Conversation
…dotgg#11906) Co-authored-by: T3 Code Test <t3code-test@example.com>
…gg#11381) Co-authored-by: yashranaway <yashranaway@users.noreply.github.com>
…ngdotgg#8309) Co-authored-by: Julius Marminge <julius0216@outlook.com>
…tgg#11958) Co-authored-by: Antony <tnybyn@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Julius Marminge <julius0216@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Julius Marminge <51714798+juliusmarminge@users.noreply.github.com>
…folders (pingdotgg#12008) The health probe launched the PyInstaller ACP binary every minute and force killed it, leaving about 1 GB of _MEI files per run. The probe now resolves the install on disk without spawning. Each ACP process gets its own temp directory under the profile that is removed when the runtime closes, and the driver sweeps the profile temp root on create. Continues pingdotgg#11657 by Vita Skacel. Owned temp directory approach from pingdotgg#9626 by ariszz. Co-authored-by: Vita Skacel <skacel.vita@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ingdotgg#12002) Co-authored-by: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…gdotgg#11954) Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
…g#12808) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…off (pingdotgg#12807) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…s page (pingdotgg#12536) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…2243) Co-authored-by: Simone <185146821+Lucenx9@users.noreply.github.com>
…2805) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
pingdotgg#12833) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…nch (pingdotgg#12623) Co-authored-by: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Julius Marminge <51714798+juliusmarminge@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: maria-rcks <254055478+maria-rcks@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
…ngdotgg#12848) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…12843) Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The Code tab floated two controls in the same corner: a Review pill and a round comment bubble. They looked alike, sat one beside the other, and each opened its own box, so the offer read as the same thing twice. One floating composer now holds both. It opens on the mode with work waiting in it — the review when line comments are pending, the comment box otherwise — and a segmented toggle switches between them where the host offers both. The drafts stay separate because they go to separate places: a review summary is not a pull request comment. The composer moves up to the detail panel, so a verdict can be sent from any tab instead of only from the diff. PullRequestCommentComposer and PullRequestReviewBar keep their behavior as the two panes, renamed PullRequestCommentForm and PullRequestReviewForm.
Switching Comment/Review unmounted the pane being left. That threw away a comment draft on every toggle, and reset the submit guard of a form whose request was still running, which was enough to send the same review twice. The inactive pane is hidden instead of unmounted, so both keep their own state and their own in-flight guard. Each pane owns a textarea ref now, and the popover focuses whichever one it opens on.
github-actions
Bot
added
the
vouch:trusted
Owner
Author
|
Refreshed evidence for upstream PR 12945 (icon-only trigger).
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
20 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Problem
The Code tab floated two controls in the same corner: a Review pill and a round comment bubble. They looked alike, sat one beside the other, and each opened its own box with its own textarea and its own buttons. The offer read as the same thing twice, and neither label told you which box you were about to get.
Before / after
Pending line comment
What changed
One floating composer now holds both.
Commentnormally, and flips toReviewwith a count badge while line comments are pending.Comment/Reviewtoggle switches panes where the host offers both. Where it offers only one, the toggle is replaced by a plain title.The composer also moves up from the Code tab to the detail panel, so a verdict can be sent from Summary and Timeline too, not only from the diff.
PullRequestCommentComposerandPullRequestReviewBarkeep their behavior as the two panes and are renamedPullRequestCommentFormandPullRequestReviewForm.Verification
tsc --noEmitforapps/webis clean.vp test run PullRequestDetailPanel.test.tsx pullRequestReviewStore.test.ts— 32 passed.Review 1, and the composer opening straight into the review with1 comment pending.Scope and limits
Implemented with Claude Opus 5 in T3 Code, through the Claude Code harness.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Improvements