Closed
Conversation
…ementation phases, and future functionalities.
Contributor
|
Important Review skippedToo many files! This PR contains 152 files, which is 2 over the limit of 150. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
📒 Files selected for processing (152)
You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughUpdated roadmap and planning documents to adopt an NX monorepo strategy spanning Customer, Provider, Admin, and Mobile apps; restructured sprint timeline (8B–8E), moved Admin migration from Blazor→React into NX, added shared libs and migration/deployment details, and expanded risks, technical-debt items, and external references. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 3❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 2 inconclusive)
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
docs/roadmap.md (3)
40-46: Terminology inconsistency: "Migrar" vs "Criar" for NX apps.Issue: Mixed terminology creates ambiguity about Sprint 8B.2 scope.
Line 41 uses "Migrar
MeAjudaAi.Web.Customerpara workspace NX" (migrate existing app)Line 42 uses "Criar
apps/customer-web,apps/provider-web(Sprint 8C),apps/admin-web(Sprint 8D),apps/mobile(Sprint 8E)`" (create apps)Clarification found at line 158: "Scaffolding
apps/provider-web(vazio, será implementado no Sprint 8C)" indicates Sprint 8B.2 creates empty placeholders for future apps.Recommended fix for clarity:
- Criar `apps/customer-web`, `apps/provider-web` (Sprint 8C), `apps/admin-web` (Sprint 8D), `apps/mobile` (Sprint 8E)` + Migrar Customer Web App existente para `apps/customer-web` + Criar scaffolding vazio para `apps/provider-web` (Sprint 8C), `apps/admin-web` (Sprint 8D), `apps/mobile` (Sprint 8E)This makes explicit:
- Customer app = migration of Sprint 8A deliverable
- Provider/Admin/Mobile = empty scaffolding (implementation in later sprints)
- Readers understand no duplicate work
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/roadmap.md` around lines 40 - 46, Update the roadmap wording to remove ambiguity by distinguishing migration vs scaffolding: change "Migrar `MeAjudaAi.Web.Customer` para workspace NX" to explicitly state it's a migration of the existing customer app, and replace "Criar `apps/customer-web`, `apps/provider-web`, `apps/admin-web`, `apps/mobile`" with language that `apps/customer-web` is the migrated customer app and the others are empty scaffolding placeholders (e.g., "Criar scaffolding vazio `apps/provider-web` (Sprint 8C), `apps/admin-web` (Sprint 8D), `apps/mobile` (Sprint 8E) — implementação posterior"), and keep reference to "Scaffolding `apps/provider-web`" to reinforce the intent.
117-160: Sprint 8B.2 scope may be overloaded: 5 major objectives without prioritization.Sprint 8B.2 lists 5 substantial objectives (lines 122-160):
- Messaging Unification (remove Azure Service Bus entirely)
- Backend Test Optimization (30 min → <10 min, 67% reduction)
- Slug Implementation (entity changes + routing + SEO)
- Frontend Testing Suite (MSW, CI/CD pipeline, SonarCloud)
- NX Monorepo Setup (migrate app + create libs + update CI/CD)
Concerns:
- No time estimates per objective (objectives range from 1-3 days each based on complexity)
- No prioritization: All marked ⏳ equally, unclear which are must-have vs nice-to-have
- Dependencies unclear: NX setup (obj 5) should logically precede Frontend Testing setup (obj 4) since tests need to work with NX structure
- Scope creep risk: "Technical Excellence" sprint includes new feature (slugs) alongside refactoring/quality work
- Aggressive targets: Test optimization 67% reduction + RabbitMQ complete removal are risky if blocking issues arise
Recommendation for "Chill" review mode:
Since user selected "Chill" mode, suggest making objectives 2, 3, and 4 optional/deferred:
- Must-have (Sprint 8B.2): Obj 1 (RabbitMQ unification) + Obj 5 (NX Monorepo setup) — these are architectural foundations
- Recommended (Sprint 8C if time): Obj 3 (Slugs) — improves SEO but not blocking
- Optional (Sprint 9 buffer): Obj 2 (Test optimization) + Obj 4 (Frontend testing) — quality improvements, can be done incrementally
Add priority markers:
🔴 MUST-HAVE,🟡 RECOMMENDED,🟢 OPTIONAL.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/roadmap.md` around lines 117 - 160, The roadmap entry lists five large objectives (Messaging Unification, Backend Integration Test Optimization, Slug Implementation, Frontend Testing & CI/CD Suite, NX Monorepo Setup) without priorities, estimates or clear dependencies; update the Sprint 8B.2 section to: 1) add estimated effort (e.g., small/medium/large or days) for each objective, 2) add explicit priority markers (🔴 MUST-HAVE, 🟡 RECOMMENDED, 🟢 OPTIONAL) and follow the reviewer suggestion to mark "Messaging Unification" and "NX Monorepo Setup" as MUST-HAVE, move "Slug Implementation" to RECOMMENDED (target Sprint 8C), and move "Backend Integration Test Optimization" and "Frontend Testing & CI/CD Suite" to OPTIONAL (target Sprint 9), 3) add a short dependency note that NX Monorepo Setup must precede Frontend Testing changes, and 4) update the success criteria lines for each objective to reflect the new priorities and targets so reviewers and planners can re-scope the sprint accordingly.
1-5142: Overall: Comprehensive roadmap with strategic value, but timeline and scope need adjustment.Strengths ✅:
- Excellent historical tracking (Sprints 0-8B with detailed outcomes)
- Well-reasoned technical decisions (NX Monorepo adoption, Admin migration rationale)
- Clear sprint structure and deliverables
- Risk awareness (identified NX and Admin Migration as risks)
Critical issues 🔴:
- Sprint 8D timeline unrealistic: 13 days to migrate entire Admin Portal (~5000 lines, technology shift) — see comment on lines 1611-1633
- Buffer inadequate: 6 days buffer vs 11-15 days needed for identified risks — see comment on lines 2218-2222
- Mobile App scope question: Sprint 8E adds native mobile to MVP when responsive web may suffice — see comment on lines 1636-1648
Minor issues 🟡:
- Status inconsistencies: NX marked both "✅ Incluído" and "⏳ Planejado" — see comment on lines 31-32
- Premature declarations: Line 12 lists Admin as React before migration (Sprint 8D) — see comment on line 12
- Sprint 8B.2 overload: 5 major objectives without prioritization — see comment on lines 117-160
- Terminology: Mixed "Migrar" vs "Criar" — see comment on lines 40-46
Recommendation:
- Immediate: Clarify Sprint 8B.2 current status (in progress? completed?)
- Before Sprint 8C: De-scope Sprint 8E (Mobile) to post-MVP OR extend MVP date by 2 weeks
- Before Sprint 8D: Add contingency plan if Admin Migration slips (ship with Blazor? reduce scope?)
- General: Consider if document length (5142 lines) hinders navigation — might benefit from split into separate files (roadmap-current.md, roadmap-history.md, roadmap-future.md)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/roadmap.md` around lines 1 - 5142, The roadmap's schedule and scope need tightening: Sprint 8D (Admin Migration) is unrealistic for a full Blazor→React rewrite in 13 days, Sprint 8E (Mobile) should be de-scoped from MVP or MVP date extended, Sprint 8B.2 status must be clarified, buffer length increased, and duplicate/contradictory NX statuses fixed; update the roadmap by (1) revising Sprint 8D to a phased migration plan with concrete sub-tasks and a fallback to "keep Blazor for MVP" (reference Sprint 8D / Admin Migration and Admin Portal migration decision), (2) move Mobile App (Sprint 8E) to post‑MVP or add +2 weeks to MVP target (reference Sprint 8E / Mobile App), (3) change Sprint 8B.2 to a clear state (In Progress / Completed) and prioritize its 5 objectives (reference Sprint 8B.2 objectives list), (4) increase Sprint 9 buffer to 11–15 days and add contingency actions (reference Sprint 9 buffer plan), (5) normalize NX mentions so NX Monorepo is either Planned or Included not both (reference NX Monorepo text), and (6) split this massive docs/roadmap into smaller files (roadmap-current.md, roadmap-history.md, roadmap-future.md) to avoid navigation/maintenance issues; apply these edits to the roadmap sections and callouts (Sprint 8D, Sprint 8E, Sprint 8B.2, Sprint 9, NX Monorepo) so reviewers can re-evaluate timelines and merge.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/roadmap.md`:
- Around line 2218-2222: The roadmap's Sprint 9 buffer is insufficient for the
two high-risk items (NX Monorepo setup and Admin Migration); update the document
by (1) increasing the buffer to a realistic 10–12 days and moving "MVP Final"
from May 9 to May 12–16 OR mark Sprint 8E (Mobile App) as de-scoped to free 13
days, (2) add a "Risk Mitigation Strategy" subsection under the "⚠️ Risk
Assessment" that codifies the contingency branching (if Admin Migration slips >5
days by Apr 10 then choose: ship with Blazor Admin, extend MVP, or reduce Admin
Migration scope to Providers CRUD), and (3) call out Sprint 8C as the first NX
workspace integration and add explicit contingency estimates for libs/ui,
libs/auth, libs/api-client refactoring so the total buffer reflects the 11–15
day need.
- Around line 1636-1648: The roadmap includes "Sprint 8E - Mobile App (React
Native + Expo)" in the pre‑MVP timeline which risks the MVP date; remove or mark
Sprint 8E as post‑MVP (Phase 2) in the roadmap and adjust the schedule so the
pre‑MVP scope only contains essential sprints (e.g., keep "Sprint 8A - Customer
Web App" as the mobile‑responsive solution), update the timeline and slack
calculations to reflect the 13‑day removal (freeing Sprint 9 buffer) and note NX
setup ("Sprint 8B.2") as a potential blocker with contingent mitigation, or
alternatively mark Sprint 8E as optional/parallel work if you must keep it
pre‑MVP.
- Around line 1611-1633: Sprint 8D's 13-day timeline for migrating the entire
Blazor Admin Portal to React (section "Sprint 8D - Admin Portal Migration"
referencing apps/admin-web and branch feature/sprint-8d-admin-migration) is too
aggressive; update the roadmap to either extend the Periodo Estimado to end Apr
22 (add +1 week buffer) and note the additional validation/removal step for the
Blazor project, or reduce the Sprint 8D scope to only critical features
(Providers CRUD + Documents management) and defer
Dashboard/ServiceCatalogs/AllowedCities to Sprint 9; modify the scope bullets,
Periodo Estimado dates, and branch/notes accordingly so the timeline and
deliverables align with the risk assessment.
- Around line 31-32: The roadmap shows conflicting statuses for NX Monorepo and
Sprint 8B.2: reconcile the two entries referencing "NX Monorepo", "Sprint 8B.2",
and branch "feature/sprint-8b2-technical-excellence" so they match; if the
sprint/PR is active change the Sprint text to "🔄 EM PROGRESSO" and add an
execution date next to it and keep NX Monorepo as "✅ Incluído", otherwise change
the NX Monorepo entry from "✅ Incluído no Sprint 8B.2" to "⏳ Planejado para" (or
similar planned wording) so both entries reflect the same planned vs in-progress
state. Ensure the branch name remains accurate and update any adjacent note to
avoid mixed messages.
- Line 12: The top-line stack declaration ("**Stack**: .NET 10 LTS + Aspire 13 +
PostgreSQL + NX Monorepo + React 19 + Next.js 15 (Customer, Provider, Admin) +
Tailwind v4") prematurely lists Admin as React; update that line and the related
block around lines 51-69 to reflect current vs target state by clarifying Admin
is still Blazor WASM and React migration is planned for Sprint 8D—either add a
parenthetical to the stack string "(Admin planned 8D/Março 2026)", split the
stack into "Current" (list Admin: Blazor WASM) and "Target" (Admin: React 19),
or add a concise footnote "*Admin Portal currently in Blazor WASM; migration to
React planned Sprint 8D", and ensure the same wording is applied in the section
currently describing the Admin migration to avoid conflicting statements.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/roadmap.md`:
- Around line 40-46: Update the roadmap wording to remove ambiguity by
distinguishing migration vs scaffolding: change "Migrar `MeAjudaAi.Web.Customer`
para workspace NX" to explicitly state it's a migration of the existing customer
app, and replace "Criar `apps/customer-web`, `apps/provider-web`,
`apps/admin-web`, `apps/mobile`" with language that `apps/customer-web` is the
migrated customer app and the others are empty scaffolding placeholders (e.g.,
"Criar scaffolding vazio `apps/provider-web` (Sprint 8C), `apps/admin-web`
(Sprint 8D), `apps/mobile` (Sprint 8E) — implementação posterior"), and keep
reference to "Scaffolding `apps/provider-web`" to reinforce the intent.
- Around line 117-160: The roadmap entry lists five large objectives (Messaging
Unification, Backend Integration Test Optimization, Slug Implementation,
Frontend Testing & CI/CD Suite, NX Monorepo Setup) without priorities, estimates
or clear dependencies; update the Sprint 8B.2 section to: 1) add estimated
effort (e.g., small/medium/large or days) for each objective, 2) add explicit
priority markers (🔴 MUST-HAVE, 🟡 RECOMMENDED, 🟢 OPTIONAL) and follow the
reviewer suggestion to mark "Messaging Unification" and "NX Monorepo Setup" as
MUST-HAVE, move "Slug Implementation" to RECOMMENDED (target Sprint 8C), and
move "Backend Integration Test Optimization" and "Frontend Testing & CI/CD
Suite" to OPTIONAL (target Sprint 9), 3) add a short dependency note that NX
Monorepo Setup must precede Frontend Testing changes, and 4) update the success
criteria lines for each objective to reflect the new priorities and targets so
reviewers and planners can re-scope the sprint accordingly.
- Around line 1-5142: The roadmap's schedule and scope need tightening: Sprint
8D (Admin Migration) is unrealistic for a full Blazor→React rewrite in 13 days,
Sprint 8E (Mobile) should be de-scoped from MVP or MVP date extended, Sprint
8B.2 status must be clarified, buffer length increased, and
duplicate/contradictory NX statuses fixed; update the roadmap by (1) revising
Sprint 8D to a phased migration plan with concrete sub-tasks and a fallback to
"keep Blazor for MVP" (reference Sprint 8D / Admin Migration and Admin Portal
migration decision), (2) move Mobile App (Sprint 8E) to post‑MVP or add +2 weeks
to MVP target (reference Sprint 8E / Mobile App), (3) change Sprint 8B.2 to a
clear state (In Progress / Completed) and prioritize its 5 objectives (reference
Sprint 8B.2 objectives list), (4) increase Sprint 9 buffer to 11–15 days and add
contingency actions (reference Sprint 9 buffer plan), (5) normalize NX mentions
so NX Monorepo is either Planned or Included not both (reference NX Monorepo
text), and (6) split this massive docs/roadmap into smaller files
(roadmap-current.md, roadmap-history.md, roadmap-future.md) to avoid
navigation/maintenance issues; apply these edits to the roadmap sections and
callouts (Sprint 8D, Sprint 8E, Sprint 8B.2, Sprint 9, NX Monorepo) so reviewers
can re-evaluate timelines and merge.
frigini
changed the title
…ent phase, new React/Next.js stack for customer apps, and future plans.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/roadmap-current.md (1)
180-184: Add languages to the plain fenced blocks.
markdownlintis right here: these fenced blocks should be tagged (for example, astext) so the file stays lint-clean.Suggested markdown cleanup
- ``` + ```text FeatureManagement:GeographicRestriction = true → Liga TODA validação ↓ allowed_regions.is_active = true → Ativa cidade ESPECÍFICA - ``` + ``` -``` +```text src/ Shared/ Constants/ FeatureFlags.cs ... -``` +```Also applies to: 196-217
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/roadmap-current.md` around lines 180 - 184, The fenced code blocks that show the configuration snippet starting with "FeatureManagement:GeographicRestriction = true" and the directory tree starting with "src/" (and the other similar blocks around lines 196-217) are missing language tags; change their opening fences from ``` to ```text so markdownlint passes (i.e., locate the blocks containing "FeatureManagement:GeographicRestriction = true" and "src/" and replace their triple-backtick openings with ```text).
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/roadmap-current.md`:
- Around line 416-441: The Sprint 8B.2 section currently mixes NX scaffolding
with a full Admin portal deliverable and inconsistent app names; update the
sprint to be consistent by choosing one canonical app name (either
apps/admin-web or apps/admin-portal) and restrict Sprint 8B.2 deliverables to
scaffolding/migration tasks only (initialize workspace, migrate
MeAjudaAi.Web.Customer -> apps/customer-web, create placeholders
apps/provider-web and the chosen admin app name, and extract libs/ui, libs/auth,
libs/api-client), moving any functional Admin portal work (Providers,
ServiceCatalogs, unit/integration tests) to Sprint 8D; ensure the checklist
entries and the "Auth Migration" line reference the same chosen admin app symbol
so names no longer conflict.
- Around line 610-633: The document lists Sprint 9 twice (as "⌛ Sprint 9 -
BUFFER & Risk Mitigation (23 Abr - 11 Mai 2026)" and "⏳ **19-25 Mar 2026**:
Sprint 9 - BUFFER"), causing ambiguity; pick one authoritative Sprint 9 window
(either Apr 23–May 11 or Mar 19–25), remove the duplicate header ("ΓÅ│ **19-25
Mar 2026**: Sprint 9 - BUFFER" or the April header), and update all related
references in the surrounding sections—specifically the "🎯 MVP Final Launch: 12
- 16 de Maio de 2026", "Buffer", "Risk Mitigation Strategy", and any mentions of
Sprint 8E or contingency usage—so dates, dependencies, and buffer descriptions
are consistent with the chosen Sprint 9 timeframe.
- Around line 469-490: The fenced C# snippet for EnsureDatabaseMigrations was
corrupted by unrelated sprint text and uses applyMigrations without showing its
assignment; restore a minimal, compilable example by removing the sprint notes,
explicitly showing how applyMigrations is read (e.g., from IConfiguration or
Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable) before the bool.TryParse, keep the method
name EnsureDatabaseMigrations and the call to context.Database.Migrate(), and
change the logger message to English (e.g., "Automatic migrations disabled via
APPLY_MIGRATIONS=false") while leaving any inline comments in Portuguese if
needed.
- Around line 1-1227: The roadmap file contains mojibake (e.g., "Experiência",
"ΓÇô", "├│") and broken emoji markers; re-save the document with UTF-8 encoding
and fix the corrupted characters: open the file in a text editor/IDE, change
file encoding to UTF-8 (without BOM), then run targeted replacements for common
mangled sequences found in the content (examples: "├¬ncia"→"ência",
"ΓÇô"→"–"/"—", "ΓåÆ"→"→" or appropriate arrow, "├│"→"í", "├ú"→"ú", "Γ£à"→"Já",
etc.), restore headings such as "Fase 2: Frontend & Experiência" and inline
terms like "Autenticação",
"GeographicRestrictionMiddleware"/"GeographicRestrictionOptions" and ensure
emoji/styled markers are valid UTF-8 (or remove them), then validate by viewing
the file in UTF-8 to confirm no remaining mojibake before merging.
In `@docs/roadmap-future.md`:
- Around line 1-51: The roadmap file contains mojibake (garbled characters in
headings and words like "Referências", "Validação", "Março", and broken
emoji sequences); reopen the file in an editor/IDE, change the file encoding to
UTF-8 (save as UTF-8 without BOM), and replace the corrupted sequences with the
correct Portuguese text and emojis where intended (e.g., fix headings like
"Referências e Recursos", "Documentação Relacionada", "Validação", month
"Março"), then verify rendering (e.g., inspect "### … Referências e Recursos",
list entries for APIs, and the metadata lines at the end) and commit the
corrected UTF-8 file so the roadmap renders readable.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/roadmap-current.md`:
- Around line 180-184: The fenced code blocks that show the configuration
snippet starting with "FeatureManagement:GeographicRestriction = true" and the
directory tree starting with "src/" (and the other similar blocks around lines
196-217) are missing language tags; change their opening fences from ``` to
```text so markdownlint passes (i.e., locate the blocks containing
"FeatureManagement:GeographicRestriction = true" and "src/" and replace their
triple-backtick openings with ```text).
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 4ec827bb-3952-4141-bd38-a57e341ce9f8
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/roadmap-current.mddocs/roadmap-future.mddocs/roadmap-history.mddocs/roadmap.md
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
docs/roadmap-current.md (1)
416-441:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorSprint 8B.2 scope is still ambiguous.
Line 439 lists "Admin Portal React funcional (Providers, ServiceCatalogs)" as a deliverable, but Sprint 8D (lines 588-602) is titled "Admin Portal Migration" and describes it as the phase for functional React admin work. This creates confusion about when the Admin Portal is actually delivered.
Please clarify: keep Sprint 8B.2 limited to scaffolding/placeholders only (as line 424 suggests), and move any functional Admin Portal work to Sprint 8D where it's properly scoped.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 578273bf-146f-4fa1-8735-a25b930c92a7
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
docs/roadmap-current.mddocs/roadmap-future.mddocs/technical-debt.md
…cation, and geographic restrictions.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
docs/roadmap-current.md (1)
19-19:⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 MinorClarify the Admin migration timeline.
Line 19 states the Admin migration to React is "planned for Sprint 8D," but Sprint 8B.2 (lines 416-441) already includes Admin portal deliverables in React. This creates confusion about when the migration actually happens.
📝 Suggested clarification
-*Migration to React planned for Sprint 8D to unify the stack.* +*Admin migration from Blazor to React spans Sprint 8B.2 (scaffolding) and Sprint 8D (full migration) to unify the stack.*🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@docs/roadmap-current.md` at line 19, The roadmap line that says "Migration to React planned for Sprint 8D" conflicts with Sprint 8B.2 which already lists Admin portal deliverables in React; update the statement referencing "Sprint 8D" (Line 19) to accurately reflect the planned/completed timeline — either mark the Admin migration as completed/included in Sprint 8B.2 or change the phrasing to "further Admin work in Sprint 8D" and add a short note referencing Sprint 8B.2 so readers know the initial React migration occurred in Sprint 8B.2.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/roadmap-current.md`:
- Line 253: Update the typo in the roadmap line that currently reads 'Badgets'
to 'Badges' so the checklist item becomes "[ ] Indicador visual: Badges para
"Cidade" vs "Estado""; locate the exact markdown list item string 'Indicador
visual: Badgets para "Cidade" vs "Estado"' and replace "Badgets" with "Badges".
---
Duplicate comments:
In `@docs/roadmap-current.md`:
- Line 19: The roadmap line that says "Migration to React planned for Sprint 8D"
conflicts with Sprint 8B.2 which already lists Admin portal deliverables in
React; update the statement referencing "Sprint 8D" (Line 19) to accurately
reflect the planned/completed timeline — either mark the Admin migration as
completed/included in Sprint 8B.2 or change the phrasing to "further Admin work
in Sprint 8D" and add a short note referencing Sprint 8B.2 so readers know the
initial React migration occurred in Sprint 8B.2.
added 2 commits
March 6, 2026 23:02
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai full review |
Contributor
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
… API, and Keycloak bootstrapping.
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai I see that the review was not triggered because it has more than 150 files, are you including the deleted files in this account? I need the review. |
Contributor
|
Here are a few suggestions to help get the review through:
I'm re-triggering the full review now: 🧠 Learnings used✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
Owner
Author
@coderabbitai I understand, but my review and full review commands are not being triggered |
Contributor
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 906 🛠 Debug Information Gathered
The most likely cause is the I'm resuming and re-triggering the full review now: 🧠 Learnings used✅ Actions performedReviews resumed. Full review triggered. |
Owner
Author
|
@coderabbitai I added the .coderabbit.yaml file, but I dont have any review running now. |
Contributor
🧩 Analysis chain
🛠 Debug Information Gathered |
📊 Code Coverage ReportCoverage: 90.42% (extracted from Cobertura (Aggregated Direct)) 📈 Coverage Details
📋 Coverage Analysis
🎯 Quality Gates
📁 Artifacts
This comment is updated automatically on each push to track coverage trends. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary by CodeRabbit