Skip to content

Conversation

@phoenix-9
Copy link

Update rf_bridge references in lambdas to my_rf_bridge. Compiler complains:
ID 'rf_bridge' conflicts with the name of an esphome integration, please use another ID name.

send_advanced_code() expects struct RFBridgeAdvancedData, not three individual parameters.

Checklist:

  • I am merging into current because this is a fix, change and/or adjustment in the current documentation and is not for a new component or feature.

Update rf_bridge references to my_rf_bridge.  Compiler complains:
   ID 'rf_bridge' conflicts with the name of an esphome integration, please use another ID name.

send_advanced_code() expects struct RFBridgeAdvancedData, not three individual parameters.
@esphome esphome bot added the current label Nov 29, 2025
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Nov 29, 2025

Deploy Preview for esphome ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit e3d6434
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/esphome/deploys/692b051ca4df620007760bc4
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-5695--esphome.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 29, 2025

Walkthrough

Documentation example code for the RF Bridge component updated to reference a consistent ID. Multiple action examples changed from id(rf_bridge) to id(my_rf_bridge) across send_code, beep, learn, send_raw, send_advanced_code, and sniffing operations.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
RF Bridge documentation example updates
content/components/rf_bridge.md
Updated all example code snippets to use consistent ID reference id(my_rf_bridge) instead of id(rf_bridge) across multiple action calls (send_code, beep, learn, send_raw, send_advanced_code, start/stop_advanced_sniffing, start_bucket_sniffing)

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~5 minutes

  • Simple, repetitive documentation updates with consistent ID reference pattern changes
  • Single file with homogeneous modifications
  • No functional or logic changes to review

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

current

Suggested reviewers

  • nagyrobi
  • jesserockz

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Title check ✅ Passed The title accurately summarizes the main change: fixing inconsistencies between documentation and code by updating RF Bridge ID references and API usage.
Description check ✅ Passed The description clearly explains the rationale for changes: addressing a compiler conflict with RF Bridge ID naming and correcting the send_advanced_code() API usage to match expected struct parameters.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

  • Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
  • Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
  • Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

  1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
  2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
  3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
  4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
    | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
  5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
    Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.


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.

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: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5d943bb and e3d6434.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • content/components/rf_bridge.md (8 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
**

⚙️ CodeRabbit configuration file

  • Do not generate or add any sequence diagrams

Files:

  • content/components/rf_bridge.md
🧠 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: CR
Repo: esphome/esphome-docs PR: 0
File: .github/copilot-instructions.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-08-24T00:13:13.459Z
Learning: Open pull requests against the correct base branch: use `current` for documentation-only revisions and `next` for changes tied to new features in esphome/esphome
Learnt from: jesserockz
Repo: esphome/esphome-docs PR: 4865
File: .github/workflows/needs-docs.yml:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-05-01T03:29:47.922Z
Learning: In the esphome-docs repository, the "current" label is automatically added by a bot to pull requests, making it a reliable indicator for the target branch.
⏰ 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: Build
🔇 Additional comments (1)
content/components/rf_bridge.md (1)

94-94: Consistent ID rename across all lambda examples.

All references to id(rf_bridge) have been systematically updated to id(my_rf_bridge) across the send_code, beep, learn, send_raw, start_advanced_sniffing, stop_advanced_sniffing, and start_bucket_sniffing action examples. This avoids the documented compiler conflict and makes the examples internally consistent.

Also applies to: 119-119, 143-143, 173-173, 252-252, 275-275, 307-307

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

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant