This commit moves the `gh pr create` tab completion test closer to the logic rather than the commands that use it.
This should ensure that any command or flag that lists reviewers will present teams and users as expected.
This commit enhances the following scenarios to include organization teams as pull request reviewers:
1. Interactive `gh pr create` during additional metadata
2. Tab completing `gh pr create --reviewer`
3. Tab completing `gh pr edit --add-reviewer`
4. Tab completing `gh pr edit --remove-reviewer`
Additionally, a new `gh pr create` test case for ensuring that teams show up within interactive prompts has been added.
Added test cases to verify that teams are fetched when reviewers include teams and not fetched when only users are specified. This ensures correct behavior when requesting reviews from users and teams during pull request creation.
Updated the logic for fetching team reviewers in PR edit and create flows. In `pr edit`, team reviewers are always fetched for consistency with existing behavior, with a note to potentially align with `pr create` logic in the future. In `pr create`, team reviewers are now only fetched if a reviewer contains a slash, aligning with behavior before the regression.
Based on PR feedback from @bagtoad, this commit creates a new constant for the Copilot bot name, which is used in the assignee / reviewer selection as well as replacing `@copilot` when going to GitHub.com UI
Thanks to @bagtoad, this commit refactors the argument to `NewCopilotReplacer(bool)` from being where this is used to what it effect is has.
Because there is already precedence for display name being `<login> (<name>)`, I worried there would be confusion for `Copilot (AI)` being display name for assignees and reviewers but `Copilot` when going to GitHub.com UI. Instead, I renamed the argument based on whether the login is returned / replaced.
This commit is primarily focused on fixing the existing `gh issue create` tests with the changes to the underlying queries retrieving the data for resolving metadata.
Additionally, a new test case for `gh issue create --web --assignee @copilot` was added to mirror existing tests. While exercising this capability, I found out the web UI apparently wants `copilot` instead of the `copilot-swe-agent` login, so changes to address that were a part of this commit.
This commit refactors how `gh issue create` and `gh pr create` retrieve information needed to resolve metadata to be more in line with the approach used in `gh issue edit` and `gh pr edit`.
Previously, both commands used `prshared.fillMetadata(...)` function to retrieve assignees, reviewers, labels, and teams outside of `api.RepoMetadata(..)`. Now, these commands will consistently use the same logic and data for resolving metadata.
- updated command documentation for new `--assignee @copilot` syntax
- updated `gh issue create` logic with feature detection for actor availability
- fixed bug where `--assignee` would not select default assignees due to login vs display name mismatch
- updated survey prompt logic to avoid parsing prompt options in favor of correlating with assignee / actor source
One thing that is not included in these changes is incorporating the GraphQL mutation to replace assignees with actors, which I will continue iterating on.
* fix: prioritize title and body over autofill for prs
* fix: prioritize title and body over autofill tests
* refactor: collapse state conditions
---------
Co-authored-by: Babak K. Shandiz <babakks@github.com>
This commit is a handful of changes around `gh pr edit --add-assignee` behavior. Most notably, fixing a bug where the assigned actors weren't being dropped.
In addition to this, I was refactoring the testing setup to allow for individual test table scenarios could be contained.
* Document support for `@copilot` in `gh [pr|issue] edit --add-assignee` and `--remove-assignee`
Following up on #10991, this updates the help text for
`issue edit` and `pr edit`'s `--add-assignee` and
`--remove-assignee` options to mention that you can use
`@copilot`.
This is already mentioned in the command-level help text, but
not at the argument level, whereas the `@me` macro is.
* Apply suggestion from @babakks
Co-authored-by: Babak K. Shandiz <babakks@github.com>
* Apply suggestion from @babakks
Co-authored-by: Babak K. Shandiz <babakks@github.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Babak K. Shandiz <babakks@github.com>
