughAdded documentation for workspace-level custom relation types and reorganized relation/dependency docs to distinguish scheduling dependencies from non-scheduling relations. A sidebar entry was added for the new custom relations page. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 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 |
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md`:
- Line 10: The sentence in docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md
incorrectly states "three [default relation types]"; update that phrase to "four
[default relation types]" to match the linked core-concepts list (Relates To,
Duplicate, Implements, Implemented By) so the count in the paragraph containing
"Plane includes three [default relation types]" is correct.
In `@docs/core-concepts/issues/overview.md`:
- Around line 64-76: The link in the docs text "Timeline layout" points to the
wrong path (/core-concepts/issues/timeline-dependencies); update that markdown
link in docs/core-concepts/issues/overview.md to the correct target
(/core-concepts/issues/timeline-dependency or the exact filename
timeline-dependency.md) so the VitePress build can resolve the page; search for
the anchor text "Timeline layout" or the link string "timeline-dependencies" and
replace it with the singular "timeline-dependency" reference.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 73743abf-6500-43c9-b580-c1caff3700c8
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/.vitepress/config.tsdocs/advanced-management/custom-relations.mddocs/core-concepts/issues/overview.mddocs/core-concepts/issues/timeline-dependency.md
|
|
||
| Relations describe how work items are connected to each other. | ||
|
|
||
| Plane includes three [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the count of default relation types.
The text claims "three [default relation types]" but according to the linked documentation in docs/core-concepts/issues/overview.md (lines 77-85), there are actually four default relation types:
- Relates To
- Duplicate
- Implements
- Implemented By
📝 Proposed fix
-Plane includes three [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints.
+Plane includes four [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| Plane includes three [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints. | |
| Plane includes four [default relation types](/core-concepts/issues/overview#add-relations) that cover common use cases. You can create additional relation types tailored to how your organization thinks about work. For example, a team might define a "Tests" relation so QA work items link back to the features they validate, or a "Depends On" relation to model logical dependencies that don't map to scheduling constraints. |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
In `@docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md` at line 10, The sentence in
docs/advanced-management/custom-relations.md incorrectly states "three [default
relation types]"; update that phrase to "four [default relation types]" to match
the linked core-concepts list (Relates To, Duplicate, Implements, Implemented
By) so the count in the paragraph containing "Plane includes three [default
relation types]" is correct.
2 participants
Description
Type of Change
Screenshots and Media (if applicable)
Test Scenarios
References
Summary by CodeRabbit