Skip to content

Conversation

@shashank-factory
Copy link

Summary

Code formatting and style cleanup - no functional changes.

Changes

  • Apply consistent formatting across base-action tests
  • Format README.md bullet points consistently
  • Minor whitespace and formatting fixes in various files

This PR is part of a split from the security review feature branch to make reviews easier.

PR Stack

  1. This PR - Formatting cleanup
  2. Security commands foundation (depends on this)
  3. Review prompt JSON output pattern
  4. Parallel workflow architecture

- Apply consistent formatting across base-action tests
- Format README.md bullet points consistently
- Minor whitespace and formatting fixes in various files

Co-authored-by: factory-droid[bot] <138933559+factory-droid[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@factory-droid
Copy link
Contributor

factory-droid bot commented Jan 13, 2026

Droid finished @shashank-factory's task —— View job


"Only use LEFT when specifically referencing code being removed."
"Side of the diff to comment on: LEFT (old code) or RIGHT (new code). " +
"IMPORTANT: Use RIGHT for comments on new/modified code. " +
"Only use LEFT when specifically referencing code being removed.",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[P1] Accept line=0 instead of treating it as missing

if (!line && !startLine) treats line=0 as missing because 0 is falsy; since your schema allows .nonnegative(), a caller can pass 0 and get an incorrect validation error—use line == null / startLine == null checks instead.

Copy link
Contributor

@factory-droid factory-droid bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall: mostly formatting-only changes, but there is a behavior bug in the inline-comment MCP server where line=0 (allowed by schema) is treated as missing due to a falsy check. Fixing the line/startLine presence checks should make the tool’s validation consistent with the zod schema.

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.

2 participants