Migrate Device transfer modal tests to Vue Testing Library by soaebhasan12 · Pull Request #14563 · learningequality/kolibri

soaebhasan12 · 2026-04-09T09:19:46Z

Summary

Migrated two test files from @vue/test-utils to Vue Testing Library
as described in issue #14263:

SelectDriveModal.spec.js — 9 tests migrated
SelectTransferSourceModal.spec.js — 2 tests migrated

Changes made:

Replaced mount with render from @testing-library/vue
Replaced internal element queries with user-facing queries
(getByText, queryByText, getAllByRole, getByRole, getByTestId)
Removed all @vue/test-utils imports
Rewrote makeWrapper as renderComponent following the pattern
in CoreMenuOption.spec.js

Verified all tests pass:

pnpm run test-jest -- --testPathPattern device
Test Suites: 19 passed, 19 total
Tests: 461 passed, 461 total

References

Closes #14263

Reviewer guidance

Run the following command to verify all tests pass:

pnpm run test-jest -- --testPathPattern device

The main files changed are:

kolibri/plugins/device/frontend/views/__tests__/SelectDriveModal.spec.js
kolibri/plugins/device/frontend/views/__tests__/SelectTransferSourceModal.spec.js

No other files were modified.

AI usage

I used Claude (AI assistant) to support this contribution.

Disclose: I used Claude to understand Vue Testing Library concepts
and the difference between @vue/test-utils and VTL patterns.

Engage critically: I did not use AI output directly. For each test,
I analyzed what the original test was asserting, then chose the
appropriate VTL query based on Testing Library's query priority
guidelines. For example:

Used getAllByRole('radio') instead of CSS selectors to count drives
Used getByRole('button', { name: 'Continue' }) instead of
find('button[name="submit"]')
Used getByText for visible text assertions instead of
component-internal checks

Edit: I removed makeWrapper, getElements, and unnecessary stubs.
I also discovered that passing the Vuex store directly via store:
option worked correctly, while global: { plugins: [store] } did not
— I debugged this by reading error messages and testing different
approaches.

Process sharing: I referenced CoreMenuOption.spec.js as the
pattern guide mentioned in the issue, and used Claude to clarify
concepts when stuck. All final decisions on test structure and
assertions were made by me after reading the Testing Library docs.

I reviewed every test carefully to make sure it reflects real user
interactions — for example, using getByText to find visible text
instead of CSS classes, and getByRole('button') instead of
find('button[name="submit"]').

I ran the full test suite to verify nothing was broken.

learning-equality-bot · 2026-04-09T09:20:22Z

👋 Hi @soaebhasan12, thanks for contributing!

For the review process to begin, please verify that the following is satisfied:

Contribution is aligned with our contributing guidelines
Pull request description has correctly filled AI usage section & follows our AI guidance:
AI guidance

State explicitly whether you didn't use or used AI & how.

If you used it, ensure that the PR is aligned with Using AI as well as our DEEP framework. DEEP asks you:
- Disclose — Be open about when you've used AI for support.
- Engage critically — Question what is generated. Review code for correctness and unnecessary complexity.
- Edit — Review and refine AI output. Remove unnecessary code and verify it still works after your edits.
- Process sharing — Explain how you used the AI so others can learn.
Examples of good disclosures:

"I used Claude Code to implement the component, prompting it to follow the pattern in ComponentX. I reviewed the generated code, removed unnecessary error handling, and verified the tests pass."

"I brainstormed the approach with Gemini, then had it write failing tests for the feature. After reviewing the tests, I used Claude Code to generate the implementation. I refactored the output to reduce verbosity and ran the full test suite."

Also check that issue requirements are satisfied & you ran pre-commit locally.

Pull requests that don't follow the guidelines will be closed.

Reviewer assignment can take up to 2 weeks.

soaebhasan12 · 2026-04-09T09:29:13Z

👋 Hi @soaebhasan12, thanks for contributing!

For the review process to begin, please verify that the following is satisfied:

Contribution is aligned with our contributing guidelines

Pull request description has correctly filled AI usage section & follows our AI guidance:

AI guidance

State explicitly whether you didn't use or used AI & how.
If you used it, ensure that the PR is aligned with Using AI as well as our DEEP framework. DEEP asks you:

Disclose — Be open about when you've used AI for support.

Engage critically — Question what is generated. Review code for correctness and unnecessary complexity.

Edit — Review and refine AI output. Remove unnecessary code and verify it still works after your edits.

Process sharing — Explain how you used the AI so others can learn.

Examples of good disclosures:

"I used Claude Code to implement the component, prompting it to follow the pattern in ComponentX. I reviewed the generated code, removed unnecessary error handling, and verified the tests pass."

"I brainstormed the approach with Gemini, then had it write failing tests for the feature. After reviewing the tests, I used Claude Code to generate the implementation. I refactored the output to reduce verbosity and ran the full test suite."

Also check that issue requirements are satisfied & you ran pre-commit locally.

Pull requests that don't follow the guidelines will be closed.

Reviewer assignment can take up to 2 weeks.

soaebhasan12 · 2026-04-09T09:29:55Z

closed by mistake...

learning-equality-bot · 2026-04-10T06:49:05Z

📢✨ Before we assign a reviewer, we'll turn on @rtibblesbot to pre-review. Its comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly.

rtibblesbot

Clean migration — both files are free of @vue/test-utils, tests use semantic VTL queries, and the pattern matches CoreMenuOption.spec.js. CI is mostly pending but no failures.

suggestion: count-only radio assertion in SelectDriveModal (see inline)
suggestion: two removed tests leave a coverage gap for the primary selection interaction
praise: getByRole('button', { name: 'Continue' }) + toBeDisabled() is good; stubs in SelectTransferSourceModal are well-reasoned

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Reviewed the pull request diff checking for:

Correctness: bugs, edge cases, undocumented behavior, resource leaks, hardcoded values
Design: unnecessary complexity, naming, readability, comment accuracy, redundant state
Architecture: duplicated concerns, minimal interfaces, composition over inheritance
Testing: behavior-based assertions, mocks only at hard boundaries, accurate coverage
Completeness: missing dependencies, unupdated usages, i18n, accessibility, security
Principles: DRY (same reason to change), SRP, Rule of Three (no premature abstraction)
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria
For UI changes: inspected screenshots for layout, visual completeness, and consistency

github-actions · 2026-04-10T07:33:32Z

Build Artifacts

Asset type	Download link
PEX file	kolibri-0.19.4b1.dev0_git.27.g16b96a48.pex
Windows Installer (EXE)	kolibri-0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48-windows-setup-unsigned.exe
Debian Package	kolibri_0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48-0ubuntu1_all.deb
Mac Installer (DMG)	kolibri-0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48.dmg
Android Package (APK)	kolibri-0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48-0.1.10-debug.apk
Raspberry Pi Image	kolibri-pi-image-0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48.zip
TAR file	kolibri-0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48.tar.gz
WHL file	kolibri-0.19.4b1.dev0+git.27.g16b96a48-py2.py3-none-any.whl

Smoke test screenshot

Download screenshot

rtibblesbot

No new code changes since the prior review — only a develop merge commit that doesn't touch the test files. Re-raising two unaddressed suggestions below.

CI passing.

Prior findings

Unaddressed (re-raised below):

Radio count doesn't verify which drives are shown (suggestion) — no reply, no code change
Two coverage gaps: "Continue" enabled on selection, "Cancel" event (suggestion) — no reply, no code change

0/2 prior suggestions resolved. 2 re-raised below.

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria
For UI changes: inspected screenshots for layout, visual completeness, and consistency

rtibblesbot

Prior suggestions addressed; one nitpick on the new commit.

CI passing. Phase 3 skipped — no UI files changed.

Prior findings

N prior findings unchanged (2 from initial review, still resolved).

Newly resolved:

Radio count doesn't verify which drives are shown (suggestion) ← was UNADDRESSED — getByText assertion added at SelectDriveModal.spec.js:77
Missing test for drive-selected enables Continue (suggestion) ← was UNADDRESSED — test added at SelectDriveModal.spec.js:131

2/2 prior findings resolved. 0 re-raised below.

Findings:

1 nitpick (inline)
1 praise (inline)

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

akolson · 2026-04-20T17:30:44Z

Hi @soaebhasan12! Looks like we have some conflicts! Could you please rebase and resolve them?

rtibblesbot

No new commits since the prior review. Re-raising one unaddressed nitpick.

CI passing. Phase 3 skipped — no UI files changed.

Prior findings

3 prior findings unchanged (2 suggestions resolved, 1 nitpick re-raised).

Still unaddressed (re-raised below):

async on "Continue" button is disabled test (nitpick) — no reply, no code change

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

rtibblesbot · 2026-04-21T16:48:58Z

-    cancelButton().trigger('click');
-    await wrapper.vm.$nextTick();
-    expect(wrapper.findComponent({ name: 'KModal' }).emitted().cancel).toHaveLength(1);
+  it('when no drive is selected, "Continue" button is disabled', async () => {


nitpick: async is still unnecessary — no await inside this test body. Remove it to match the sync pattern of the other simple assertions in this suite (e.g., lines 64, 96, 105, 114).

soaebhasan12 · 2026-04-21T16:51:29Z

Hi @soaebhasan12! Looks like we have some conflicts! Could you please rebase and resolve them?

Hi @rtibbles, I have rebased and resolved the conflicts. The branch is now up to date with develop.

rtibblesbot

All prior findings now resolved.

CI passing. Phase 3 skipped — no UI files changed.

Prior findings

2 prior findings unchanged (both suggestions resolved since review 3).

Newly resolved:

async on "Continue button disabled" test (nitpick) ← was UNADDRESSED — removed in commit 75f1b32a7

3/3 prior findings resolved. None re-raised.

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

MisRob · 2026-04-23T08:30:26Z

Hi @soaebhasan12. we've just merged few new conventions & related linting rules to develop (#14579). Would you please rebase one more time, run lint & fix if anything is reported? Here is guidance on how to fix reported errors:

soaebhasan12 · 2026-04-24T04:09:49Z

Hi @soaebhasan12. we've just merged few new conventions & related linting rules to develop (#14579). Would you please rebase one more time, run lint & fix if anything is reported? Here is guidance on how to fix reported errors:

Reference translation keys, not hardcoded strings

Avoid using stubs

Hi @MisRob, I have run the linter and found two types of errors:

Hardcoded strings in SelectDriveModal.spec.js — The strings like 'Finding local drives…' come from $trs in SelectDriveModal.vue, which does not currently export a strings translator. Would it be appropriate to add export const strings = createTranslator(...) to SelectDriveModal.vue as part of this PR, similar to how PinAuthenticationModal.vue does it?
Stubs in SelectTransferSourceModal.spec.js — The component renders either SelectImportSourceModal or SelectDriveModal based on pageName prop. Without stubs, these child components require their own store setup. What is the recommended approach here?

akolson

HI @soaebhasan12! Great work on this pr this far! I've left a few comments for you to look into prior to being merged.

The main issue is the createTranslator exports added to source files — see inline comments.

Two other things:

The 'clicking "Continue" triggers a "go forward" action' test was deleted. It tested that goForwardFromSelectDriveModal is called with the right parameters — that's real behavior worth keeping.
In SelectTransferSourceModal, the SELECT_DRIVE test only checks that the import source UI isn't shown. It doesn't confirm the drive modal actually rendered.

akolson · 2026-05-20T14:23:06Z

  import { TransferTypes } from 'kolibri-common/utils/syncTaskUtils';
  import DriveList from './DriveList';

+  export const strings = createTranslator('SelectDriveModal', {


Same — no changes needed here. Use createTranslator(SelectDriveModal.name, SelectDriveModal.$trs) in the test.

Fixed — removed the export const strings from SelectDriveModal.vue. Now using createTranslator(SelectDriveModal.name, SelectDriveModal.$trs) in the test.

akolson · 2026-05-20T14:23:06Z

+  import { createTranslator } from 'kolibri/utils/i18n';
  import { ContentSources } from '../../../constants';

+  export const strings = createTranslator('SelectImportSourceModal', {


Same — use createTranslator(SelectImportSourceModal.name, SelectImportSourceModal.$trs) in the test.

Fixed — removed the export const strings from SelectImportSourceModal.vue. Now using createTranslator(SelectImportSourceModal.name, SelectImportSourceModal.$trs) in the test.

rtibblesbot

New commits after review 5's approval introduced a DRY violation in three source files, and two @akolson review concerns (May 20) remain unaddressed.

CI blocked on maintainer approval (action_required) — workflows haven't run on these commits yet. Phase 3 skipped — source file changes are script-only, no template or style changes.

Prior findings

All 3 prior findings unchanged (all resolved since review 5 APPROVE).

New findings:

1 blocking (inline, DriveList.vue)
2 suggestions (inline)
1 praise (inline)

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

soaebhasan12 · 2026-05-21T19:36:29Z

HI @soaebhasan12! Great work on this pr this far! I've left a few comments for you to look into prior to being merged.

The main issue is the createTranslator exports added to source files — see inline comments.

Two other things:

The 'clicking "Continue" triggers a "go forward" action' test was deleted. It tested that goForwardFromSelectDriveModal is called with the right parameters — that's real behavior worth keeping.

In SelectTransferSourceModal, the SELECT_DRIVE test only checks that the import source UI isn't shown. It doesn't confirm the drive modal actually rendered.

Hi @akolson, thanks for the review!

Removed all export const strings = createTranslator(...) from source files (DriveList.vue, SelectDriveModal.vue, SelectImportSourceModal.vue). Tests now use createTranslator(Component.name, Component.$trs) directly.
Re-added the clicking "Continue" triggers a "go forward" action test that verifies goForwardFromSelectDriveModal is called with the correct driveId and forExport parameters.
Added a positive assertion in SelectTransferSourceModal for the SELECT_DRIVE test to confirm the drive modal title is rendered.

All 466 device tests pass.

… test data

…s and add positive assertion

…odal

rtibblesbot

All three prior findings resolved in the new commits. Two new issues appeared in the same commits — the blocking fix was incomplete.

CI blocked on maintainer approval (action_required — workflows haven't run yet). Phase 3 skipped — no UI files changed.

Prior findings

Newly resolved:

Exported translator strings duplicating $trs in source files (blocking) ← exports removed in commits fa53569, 33132f3, 07393e5
Misleading drive ID 'WRITABLE_IMPORTABLE_drive' for unwritable drive (suggestion) ← fixed to 'unwritable_drive' in 2f567b7
SELECT_DRIVE test missing positive assertion (suggestion) ← getByText(selectDrive$()) added in 3721cc2

3/3 prior findings resolved.

Findings:

2 blocking (inline — SelectDriveModal.vue:52, SelectImportSourceModal.vue:43)
1 nitpick (inline — SelectDriveModal.spec.js:152)
1 praise (inline — SelectDriveModal.spec.js:162)

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

rtibblesbot

All 3 findings from review 9 resolved in commit 2c5b767.

CI blocked on maintainer approval (action_required) — not test failures. Phase 3 skipped — no UI files changed.

Praise: The commit that addressed review 9 made exactly the three changes requested and nothing else — no scope creep, no unrelated cleanups. Surgical fixes build reviewer trust.

Prior findings

Newly resolved:

Unused createTranslator import in SelectDriveModal.vue (blocking) ← removed in 2c5b767
Unused createTranslator import in SelectImportSourceModal.vue (blocking) ← removed in 2c5b767
Non-English comment in SelectDriveModal.spec.js (nitpick) ← removed in 2c5b767

3/3 prior findings resolved. No new findings.

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

learning-equality-bot · 2026-05-25T11:29:21Z

📢✨ Before we assign a reviewer, we'll turn on @rtibblesbot to pre-review. Its comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly.

rtibblesbot

Re-confirming the prior approval — the only change since review 10 (approved 2026-05-23 on commit 2c5b767) is a formatting-only pre-commit.ci commit (bb8ab9e8): trailing whitespace removal, newlines at file ends, and line-length reformatting of two createTranslator calls in the spec files. No logic changes.

CI shows action_required on all checks — workflows are pending maintainer approval to run on the fork branch, unchanged from the previous review cycle. Phase 3 skipped — no UI files changed.

praise: The final test suite consistently uses createTranslator(Component.name, Component.$trs) to derive translated strings from the component under test, rather than hard-coding English strings. This means any string change will break tests at the source, not silently.

Prior findings

All findings from prior rounds remain resolved — status unchanged from review 10.

0/0 new findings on the formatting commit.

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

akolson · 2026-05-25T12:06:49Z

-    cancelButton().trigger('click');
-    await wrapper.vm.$nextTick();
-    expect(wrapper.findComponent({ name: 'KModal' }).emitted().cancel).toHaveLength(1);
-  });


What was the motivation for omitting this test? Based on the the cancel behavior, we could test that;

a cancel event is emitted if in manageMode. This is the current test behaviour

resetContentWizardState is called if not in manageMode. An addition to consider

Added two cancel tests:

clicking "Cancel" emits a cancel event when in manageMode

clicking "Cancel" calls resetContentWizardState when not in manageMode

akolson · 2026-05-25T12:11:16Z

      forExport: false,
    });
+    goForwardSpy.mockRestore();
  });


Could we add another test that verifies that a submit event is emitted if manageMode is true. The above test only verifies the behavior if manageMode is false

Added a test that verifies a submit event is emitted with driveId when manageMode is true.

akolson

Hi @soaebhasan12! Great work on this pr and thanks for your persistence on it--It's looking great.

I've left some comments for your considerations after which we should merge this pr.
Thank you!

akolson

Great work @soaebhasan12! LGTM! Thank you!

soaebhasan12 · 2026-05-26T23:55:38Z

Great work @soaebhasan12! LGTM! Thank you!

Thanks, @akolson I appreciate the review.

akolson · 2026-05-27T06:36:34Z

Hi @soaebhasan12! Could you please rebase your branch onto the latest develop branch and push the updated changes? Thanks!

github-actions Bot added APP: Device Re: Device App (content import/export, facility-syncing, user permissions, etc.) DEV: frontend SIZE: medium labels Apr 9, 2026

soaebhasan12 closed this Apr 9, 2026

soaebhasan12 reopened this Apr 9, 2026

akolson requested a review from rtibblesbot April 10, 2026 06:48

rtibblesbot reviewed Apr 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

rtibblesbot reviewed Apr 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread kolibri/plugins/device/frontend/views/__tests__/SelectDriveModal.spec.js Outdated

Comment thread kolibri/plugins/device/frontend/views/__tests__/SelectDriveModal.spec.js

rtibblesbot reviewed Apr 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread kolibri/plugins/device/frontend/views/__tests__/SelectDriveModal.spec.js Outdated

Comment thread kolibri/plugins/device/frontend/views/__tests__/SelectDriveModal.spec.js Outdated

rtibbles assigned AllanOXDi Apr 21, 2026

soaebhasan12 added 3 commits April 21, 2026 16:30

refactor: migrate SelectDriveModal tests to Vue Testing Library

181dfaa

refactor: migrate SelectTransferSourceModal tests to Vue Testing Library

bbca58f

refactor: add missing tests and improve assertions in SelectDriveModal

2f58310

soaebhasan12 force-pushed the develop branch from cf3539e to 2f58310 Compare April 21, 2026 16:40

rtibblesbot reviewed Apr 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

style: remove unnecessary async from disabled button test

75f1b32

rtibblesbot approved these changes Apr 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

soaebhasan12 added 4 commits April 24, 2026 02:17

refactor: migrate SelectDriveModal tests to Vue Testing Library

06c2e8f

refactor: migrate SelectTransferSourceModal tests to Vue Testing Library

8416db3

refactor: add missing tests and improve assertions in SelectDriveModal

57de826

style: remove unnecessary async from disabled button test

ee76297

akolson requested review from akolson and removed request for AllanOXDi May 18, 2026 15:38

akolson assigned akolson and unassigned AllanOXDi May 18, 2026

akolson requested changes May 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'learningequality:develop' into develop

c507f18

rtibblesbot suggested changes May 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

soaebhasan12 added 5 commits May 21, 2026 19:48

refactor: update SelectDriveModal tests to use component $trs and fix…

2f567b7

… test data

refactor: update SelectTransferSourceModal tests to use component $tr…

3721cc2

…s and add positive assertion

refactor: remove exported strings translator from DriveList

fa53569

refactor: remove exported strings translator from SelectDriveModal

33132f3

refactor: remove exported strings translator from SelectImportSourceM…

07393e5

…odal

rtibblesbot suggested changes May 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

fix: remove unused createTranslator imports and non-English comment

2c5b767

rtibblesbot approved these changes May 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

akolson requested a review from rtibblesbot May 25, 2026 11:28

[pre-commit.ci lite] apply automatic fixes

bb8ab9e

rtibblesbot approved these changes May 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

akolson self-requested a review May 25, 2026 11:57

akolson reviewed May 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

test: add cancel and manageMode submit tests to SelectDriveModal

286f639

akolson approved these changes May 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

akolson marked this pull request as draft May 26, 2026 16:32

akolson marked this pull request as ready for review May 26, 2026 16:33

Uh oh!

Conversation

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

References

Reviewer guidance

AI usage

Uh oh!

learning-equality-bot Bot commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 9, 2026

Uh oh!

learning-equality-bot Bot commented Apr 10, 2026

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Prior findings

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Prior findings

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

akolson commented Apr 20, 2026

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Prior findings

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Prior findings

Uh oh!

MisRob commented Apr 23, 2026

Uh oh!

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

akolson left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Prior findings

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Apr 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

soaebhasan12 commented Apr 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

akolson left a comment •

edited

Loading