feat(web): configure message alignment independently#60
Conversation
|
@clawsweeper review |
|
🦞🧹 I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again. |
clawsweeper
Bot
added
rating: 🧂 unranked krab
|
Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 12, 2026, 10:18 PM ET / July 13, 2026, 02:18 UTC. Summary Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR proposes a new appearance capability rather than reporting broken behavior with an established current contract. Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.
Merge readiness Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch. Rank-up moves:
Mantis proof suggestion Risk before merge
Maintainer options:
Next step before merge
Maintainer decision needed
Security Review detailsBest possible solution: If maintainers want all four layouts, retain the independent controls with compatibility-preserving defaults, keep coverage for self, human, agent, attachment, and thread content, then rebase and regenerate the embedded assets from the resolved source tree. Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue? Not applicable; this PR proposes a new appearance capability rather than reporting broken behavior with an established current contract. Is this the best way to solve the issue? Unclear at the product level. The implementation is a narrow and compatible way to support all four layouts, but maintainers must decide whether two permanent settings are preferable to a smaller named-layout model. AGENTS.md: found, but no applicable review policy affected this item. Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 44463f775ae4. Label changesLabel justifications:
Evidence reviewedWhat I checked:
Likely related people:
What the crustacean ranks mean
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics. How this review workflow works
Review history (7 earlier review cycles)
|
clawsweeper
Bot
added
proof: sufficient
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: fb5da1b999
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
bc13a85 to
9f57cae
Compare
9f57cae to
7f687ac
Compare
|
Landed via rebase after rebasing onto current main, resolving generated assets, and adding focused alignment coverage. |
2 participants
What changed
Why
Conversation participants should be able to choose either side independently, including layouts with the current user on the left and everyone else on the right.
Browser proof
The proof run uses generated local identities only: Local Captain, Alignment Human, and Activity Bot. The strengthened Playwright test measures avatar/body ordering for the current user, the human teammate, and the agent in every combination.
Configuration
Layout combinations
Validation
pnpm typecheckpnpm -r typecheckpnpm lintpnpm build:webPrevious CI failure
The original Playwright job failed in two pre-existing tests: channel reordering retried a detached move control until timeout, and DM closing attempted to click a hidden action control. The alignment test passed in that run (67 tests passed overall). A local full-suite attempt reproduced the pre-existing channel-order flake; additional failures in that attempt were expected because several tests hard-code the standard port while the isolated validation server used port 18083. The feature-focused test passes consistently on the isolated server.