3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	e107484042	nisse-review: a commit diff Gitea can't give falls back to the whole diff ... From nisse-review's review of #156: only a failed listing fell back to the PR's whole diff; one commit's diff failing (a force-push dropped it) failed the run. Tests also pin down its other three points, which the code already handled: a command is taken in once, a second review at the same head has its own marker, and `review` beside a comment is one fresh review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J5Utyfzw7gF7UhjRDEtjTk	2026-10-17 07:47:48 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	fca4c41d95	Later review test: its earlier summary is in the brief too ... From nisse-review's draft on #156: it thought points made in a review's summary never reached a later review. They do, as "your review: ...". Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J5Utyfzw7gF7UhjRDEtjTk	2026-10-17 07:06:10 +00:00
dongarandClaude Opus 5.5	37bbac7e72	nisse-review: later reviews, replies, rounds, stop and review (M7.5) ... Back on a PR it reviewed: a new head gets a later review of the commits since (each one's diff, through the API) and of its earlier points; what was said since gets replies, answered where it was said or skipped with a reason. It signs off once and stays quiet while still happy. Past tuning.review.max_rounds it sums up for the operator and goes quiet, until a push or someone other than the PR's author joins in. An operator's `stop` quiets it; `review` asks for a fresh review. Reviews carry numbered markers and replies their point's key, so recovery posts nothing twice. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J5Utyfzw7gF7UhjRDEtjTk	2026-10-17 07:06:06 +00:00