Skip to content

docs: clarify parallel job execution in CI example#495

Draft
aviavraham wants to merge 1 commit into
ambient-code:mainfrom
aviavraham:fix/388-parallel-jobs-comment
Draft

docs: clarify parallel job execution in CI example#495
aviavraham wants to merge 1 commit into
ambient-code:mainfrom
aviavraham:fix/388-parallel-jobs-comment

Conversation

@aviavraham

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Fixes #388

The CI example already demonstrates parallel execution (lint and test as separate jobs), but this wasn't obvious from reading the remediation output. Added an inline comment to make the parallelization explicit.

Test plan

  • Linting passes
  • No logic changes, documentation-only fix

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The example already uses separate jobs for lint and test (which run in
parallel by default), but this wasn't obvious. Added an inline comment
to make the parallelization explicit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 7a890e6c-6a08-407b-950c-dfa06319b576

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • 🔍 Trigger review
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
✨ Simplify code
  • Create PR with simplified code

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.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

📈 Test Coverage Report

Branch Coverage
This PR 73.8%
Main 73.8%
Diff ✅ +0%

Coverage calculated from unit tests only

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.

[BUG] Parallel GH actions are suggested but the example shows the opposite

1 participant