Skip to content

Merge pull request #203 from Open-VCS/Beta Merge pull request #201 from Open-VCS/Dev Merge pull request #200 from Open-VCS/Add-Beta Implement beta testing#204

Merged
Jordonbc merged 3 commits intoBetafrom
Dev
Mar 24, 2026

Conversation

@Jordonbc
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

No description provided.

…ow-error

ci: fix invalid run-name expression in beta workflow
Merge pull request #201 from Open-VCS/Dev

Merge pull request #200 from Open-VCS/Add-Beta

Implement beta testing
@Jordonbc Jordonbc merged commit 6114c6d into Beta Mar 24, 2026
6 checks passed
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Code Review Summary

Issues Found

1. Unused import in updater.rs:3

use log::{debug, error, info, trace};

trace is not used in the new get_update_status function (though it's used elsewhere).

2. Code duplication between update commands
Both get_update_status (lines 27-62) and updater_install_now (lines 73-161) call updater.check().await and handle Some(update)/None. The status check could be cached or the logic shared.

3. Unnecessary string clones in get_update_status

version: Some(update.version.clone()),
current_version: Some(update.current_version.clone()),
body: update.body.clone(),

These clones may be unnecessary if update owns the data and isn't used after this function. Consider moving where possible.

4. Silent error swallowing in updater_install_now

let _ = app2.emit("update:progress", payload);

Progress event errors are silently ignored. Consider at least logging failures.

5. Inconsistent error handling in frontend

} catch {
    notify('Update check failed');
}

The caught error is silently discarded. Consider logging it for debugging.

Minor Suggestions

  • Consider extracting a shared check_for_update() helper to reduce duplication
  • The date field serialization format should be documented or use ISO 8601 for consistency
  • Add a comment clarifying why let _ = is acceptable for progress emit failures

Overall Assessment

The PR is a solid refactor that moves update logic to the backend (better security/encapsulation). The main concerns are minor: code duplication and unnecessary clones. No blocking bugs detected.

New%20session%20-%202026-03-24T04%3A33%3A27.662Z
opencode session  |  github run

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant