fix: Enable nested group display in command tree view#32
Conversation
Previously, createTreeItemsFromGroup only created CommandTreeItems, causing nested groups to be invisible in the tree view beyond 2 levels. issue #31
|
/gemini review |
Summary of ChangesHello @kubrickcode, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request resolves an issue where nested command groups were not visible in the command tree view. By modifying the logic that creates tree items, the system can now correctly differentiate between individual commands and command groups, ensuring that all levels of grouping are accurately represented and displayed to the user. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request correctly enables the display of nested command groups in the tree view by updating createTreeItemsFromGroup to handle GroupTreeItem creation. The logic is sound and is accompanied by a new test case that validates the behavior. My review comments focus on improving the readability and maintainability of the test code by suggesting a way to reduce repetitive type casting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The change correctly enables nested groups in the command tree view by updating createTreeItemsFromGroup to handle GroupTreeItem creation. The logic is sound and addresses the issue. My feedback focuses on improving the tests. I've suggested making the new test case for nested groups more comprehensive to cover multiple levels of nesting. I also pointed out a pattern of repetitive type casting in the test file that could be refactored for better readability.
| expect((result[0] as CommandTreeItem).commandString).toBe("echo hello"); | ||
| expect((result[0] as CommandTreeItem).useVsCodeApi).toBe(false); | ||
| expect((result[0] as CommandTreeItem).terminalName).toBeUndefined(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These repetitive type casts make the code harder to read. Since you've already asserted the type with toBeInstanceOf, you can introduce a variable to avoid repeated casting. This pattern can be applied to other similar assertions in this file.
For example:
const commandItem = result[0] as CommandTreeItem;
expect(commandItem.commandString).toBe("echo hello");
expect(commandItem.useVsCodeApi).toBe(false);
expect(commandItem.terminalName).toBeUndefined();| it("should handle nested groups", () => { | ||
| const commands: ButtonConfig[] = [ | ||
| { name: "Simple Command", command: "echo simple" }, | ||
| { | ||
| name: "Nested Group", | ||
| group: [ | ||
| { name: "Sub Command 1", command: "echo sub1" }, | ||
| { name: "Sub Command 2", command: "echo sub2" }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| const result = createTreeItemsFromGroup(commands); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result).toHaveLength(2); | ||
| expect(result[0]).toBeInstanceOf(CommandTreeItem); | ||
| expect((result[0] as CommandTreeItem).commandString).toBe("echo simple"); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result[1]).toBeInstanceOf(GroupTreeItem); | ||
| expect(result[1].label).toBe("Nested Group"); | ||
| expect((result[1] as GroupTreeItem).commands).toHaveLength(2); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test case is a great addition for verifying group handling. However, it only tests a single level of grouping. Given the PR's goal is to fix nested group display, it would be more robust to test at least two levels of nesting to ensure the recursive nature of group display works as expected. This would involve checking the children of the created GroupTreeItem.
it("should handle deeply nested groups", () => {
const commands: ButtonConfig[] = [
{
name: "L1 Group",
group: [
{ name: "L1 Cmd", command: "echo 1" },
{ name: "L2 Group", group: [{ name: "L2 Cmd", command: "echo 2" }] },
],
},
];
const l1Items = createTreeItemsFromGroup(commands);
expect(l1Items).toHaveLength(1);
const l1Group = l1Items[0] as GroupTreeItem;
expect(l1Group).toBeInstanceOf(GroupTreeItem);
expect(l1Group.label).toBe("L1 Group");
const l2Items = createTreeItemsFromGroup(l1Group.commands);
expect(l2Items).toHaveLength(2);
const l2Group = l2Items[1] as GroupTreeItem;
expect(l2Group).toBeInstanceOf(GroupTreeItem);
expect(l2Group.label).toBe("L2 Group");
expect(l2Group.commands[0].name).toBe("L2 Cmd");
});1 participant
Previously, createTreeItemsFromGroup only created CommandTreeItems, causing nested groups to be invisible in the tree view beyond 2 levels.
issue #31