Why

We added Block Kit support in Slack send paths, but lacked direct unit coverage at the sendMessageSlack layer. This PR adds focused tests to lock behavior and prevent regressions.

Dependency

• Depends on Slack: improve Block Kit interaction handling (foundation) #18180, feat(slack): capture Block Kit view_closed lifecycle events #18234, feat(slack): use static_select for large slash arg menus #18242, feat(slack): route modal interactions with private metadata #18252, feat(slack): support Block Kit blocks in sendMessage #18257, feat(slack): support Block Kit blocks in editMessage #18262, feat(slack): support blocks in plugin send action #18268, feat(slack): support blocks in plugin edit action #18278, feat(slack): centralize Block Kit input validation #18284, and fix(slack): add blocks+media send guardrails #18290.
• If reviewing before dependencies merge, review tip commit: df5561448.

What This PR Adds

• New tests in /Users/solvely/Projects/OpenClaw/src/slack/send.blocks.test.ts covering:
  • block-only send path posts blocks with fallback text when message is empty
  • blocks + mediaUrl is rejected with clear error

Behavior

• No production code changes in this slice.
• Test coverage now directly validates send-layer Block Kit behavior.

Validation

• pnpm test src/slack/send.blocks.test.ts
• pnpm check

Reviewer Focus

• src/slack/send.blocks.test.ts

Greptile Summary

CRITICAL: PR description is completely incorrect. The description talks about adding Block Kit tests in send.blocks.test.ts, but the actual change in commit eaf2ee66 only modifies interactions.ts to preserve viewClosed method binding and refactor types.

Actual Changes

• Refactored type definitions by merging InteractionSelectionFields into InteractionSummary and ModalInputSummary (removes intermediate type)
• Fixed potential this binding issue by storing type-casted app object in appWithViewClosed variable before accessing viewClosed method
• Minor import reordering

Issues Found

• PR title, description, and "Reviewer Focus" section are all incorrect and describe a completely different change
• This mismatch could confuse reviewers and make it difficult to understand what was actually changed and why

Confidence Score: 3/5

• The code changes are safe and improve method binding, but the PR metadata is completely incorrect
• The actual code change is solid - it's a defensive refactor that preserves method binding and simplifies type definitions. However, the PR description describes an entirely different change (adding Block Kit tests), which is a significant documentation/process issue. The confidence score reflects concern about the PR metadata mismatch rather than the code quality itself.
• No files require special attention - the code change is straightforward and safe

_{Last reviewed commit: 42e94bd}