Add API endpoint to reply to pull request review comments by silverwind · Pull Request #36683 · go-gitea/gitea

silverwind · 2026-02-20T13:40:23Z

Adds a dedicated endpoint for replying to pull request review comments, matching GitHub's API exactly:

POST /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/comments/{id}/replies
{ "body": "..." }

The reply is threaded under the same review as the parent comment.

Needed for https://gitea.com/gitea/gitea-mcp/issues/129
Fixes: #37419

This PR was written with the help of Claude Opus 4.7

Add `in_reply_to` field to `CreatePullReviewComment` that accepts a comment ID, consistent with GitHub's API. The handler resolves the comment ID to the internal review ID and creates the reply as a non-pending comment so it threads correctly under the original review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds API support for replying to pull request review comments via the in_reply_to_id parameter, matching the GitHub API design. When a reply-only request is made (all comments have InReplyToID set and no pending review exists), the API returns the review to which the comments were added rather than creating a new review.

Changes:

Added InReplyToID field to CreatePullReviewComment struct for specifying which review comment to reply to
Implemented resolveInReplyTo helper function to validate and resolve reply comment IDs to their parent review IDs
Modified CreatePullReview to handle reply comments by passing the resolved review ID to CreateCodeComment and falling back to the parent review when no new pending review is created
Added integration test validating that replies are correctly threaded under the original review

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
modules/structs/pull_review.go	Added InReplyToID field to CreatePullReviewComment struct with documentation
templates/swagger/v1_json.tmpl	Added OpenAPI specification for the in_reply_to_id parameter
routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go	Implemented resolveInReplyTo validation function and integrated reply logic into CreatePullReview handler
tests/integration/api_pull_review_test.go	Added TestAPIPullReviewCommentReply test case verifying reply functionality

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

wxiaoguang · 2026-02-20T18:24:20Z

AI code breaks the Gitea's "route handler" patterns.

It should either let the sub-function fully handle the error and make the caller check ctx.Written(), or the caller fully handle the error but not swallow it.

And it's not proper to do err := issues_model.ErrCommentNotExist{ID: commentID}; ctx.APIErrorNotFound("GetCommentByID", err). Take a look at how "APIErrorNotFound" works.

- Follow Gitea route handler pattern: resolveInReplyTo writes to ctx, caller checks ctx.Written() - Fix improper APIErrorNotFound usage (don't pass internal func names) - Move zero-check to call site so resolveInReplyTo always gets valid ID - Validate all reply comments target the same review (reject with 422) - Add test for cross-review reply rejection Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.6) <noreply@anthropic.com>

silverwind · 2026-03-15T12:18:36Z

AI code breaks the Gitea's "route handler" patterns.

It should either let the sub-function fully handle the error and make the caller check ctx.Written(), or the caller fully handle the error but not swallow it.

And it's not proper to do err := issues_model.ErrCommentNotExist{ID: commentID}; ctx.APIErrorNotFound("GetCommentByID", err). Take a look at how "APIErrorNotFound" works.

Written by Claude.

Done in 2c980f5:

resolveInReplyTo now follows Gitea route handler pattern: writes to ctx on error, caller checks ctx.Written()
Removed improper APIErrorNotFound("GetCommentByID", err) — now uses bare ctx.APIErrorNotFound()
Removed the fabricated ErrCommentNotExist{ID: commentID} construction

wxiaoguang · 2026-03-15T12:31:38Z

Can you ask your AI why it keeps generating slops like errors.New()?

wxiaoguang

Such logic can't be right.

You should never use error return for a succeeded operation across modules.

bircni · 2026-04-05T17:39:50Z

@silverwind updates?

- Detect reply-only requests up front and skip SubmitReview for them, instead of catching ContentEmptyErr as a success signal. wxiaoguang: "never use error return for a succeeded operation across modules". - Pass API error messages as plain strings to ctx.APIError rather than wrapping in errors.New. - Resolve all in_reply_to IDs before creating any comments. Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>

- Inline the single-use resolveInReplyTo helper into the validation loop. - Break the isReplyOnly condition into named booleans for readability. Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Use the existing helper for repo-scoped lookup + IsPull/code-comment validation. Drop the separate GetPullRequestByIndex + LoadIssue + IssueID-equality dance; verify the URL's pull index against the parent comment's loaded issue instead. Switch the "not a review comment" branch from 422 to 400 to match the resolve/unresolve endpoints. Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>

dismiss change request

Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>

lunny

LGTM except https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36683/files#r3142936040

bircni · 2026-04-26T19:20:21Z

LGTM except https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/36683/files#r3142936040

then why do you approve?

silverwind · 2026-04-26T19:25:38Z

#36683 (comment) explains my reasoning why GH-compatible API is better clearly imho. I wouldn't want to write a incompatible API but if people prefer we can add another endpoint that does not need index (the pr number).

lunny · 2026-04-26T19:38:13Z

LGTM except #36683 (files)

then why do you approve?

I’m fine with either solution, whether it’s backward-compatible Github or not.

bircni · 2026-04-26T19:48:12Z

LGTM except #36683 (files)

then why do you approve?

I’m fine with either solution, whether it’s backward-compatible Github or not.

I prefer the compatibility to GH

…-review-feedback * origin/main: (144 commits) Add API endpoint to reply to pull request review comments (go-gitea#36683) Add CurrentURL template variable back (go-gitea#37444) refactor: use named `Permission` field in `Repository` struct instead of anonymous embedding (go-gitea#37441) Refactor pull request view (3) (go-gitea#37439) Update 1.26.1 changelog in main (go-gitea#37442) Make GetPossibleUserByID can handle deleted user (go-gitea#37430) Fix fetch action redirect (go-gitea#37437) Refactor integration test DecodeJSON calls to use generic return value (go-gitea#37432) Integrate renovate bot for all dependency updates (go-gitea#37050) Refactor pull request view (2) (go-gitea#37428) Use MarkLongPolling instead of hard-coded route path (go-gitea#37427) Optimize CI caches (go-gitea#37387) Update AGENTS.md (go-gitea#37420) Update Nix flake (go-gitea#37425) [skip ci] Updated translations via Crowdin remove excessive quote from terraform instructions (go-gitea#37424) Improve testing init, clean up webhook tests (go-gitea#37412) Fix color regressions, add `priority` color (go-gitea#37417) [skip ci] Updated translations via Crowdin Stabilize e2e logout propagation test (go-gitea#37403) ... # Conflicts: # models/project/column.go # routers/web/repo/issue_page_meta.go

GiteaBot added the lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. label Feb 20, 2026

github-actions Bot added modifies/api labels Feb 20, 2026

silverwind force-pushed the reply branch from 3f39b78 to cf5978a Compare February 20, 2026 13:47

silverwind changed the title ~~Add in_reply_to field to CreatePullReviewComment API~~ Add in_reply_to_id field to CreatePullReviewComment API Feb 20, 2026

silverwind changed the title ~~Add in_reply_to_id field to CreatePullReviewComment API~~ Add API to reply to pull request review comments Feb 20, 2026

silverwind force-pushed the reply branch from cf5978a to eb8adf3 Compare February 20, 2026 13:49

silverwind requested a review from Copilot February 20, 2026 13:50

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of silverwind February 20, 2026 13:50 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go Outdated

Comment thread tests/integration/api_pull_review_test.go

lunny reviewed Feb 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go Outdated

Comment thread routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go Outdated

wxiaoguang marked this pull request as draft February 20, 2026 18:24

silverwind mentioned this pull request Mar 15, 2026

Add in_reply_to field for threading pull review comments via API #36903

Closed

silverwind and others added 2 commits March 15, 2026 12:21

Merge branch 'main' into reply

3fac795

silverwind marked this pull request as ready for review March 15, 2026 12:19

wxiaoguang marked this pull request as draft March 15, 2026 12:31

wxiaoguang previously requested changes Mar 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

GiteaBot added lgtm/blocked A maintainer has reservations with the PR and thus it cannot be merged and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels Mar 15, 2026

silverwind and others added 3 commits April 19, 2026 19:37

Merge branch 'main' into reply

b1ebac1

Inline resolveInReplyTo and clarify reply-only condition

aeb1b5f

- Inline the single-use resolveInReplyTo helper into the validation loop. - Break the isReplyOnly condition into named booleans for readability. Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>

silverwind marked this pull request as ready for review April 19, 2026 18:35

Merge branch 'main' into reply

6b897e5

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go Outdated

Comment thread routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go Outdated

silverwind marked this pull request as ready for review April 25, 2026 18:57

Merge branch 'main' into reply

a50d912

silverwind requested a review from wxiaoguang April 25, 2026 18:58

wxiaoguang reviewed Apr 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread routers/api/v1/repo/pull_review.go

GiteaBot added lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. and removed lgtm/blocked A maintainer has reservations with the PR and thus it cannot be merged labels Apr 26, 2026

Document GitHub-mirrored URL shape

fea6818

Co-Authored-By: Claude (Opus 4.7) <noreply@anthropic.com>

lunny approved these changes Apr 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

GiteaBot added lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. and removed lgtm/need 2 This PR needs two approvals by maintainers to be considered for merging. labels Apr 26, 2026

Merge branch 'main' into reply

1548f2a

bircni approved these changes Apr 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

GiteaBot added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels Apr 26, 2026

merge tests

41c4eb1

wxiaoguang approved these changes Apr 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

silverwind enabled auto-merge (squash) April 26, 2026 20:54

Merge branch 'main' into reply

9409a61

silverwind added the reviewed/wait-merge This pull request is part of the merge queue. It will be merged soon. label Apr 27, 2026

silverwind merged commit 331450b into go-gitea:main Apr 27, 2026
26 checks passed

silverwind deleted the reply branch April 27, 2026 08:46

GiteaBot removed the reviewed/wait-merge This pull request is part of the merge queue. It will be merged soon. label Apr 27, 2026

Uh oh!

Conversation

silverwind commented Feb 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wxiaoguang commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

silverwind commented Mar 15, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wxiaoguang commented Mar 15, 2026

Uh oh!

wxiaoguang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lunny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 26, 2026

Uh oh!

silverwind commented Apr 26, 2026

Uh oh!

lunny commented Apr 26, 2026

Uh oh!

bircni commented Apr 26, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

silverwind commented Feb 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

silverwind commented Mar 15, 2026 •

edited

Loading