Skip to content

refactor: extract review-file CLI logic out of github.go#429

Merged
tomasz-tomczyk merged 7 commits intomainfrom
refactor/425-extract-review-file-logic
May 2, 2026
Merged

refactor: extract review-file CLI logic out of github.go#429
tomasz-tomczyk merged 7 commits intomainfrom
refactor/425-extract-review-file-logic

Conversation

@tomasz-tomczyk
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

  • Split github.go (was ~1700 lines, mixing three concerns) into:
    • github.go — GitHub PR sync only (gh pr / push / pull / GitHub ID sync)
    • comment_cli.gocrit comment CLI authoring + bulk JSON writes + reply handling
    • review_file.go — review-file resolution, load/save, ID-based and branch-based lookup helpers
  • Audit found a cwd-vs-intent risk in crit pull --pr <N> and crit 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 for crit comment --reply-to).
    • Added redirectReviewPathForPR helper that reroutes to the review file matching the PR's headRefName when exactly one such file exists.
    • Triggers only on explicit --pr <N> with no --output override; honors offline / unauth gh failure as silent fallback.
    • Also fires when the cwd review file is missing entirely (clean checkout + explicit PR).
  • findReviewFileByBranch distinguishes "no match" (silent OK) from "ambiguous match" via sentinel errors (errReviewFileNotFoundForBranch, errReviewFileAmbiguousForBranch); ambiguous case logs a Note: to stderr so multi-worktree users see why the redirect didn't fire.
  • New review_file_test.go covers redirectReviewPathForPR (7 cases) and findReviewFileByBranch (6 cases) using the existing fetchPRByNumberFn test seam.
  • Audit verdict for other commands:
    • 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

  • Code review: passed (/crit-review)
  • Tests: go test ./... green
  • Lint: golangci-lint run ./... clean

Test plan

  • Unit tests for new helpers cover happy path, no-match, ambiguous-match, offline gh, missing cwd file, --output override.
  • Manual smoke: from a worktree with no review file, run 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

tomasz-tomczyk and others added 7 commits May 2, 2026 12:25
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
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 2, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 73.76726% with 133 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 67.22%. Comparing base (57ba566) to head (62f1675).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
review_file.go 60.47% 44 Missing and 22 partials ⚠️
comment_cli.go 85.04% 25 Missing and 20 partials ⚠️
main.go 43.58% 21 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❌ 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     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 33.89% <12.62%> (-0.25%) ⬇️
unit 63.49% <72.58%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@tomasz-tomczyk tomasz-tomczyk merged commit 38ee4e0 into main May 2, 2026
7 of 8 checks passed
@tomasz-tomczyk tomasz-tomczyk deleted the refactor/425-extract-review-file-logic branch May 2, 2026 11:41
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.

refactor: extract review-file CLI logic out of github.go + audit for cwd-resolution bugs

1 participant