Skip to content

Appwrite overall readability #10716

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Appwrite overall readability #10716

wants to merge 9 commits into from
+12 −12

Conversation

@mishmanners
Copy link
Contributor

@mishmanners mishmanners commented Oct 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

What does this PR do?

Lots of updates to overall readability.

Test Plan

Accessibility is key, and we want people to be able to understand and use Appwrite in the best way possible.

Related PRs and Issues

  • (Related PR or issue)

Checklist

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Improved clarity and readability of setup and getting-started instructions.
    • Enhanced phrasing throughout guides for better user experience.
    • Standardized Docker command references and terminology.
    • Refined API and architecture descriptions.
    • Updated upgrade and security guidance wording.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request modifies README.md to improve documentation clarity and consistency. Changes include rewording the hero tagline to reflect multiple apps, refining introductory descriptive text with more fluid phrasing, updating installation and getting started sections with user-centric language, standardizing Docker command references, revising upgrade instructions for conciseness, replacing passive phrasing with direct action steps in setup guidance, updating API/architecture descriptions, and adjusting security and contributing section references. Various minor formatting adjustments affect presentation without altering core content.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

  • Single file scope (README.md only) with consistent rewording patterns across multiple sections
  • Verify consistency of phrasing and terminology changes throughout the document
  • Confirm Docker command standardization is accurate and applicable across Unix/Windows contexts
  • Ensure new Getting Started three-step format is clear and actionable
  • Check that API/architecture description updates accurately reflect the product's capabilities

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
Description Check ❓ Inconclusive The PR description states "Lots of updates to overall readability," which is related to the changeset since the raw summary documents readability improvements across README.md including reworded content, adjusted phrasing, standardized terminology, and formatting tweaks. However, the description is extremely vague and generic—using non-descriptive terms like "lots of updates" and "overall readability" without specifying which sections were modified, what changes were made, or why they improve readability. A reader cannot understand the actual scope of changes from the description alone without examining the detailed summary. Consider requesting that the author provide a more specific description that details which README sections were updated and what readability improvements were made. For example, the description could note that installation and getting started sections were revised for clarity, or that Docker terminology was standardized. This would help reviewers quickly understand the scope and intent of the changes without needing to read the full summary.
✅ Passed checks (1 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title Check ✅ Passed The pull request title "Appwrite overall readability" is directly related to the main changes in the changeset. The raw summary demonstrates that the PR consists primarily of README.md updates focused on improving readability through reworded phrasing, more fluid language, standardized terminology, and replaced passive constructions with direct action steps. The title accurately captures the overarching goal of these changes, and while it could be more specific about the focus being README improvements, it is clear and concise enough to convey the primary change to someone scanning the repository history.
✨ 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.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot reviewed Oct 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
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: 2

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
README.md (1)

72-85: Address code-block style inconsistency. The linter (MD046) flagged line 77 for inconsistent code-block style. Ensure all Docker command blocks use either consistently indented or fenced code-block syntax throughout the Unix and Windows sections.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6ded8dc and 8465f92.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • README.md (7 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
README.md

68-68: Hard tabs
Column: 1

(MD010, no-hard-tabs)

77-77: Code block style
Expected: indented; Actual: fenced

(MD046, code-block-style)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
  • GitHub Check: scan
🔇 Additional comments (4)
README.md (4)

8-8: LGTM! Pluralizing to "apps" accurately reflects the multi-platform support and improves clarity.

29-31: LGTM! The rewritten descriptions are clearer and more user-centric. The restructured phrasing improves readability without losing technical accuracy.

97-103: LGTM! The post-installation guidance, upgrade instructions, and one-click setup descriptions are clearer and more user-centric. Direct action language ("go to http://localhost") and concise phrasing improve usability.

Also applies to: 107-107

191-193: LGTM! The architecture section descriptions are more accessible without sacrificing technical accuracy. The explanations of microservices design and API performance optimization are clearer and better structured.

@mishmanners
Revise README for clarity and updated information
409fc4d 
Updated README to reflect new features, improved descriptions, and corrected links.

Cross-referencing the current README file.
@mishmanners mishmanners changed the title Appwrite overall readability and images updated Appwrite overall readability Oct 28, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 28, 2025

Security Scan Results for PR

Docker Image Scan Results

Package Version Vulnerability Severity
binutils 2.44-r2 CVE-2025-5244 HIGH
binutils 2.44-r2 CVE-2025-5245 HIGH
libxml2 2.13.8-r0 CVE-2025-49794 CRITICAL
libxml2 2.13.8-r0 CVE-2025-49796 CRITICAL
libxml2 2.13.8-r0 CVE-2025-49795 HIGH
libxml2 2.13.8-r0 CVE-2025-6021 HIGH
pcre2 10.43-r1 CVE-2025-58050 CRITICAL
golang.org/x/crypto v0.31.0 CVE-2025-22869 HIGH
golang.org/x/oauth2 v0.24.0 CVE-2025-22868 HIGH
stdlib 1.22.10 CVE-2025-47907 HIGH

Source Code Scan Results

🎉 No vulnerabilities found!

@mishmanners
Copy link
Contributor Author

mishmanners commented Oct 31, 2025

Any chance we can get this reviewed team?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] left review comments

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@mishmanners