refactor: extract review-file CLI logic out of github.go#429
Merged
tomasz-tomczyk merged 7 commits intomainfrom May 2, 2026
Merged
refactor: extract review-file CLI logic out of github.go#429tomasz-tomczyk merged 7 commits intomainfrom
tomasz-tomczyk merged 7 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
github.go had grown to ~1774 lines mixing three unrelated concerns: gh-CLI / PR push-pull, the comment-authoring CLI, and review-file I/O. PR #424's bulk-routing fallback made the entanglement obvious. Move whole functions, no behavior changes, no signature changes: - review_file.go: resolveReviewPath, resolveReviewPathFromDaemon, pickReviewPath, resolveReviewPathFromSessions, writeCritJSON, loadCritJSON, saveCritJSON, clearCritJSON, findReviewFileByCommentID, reviewFileContainsComment, cjContainsCommentID - comment_cli.go: appendComment[Scoped], readAnchorFromDisk, appendReply, addCommentToCritJSON[Scoped], addReplyToCritJSON, BulkCommentEntry (incl. UnmarshalJSON), processBulkEntry and helpers, parseLineSpec, bulkAddCommentsToCritJSON[Scoped], resolveBulkTarget, addReviewCommentToCritJSON[Scoped], addFileCommentToCritJSON[Scoped], appendReviewComment[Scoped], appendFileComment[Scoped] - github.go: keeps only the gh-CLI / PR sync surface (detectPR, fetchPRComments, mergeGHComments*, createGHReview, push/pull plumbing, truncateStr). Tests stay in github_test.go for this commit — they all live in package main and continue to compile and pass against the moved functions. Splitting the 2700-line test file along the same lines is mechanical follow-up work and not required for the refactor to be useful. go build ./... and go test ./... both pass.
When a user runs `crit pull <pr>` from a worktree whose cwd-resolved review file is for a different branch than the named PR, comments were silently merged into the wrong review file — same class of cwd-vs-intent mismatch that PR #424 fixed for `crit comment`. The trigger is narrow: only kicks in when the user passed an explicit PR number, didn't override --output, and the existing review file's "branch" field disagrees with the PR's headRefName. Under those conditions we scan ~/.crit/reviews/ for exactly one review file matching the PR's branch and route to it, with a stderr note. If zero or multiple match, we fall back to the cwd-resolved path (today's behavior). Adds findReviewFileByBranch helper to review_file.go alongside findReviewFileByCommentID and a redirectReviewPathForPR shim in main.go that wires the fetch+match together.
Mirrors the previous commit for `crit pull`. When a user runs `crit push <pr>` from a worktree whose cwd-resolved review file is for a different branch than the named PR, we'd silently post the wrong comments to that PR — strictly worse than the pull case because pushing creates side effects on GitHub that are visible to reviewers. Trigger conditions are identical to the pull fix: explicit PR number, no --output override, existing review file's branch disagrees with the PR's headRefName, and exactly one alt review file matches the PR's branch. Reuses redirectReviewPathForPR.
When a multi-worktree user runs crit pull/push with --pr and several review files share the PR's head branch, findReviewFileByBranch returned a generic error and redirectReviewPathForPR swallowed it — leaving the user with the cwd file and no signal of why. Distinguish "no match" (silent fallback) from "ambiguous" (stderr Note) via sentinel errors. The Note tells the user to pass --output to disambiguate.
Previously the gate in runPull/runPush required cj.Branch != "" before attempting to redirect to a branch-matching review file. When the cwd review file didn't exist, cj.Branch was empty and the redirect never fired — the user got a fresh wrong-location file silently. For runPull: drop the cj.Branch != "" gate; pass empty cwdBranch through to redirectReviewPathForPR, which now skips its cwd-vs-PR-branch early-out when cwdBranch is empty (no false-positive risk without cwd state). For runPush: tolerate ENOENT on the initial review file read so an explicit --pr from a clean checkout can find the right file by branch via the redirect. Only fail with "no review file found" if the redirect also misses.
Table-driven tests for both helpers using the existing fetchPRByNumberFn test seam (via withFetchPRByNumber) and a temp HOME for isolated ~/.crit/reviews/ fixtures. Covers all redirect branches: cwd-matches-PR, unique-alt, no-alt, ambiguous-alt (asserts the new stderr Note), fetch error, empty HeadRefName, and empty cwdBranch (Fix 1: redirect must fire even when the cwd review file is missing). Also covers the four findReviewFileByBranch outcomes (single, none, ambiguous, exclude).
- review_file.go: document gh-CLI repo-scoping assumption that keeps cross-repo branch-name collisions from being a real-world hazard. - main.go: extend runPull comment to note that a corrupt cwd file also produces empty cj.Branch and triggers branch-based redirect. - .golangci.yml: update stale gocyclo exclusion to reference the *Scoped function name (post-#428 wrapper deletion). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (73.76%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #429 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 67.23% 67.22% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 27 29 +2
Lines 9748 9814 +66
==========================================
+ Hits 6554 6597 +43
- Misses 2677 2696 +19
- Partials 517 521 +4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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
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.
Summary
github.go(was ~1700 lines, mixing three concerns) into:github.go— GitHub PR sync only (gh pr/ push / pull / GitHub ID sync)comment_cli.go—crit commentCLI authoring + bulk JSON writes + reply handlingreview_file.go— review-file resolution, load/save, ID-based and branch-based lookup helperscrit pull --pr <N>andcrit push --pr <N>: when the cwd-resolved review file is for a different branch than the PR the user named, the operation silently lands in the wrong file (same class of bug PR fix: route crit comment --json bulk to alt review file by reply ID #424 fixed forcrit comment --reply-to).redirectReviewPathForPRhelper that reroutes to the review file matching the PR'sheadRefNamewhen exactly one such file exists.--pr <N>with no--outputoverride; honors offline / unauthghfailure as silent fallback.findReviewFileByBranchdistinguishes "no match" (silent OK) from "ambiguous match" via sentinel errors (errReviewFileNotFoundForBranch,errReviewFileAmbiguousForBranch); ambiguous case logs aNote:to stderr so multi-worktree users see why the redirect didn't fire.review_file_test.gocoversredirectReviewPathForPR(7 cases) andfindReviewFileByBranch(6 cases) using the existingfetchPRByNumberFntest seam.crit fetch,crit unpublish,crit share— safe (intent is "current review", no user-supplied ID can mismatch).crit cleanup— N/A (operates over all review files, not cwd-scoped).Closes #425.
Review
/crit-review)go test ./...greengolangci-lint run ./...cleanTest plan
gh, missing cwd file,--outputoverride.crit pull <N>for an unrelated PR — verify it routes to the matching branch's review file (or silently no-ops if no match exists).🤖 Generated with Claude Code