Conversation
Co-authored-by: sawka <2722291+sawka@users.noreply.github.com>
Deploying waveterm with
|
| Latest commit: |
e70a9e9
|
| Status: | ⚡️ Build in progress... |
term:osc52) with block-level override support
Co-authored-by: sawka <2722291+sawka@users.noreply.github.com>
term:osc52) with block-level override supportterm:osc52=always, focus gating only in focus mode
![kilo-code-bot[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/2193792?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| return false; | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| handleOsc52Command("c;SGVsbG8=", "block-1", true, { nodeModel: { isFocused: {} } } as any); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
WARNING: Test mock may not accurately represent the actual atom behavior
The isFocused field is being set to an empty object {}, but in the actual implementation (line 127 of osc-handlers.ts), globalStore.get(termWrap.nodeModel.isFocused) expects an atom. The test currently passes because the mock's default return value is false, not because it's properly testing an unfocused atom.
Consider creating a proper mock atom that explicitly returns false when accessed via globalStore.get() to make the test more robust and clear about what it's testing.
Code Review SummaryStatus: No Issues Found | Recommendation: Merge The implementation of the
The code follows Wave Terminal's established patterns for adding configuration options. Files Reviewed (8 files)
|
Co-authored-by: sawka <2722291+sawka@users.noreply.github.com>
term:osc52=always, focus gating only in focus mode
The issue called out that the OSC52 unit tests were mostly validating mock setup rather than meaningful behavior. This PR trims that low-signal coverage by removing the Vitest suite for OSC52.
Scope
frontend/app/view/term/osc-handlers.test.ts.Rationale reflected in changes
- frontend/app/view/term/osc-handlers.test.ts✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.