tea pr review takes gh's review flags: -a/--approve, -r/--request-changes
and -c/--comment, with -b/--body, -F/--body-file and -e/--editor, and
--pending for a review to submit later. --event is hidden but still
accepted, case-insensitively, as approve, approved, request-changes,
request_changes, comment or pending. tea pr review create is the same
command under the name people look for.
The pull request argument is optional and accepts #N, URLs and branch
names; without one, the pull request of the current branch is reviewed.
Without a review type, tea opens the interactive review on a terminal
and otherwise fails with "choose a review type" instead of posting a
comment. Review types given as a subcommand ("tea pr review approve 13")
point at the flag, and approving or requesting changes on one's own pull
request fails before any editor opens.
The interactive review asks for the type first, hiding Approve and
Request changes for the author, then for an inline body that ctrl+e
opens in the configured editor, then offers to annotate the diff, and
confirms with a default of yes. A declined submission keeps the body as
a draft.
Successful reviews report "✓ Approved pull request alice/x#13 (title)"
on a terminal and print the review URL. review submit finds the
caller's pending review when no ID is given, review list and comments
are tables with headers, and dismiss, undismiss, delete, request and
cancel-request say what they did. Every review command has examples and
completes pull request and review IDs.
Signed-off-by: bircni <bircni@icloud.com>
Every confirmation defaulted to No, so Enter after a filled-in form
canceled it; prompts were titled with raw flag names and aborted on an
empty answer; and the shared issue and pull request form lost input:
- Multi-selects hid their last option, so a single assignee looked like
an empty list and labels showed four of five. They now get an explicit
height and scroll past eight options.
- A pty without a window size, such as `script` run without a terminal,
made bubbles panic. Forms now refuse it with "terminal size unknown;
pass the values as flags or use --no-input".
- Without a configured editor, the form ran to the end and then failed
with "configure an editor", discarding everything typed. The editor is
now resolved before the form; without one the body is typed into an
inline multi-line field.
- The pull request form said "Issue title" and "Issue description". The
shared fields read "Title (required):" and "Body (markdown):", and the
review body label gained its missing space.
New prompt API for the area commands: confirmAction with a
terminal.Confirmation (DefaultYes for constructive actions, Typed for
type-to-confirm, NonTTY to name the action in the --yes error) and
requireInput with a human label and inline validation. Declined or
aborted prompts return terminal.ErrCanceled (exit code 3). The existing
confirm and require helpers keep working on top of them, and prompters
without the new terminal.Asker methods keep the plain behavior.
Signed-off-by: bircni <bircni@icloud.com>
- `internal/terminal`: streams and the prompting policy, interactive forms (issue, PR, review, merge, milestone), editor / pager / browser launching, JSON and `--jq` output.
- An aligned table renderer and a record renderer for human output; both strip control and escape characters from server-supplied text so titles and bodies cannot inject terminal sequences.
Reviewed-on: https://gitea.com/gitea/tea/pulls/1124
Reviewed-by: TheFox0x7 <95654+thefox0x7@noreply.gitea.com>
bircni