Model a scroll container in the drag-and-drop spec fixtures by myabc · Pull Request #24622 · opf/openproject

myabc · 2026-08-05T18:49:49Z

Ticket

No work package — frontend test-output hygiene, noticed while working on AGILE-361.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Removes ~43 Auto scrolling has been attached to an element that appears not to be scrollable lines from the Vitest output, each dragging a full DOM dump behind it.

The warnings were accurate, so this is not suppression. In production sortable-lists.directive.ts:232 always resolves a real scroll container; the fixtures had no scrollable ancestor, so the engine fell back to scrollContainer ?? element (sortable-lists-engine.ts:459) and attached to the list itself. Pragmatic was correctly reporting that the fixtures did not model a scroll container. They do now.

What approach did you choose and why?

Give the element auto-scroll attaches to a computed overflow-y: auto, with no height. Pragmatic checks computed overflow and nothing else, so that suffices, and it leaves layout alone apart from establishing a block formatting context. That matters because these specs assert drop edges and pointer offsets from element rects — a height cap, or overflow-y: scroll's reserved scrollbar gutter, would have moved the numbers they depend on. The geometry-sensitive assertions were deliberately left untouched as the canary.

The attachment point differs per spec, so it was resolved file by file: a .scroll-host wrapper for the nine templates in sortable-lists.directive.behavior.spec.ts (the directive walks to the closest scrollable ancestor), the container itself in drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts (no ancestor walk), one shared wrapper in wp-card-drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts, and the root itself in sortable-lists-engine.preview.spec.ts. Two fixture groups are exempt and still warn nothing: the warns when the collapsed root has neither an input nor a scrollable ancestor test needs its fixtures unscrollable, and the explicit-list scroll-container fallback elements are the subject of their own assertions.

One thing worth recording: a single shared wrapper per fixture does not work for the two nested-root cases, because both roots then resolve the same element and scrollRegistrations is scoped per root (sortable-lists-engine.ts:150) with no cross-root dedupe — so autoscroll is silently lost when either side cleans up, per the engine's comment at :142-149. The fixtures use a nested .inner-scroll-host instead. No consumer is exposed today (every surface has exactly one root per page), but it is a constraint on the scroll-container decision #24504 defers: it stops holding if a second root lands inside the same scrollable ancestor, and Backlogs' outlet selector is page-scoped, so scoping it to the root's own subtree costs nothing now.

Merge checklist

Added/updated tests — test-only change; 167 files / 1548 tests pass
Added/updated documentation in Lookbook (patterns, previews, etc) — n/a
Tested major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, ...) — chromium only

github-actions · 2026-08-05T18:50:55Z

Warning

This pull request does not link an OpenProject work package.

Please add a link to the work package in the description, or reference it in the
title in square brackets, e.g. [SLUG-123] My title here.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR updates frontend drag-and-drop spec fixtures to better model production by ensuring Pragmatic’s auto-scroll attaches to an element that appears scrollable (via computed overflow), eliminating noisy Vitest warnings and large DOM dumps in test output.

Changes:

Adds scroll-container semantics to multiple spec fixtures via overflow-y:auto / overflow: auto wrappers.
Adjusts several Angular test templates to include a .scroll-host (and in nested-root cases an additional .inner-scroll-host) so ancestor-walk logic resolves a scrollable element.
Updates spec comments around why Pragmatic is not mocked and why these fixtures must model scrollability.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
frontend/src/common/drag-and-drop/sortable-lists-engine.preview.spec.ts	Makes the fixture root look scrollable so engine-level auto-scroll registration doesn’t warn.
frontend/src/app/shared/helpers/drag-and-drop/drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts	Ensures the service’s provided container is treated as a scroll container by Pragmatic.
frontend/src/app/shared/directives/sortable-lists/sortable-lists.directive.behavior.spec.ts	Wraps multiple directive fixtures in scrollable ancestors so closest-scrollable-ancestor resolution matches production.
frontend/src/app/features/work-packages/components/wp-card-view/services/wp-card-drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts	Adds a scrollable wrapper for the two-list card-view directive fixture to avoid autoscroll warnings.

github-actions · 2026-08-05T23:45:43Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-08-06T09:16:13Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]
rspec ./spec/features/projects/create_spec.rb[1:12:3:2:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/projects/create_spec.rb[1:12:3:2:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-08-06T12:21:53Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./modules/backlogs/spec/features/inbox_column_spec.rb[1:7:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/backlogs/spec/features/inbox_column_spec.rb[1:7:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-08-07T07:38:57Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./modules/overviews/spec/features/managing_dashboard_page_spec.rb[1:1:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/overviews/spec/features/managing_dashboard_page_spec.rb[1:1:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-08-15T15:02:26Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

github-actions · 2026-08-18T17:29:09Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./spec/features/projects/project_autocomplete_spec.rb[1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/queries/parent_field_ranking_spec.rb[1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/projects/project_autocomplete_spec.rb[1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/queries/parent_field_ranking_spec.rb[1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

The Angular unit-test builder bundles each spec into a __commonJS wrapper, so Vitest's hoist validator walks that wrapper instead of our source and reports top-level vi.mock calls as nested. Only mock, unmock and hoisted are hoist-checked, so vi.doMock sidesteps it. These specs already import the mocked packages and the controller under test lazily in beforeAll, which is the ordering doMock needs. A note above each call records that, since doMock's position above the imports no longer carries the guarantee vi.mock's hoisting gave it. The root spec also claimed it read back the combine, prevent-unhandled and drag-preview options. It never did; they keep the mounted item controller's side effects inert.

vi.doMock only affects later imports, so the statically imported createSortableRoot would have pulled in the real auto-scroll module first and the mock would have stopped applying silently. A type import plus a lazy binding restores the ordering in both engine specs, and drops vi.hoisted with it. The preview spec also loses the file-split rationale that cited a shared module registry, which isolate:true removed. The split itself stands: the sibling renders previews for real.

Pragmatic warns when auto-scroll attaches to an element whose computed overflow is visible. Production always resolves a real scroll ancestor, so the warning was accurate: the fixtures had none. A wrapper carrying overflow but no height satisfies the check without shifting the geometry these specs measure drop edges from. Where the overflow belongs differs. The directive walks up to the closest scrollable ancestor, so its hosts and the card-view root get a wrapper; the drag service and the preview spec register on the element they are handed, so that element takes it directly. Nested-root fixtures need a second, inner wrapper. Two independent root engines resolving one shared host collide on Pragmatic's element-keyed registry, which dedupes per root and not across them. The opSortableListsScrollContainer suite keeps its unscrollable hosts. It asserts that warning on purpose.

github-actions · 2026-08-20T19:04:03Z

Warning

Flaky specs

rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]
rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

Copilot AI lite review requested due to automatic review settings August 5, 2026 18:49

myabc mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2026

Silence the spurious vi.mock hoisting warnings #24621

Closed

3 tasks

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of myabc August 5, 2026 18:50 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread frontend/src/common/drag-and-drop/sortable-lists-engine.preview.spec.ts

Comment thread frontend/src/app/shared/helpers/drag-and-drop/drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts

myabc added needs review javascript Pull requests that update Javascript code labels Aug 5, 2026

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from c24f965 to 76bb224 Compare August 5, 2026 23:26

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 529d5c3 to 9d6b6e8 Compare August 5, 2026 23:26

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 76bb224 to e7a6126 Compare August 6, 2026 08:22

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 9d6b6e8 to 2cab1f4 Compare August 6, 2026 08:22

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from e7a6126 to f22e7c6 Compare August 6, 2026 08:56

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 2cab1f4 to 8b24961 Compare August 6, 2026 08:56

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from f22e7c6 to 5a2889c Compare August 6, 2026 09:27

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 8b24961 to 177a1bf Compare August 6, 2026 09:27

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 5a2889c to f1f3f93 Compare August 6, 2026 10:20

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 177a1bf to 16506df Compare August 6, 2026 10:20

myabc added this to the 17.8.x milestone Aug 6, 2026

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from f1f3f93 to a3f233c Compare August 6, 2026 12:00

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 16506df to 2064209 Compare August 6, 2026 12:00

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from a3f233c to 9577b7a Compare August 6, 2026 16:14

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 2064209 to 75eb667 Compare August 6, 2026 16:14

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 9577b7a to d5bd278 Compare August 7, 2026 07:19

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 75eb667 to de57346 Compare August 7, 2026 07:19

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from d5bd278 to 9f2a00b Compare August 12, 2026 13:59

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from de57346 to 86f4119 Compare August 12, 2026 13:59

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 86f4119 to 69d9bbc Compare August 15, 2026 14:36

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 9f2a00b to c3c7239 Compare August 15, 2026 14:36

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 69d9bbc to 5f7883d Compare August 15, 2026 14:39

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from c3c7239 to c694439 Compare August 15, 2026 14:39

myabc requested a review from ulferts August 17, 2026 18:50

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from c694439 to d2402c9 Compare August 18, 2026 13:40

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 5f7883d to 1f415fa Compare August 18, 2026 13:40

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from d2402c9 to 2eba20d Compare August 18, 2026 16:55

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 1f415fa to 626653a Compare August 18, 2026 16:59

myabc added the maintenance label Aug 18, 2026

This was referenced Aug 18, 2026

[AGILE-362] Make Backlogs destination actions batch-aware #24779

Open

[AGILE-363] Add positional actions for contiguous selections #24780

Open

[AGILE-364] Apply batch selection to contextual ActionMenus #24781

Open

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 2eba20d to 294f54a Compare August 19, 2026 12:47

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 626653a to d7e2f31 Compare August 19, 2026 12:47

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 294f54a to 2eba20d Compare August 19, 2026 12:50

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from d7e2f31 to 626653a Compare August 19, 2026 12:50

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 2eba20d to 294f54a Compare August 19, 2026 12:52

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from 626653a to d7e2f31 Compare August 19, 2026 12:52

myabc removed the request for review from ulferts August 19, 2026 12:54

myabc force-pushed the fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings branch from 294f54a to 90c3b50 Compare August 20, 2026 07:10

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from d7e2f31 to bccc6d2 Compare August 20, 2026 07:10

myabc changed the base branch from fix/vitest-mock-hoisting-warnings to dev August 20, 2026 18:41

myabc added 3 commits August 20, 2026 19:41

myabc force-pushed the fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures branch from bccc6d2 to 0899bb2 Compare August 20, 2026 18:41

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Model a scroll container in the drag-and-drop spec fixtures - #24622

Model a scroll container in the drag-and-drop spec fixtures#24622
myabc wants to merge 3 commits into
devfrom
fix/pragmatic-autoscroll-spec-fixtures

myabc commented Aug 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 18, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

myabc commented Aug 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Ticket

What are you trying to accomplish?

What approach did you choose and why?

Merge checklist

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 15, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 18, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

myabc commented Aug 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading