[Bugfix #1137] Fix gitea forge preset against the real tea CLI#1146
Open
pseudoseed wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
[Bugfix #1137] Fix gitea forge preset against the real tea CLI#1146pseudoseed wants to merge 4 commits into
pseudoseed wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
The gitea preset invoked `tea <entity> list/view/whoami/comment`, whose
flattened `--fields` output (or missing flags/subcommands) doesn't match the
Gitea REST shape that forge-contracts.ts and the jq normalizers assume. Route
the read concepts through `tea api`, the raw REST passthrough that returns
exactly that shape:
- user-identity: `tea api user | jq .login` (`tea whoami` has no --output json)
- pr-view: `tea api repos/<repo>/pulls/N` → PrViewResult
- pr-list: `tea api repos/<repo>/pulls?state=open` → PrListItem[]
(now also populates real reviewRequests/isDraft/body)
- pr-exists: `tea api repos/<repo>/pulls?state=all` with nested .head.ref/.merged
- issue-view: `tea api repos/<repo>/issues/N` + a second call for the comments
ARRAY (Gitea's issue object reports `comments` as an int count,
which would crash consumers' `.comments.filter(...)`)
- recently-merged: `tea api repos/<repo>/pulls?state=closed`, filter .merged,
using the real .merged_at
- issue-comment: `tea comments add` (`tea issues` has no `comment` subcommand)
`tea api` needs an explicit owner/repo path segment (unlike `tea <entity>`,
which auto-detects it from the local git remote), and most concepts are invoked
without CODEV_REPO set, so each api-based script derives owner/repo from the
origin remote, honoring CODEV_REPO when present.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Stubs a fake `tea` on PATH answering `api <endpoint>` with captured Gitea REST fixtures (tea isn't in CI, per cluesmith#920), points the scripts at a throwaway repo with a gitea remote, runs each real script, and asserts the normalized output conforms to forge-contracts.ts — incl. comments-as-array, merged-only filtering, open/merged/closed pr-exists cases, and CODEV_REPO override. Also updates the cluesmith#568 pr-exists assertion for gitea to match the new `state=all` query param (was `--state all` flag). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Jul 6, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #1137.
Bugfix-protocol re-do of the earlier SPIR-style PR #1138 (now closed), per maintainer request. Same root cause, plus a real regression test.
Problem
The
giteaforge preset was authored against the Gitea REST API JSON shape, but the scripts invoke theteaCLI, whose output shape differs — and several concepts referenced flags/fields/subcommandsteadoesn't have. Per the in-repo#920note,teawasn't available in the authoring environment, so the preset was never run end-to-end.Fix
Route the read concepts through
tea api(raw REST passthrough returning the shapeforge-contracts.ts+ the jq normalizers expect):tea api user | jq .login(tea whoamihas no--output json)tea api repos/<repo>/pulls/N→PrViewResult(incl. additions/deletions)tea api repos/<repo>/pulls?state=open→PrListItem[]tea api repos/<repo>/pulls?state=allwith nested.head.ref/.mergedtea api repos/<repo>/issues/N+ a second call for the comments array (Gitea reportscommentsas an int count, which would crash.comments.filter(...))tea api repos/<repo>/pulls?state=closed, filter.merged, using real.merged_attea comments add(tea issueshas nocommentsubcommand)tea apineeds an explicit owner/repo path segment, so each api-based script derives owner/repo from the origin remote (honoringCODEV_REPOwhen set).Testing
teaon PATH answeringapi <endpoint>with captured Gitea REST fixtures (tea isn't in CI, per vscode: editor-tab webview for rich backlog search #920), runs each real script, and asserts the normalized output conforms toforge-contracts.ts— incl. comments-as-array, merged-only filtering, open/merged/closedpr-exists, andCODEV_REPOoverride.pr-existsassertion for the newstate=allquery param.🤖 Generated with Claude Code