V2

[paul-paliychuk]

Important

Add getNode() in User and delete() in Episode, remove vercel_ai example, and update SDK version to 2.3.0.

• New Features:
  • Add getNode() method in User class to retrieve user nodes.
  • Add delete() method in Episode class to delete episodes by UUID.
• Examples:
  • Remove vercel_ai example directory, including .gitignore, README.md, eslint.config.mjs, next.config.ts, package.json, postcss.config.mjs, scripts/seed_zep.ts, and src/app directory.
• Versioning:
  • Update SDK version to 2.3.0 in version.ts and Client.ts files across multiple resources.
• Documentation:
  • Add documentation for getNode() in reference.md.
• Serialization:
  • Add UserNodeResponse serialization in UserNodeResponse.ts and update index.ts in serialization/types and api/types.

^{This description was created by for 054538a. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to ec02356 in 1 minute and 49 seconds

More details

• Looked at 1804 lines of code in 26 files
• Skipped 8 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. src/version.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  SDK version update appears deliberate. Ensure the version change to '2.3.0' is intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is related to a dependency version change, which is not allowed according to the rules. The comment asks the author to ensure the version change is intended, which is also not allowed.

2. src/api/types/index.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  UserNodeResponse type inclusion looks correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. src/serialization/types/UserNodeResponse.ts:5

• Draft comment:
  The schema for UserNodeResponse appears consistent with EntityNode.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_27y7DhxejMy7KnUK

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 054538a in 1 minute and 45 seconds

More details

• Looked at 37 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. examples/graph/user_graph_example.ts:157

• Draft comment:
  Consider handling the case where client.user.getNode returns null. Currently, no feedback is provided if userNode is absent.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

2. examples/graph/user_graph_example.ts:171

• Draft comment:
  Add a newline at the end of the file to adhere to common style guidelines.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While having a newline at the end of file is a common convention, this kind of minor style issue should typically be handled by automated tooling like linters or formatters. The comment doesn't point out a significant issue that requires human attention. Additionally, this isn't related to any logical changes in the diff - it's a pre-existing style issue.
  The missing newline could cause issues with some tools and is considered a best practice in many style guides. Some would argue it's worth fixing.
  While true, this is exactly the kind of issue that should be caught and fixed automatically by development tools rather than requiring manual review comments.
  Delete this comment as it points out a minor style issue that should be handled by automated tooling rather than manual review.

3. package.json:3

• Draft comment:
  Version bump noted. Ensure related documentation reflects these changes if applicable.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. examples/graph/user_graph_example.ts:157

• Draft comment:
  Good example addition. Consider adding a brief inline comment explaining the 'reranker: "node_distance"' parameter for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is an example file demonstrating API usage. While the reranker parameter might not be immediately obvious, adding inline comments for every parameter would make the example more cluttered. The purpose of example code is to show how to use the API, and the parameter name "node_distance" is relatively self-explanatory. Documentation about what rerankers are available should live in the API docs, not in example code.
  The comment could help newcomers understand what the reranker parameter does at a glance. Example code is often the first place developers look for guidance.
  While documentation is valuable, example code should be clean and focused on demonstrating usage patterns. Inline comments for every parameter would reduce readability and maintainability.
  Delete the comment as it suggests adding unnecessary documentation to example code. The parameter name is clear enough, and detailed documentation belongs in API docs.

5. package.json:3

• Draft comment:
  Version bump to 2.4.0; please ensure associated changelog/documentation updates.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is related to a version bump, which falls under the rule of not commenting on pure dependency changes. Additionally, it asks the author to ensure documentation updates, which is not allowed.

Workflow ID: wflow_DRwBxTbj2OTN0pB2

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.