refactor(board): isolate Paper Board preference storage - #2937
refactor(board): isolate Paper Board preference storage#2937Chris0Jeky wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 253f47ff4d
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| } | ||
| persistedCollapsedColumnIds.value = readCollapsedColumnIds(session.userId) | ||
| density.value = readStoredPreference<BoardDensity>( | ||
| window.localStorage, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the browser's localStorage getter itself throws a SecurityError—for example, under blocked persistence or an opaque/invalid origin—this argument is evaluated before readStoredPreference enters its try, so the Paper Board's mounted hook aborts instead of using the fallback as it did before the refactor. The new utility tests only cover an already-acquired Storage whose methods throw; acquire storage inside the guarded helper or retain a caller-side try around the complete access.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Scope
Behavior-preserving structural refactor only. No rendered markup, preference keys, defaults, or user-facing copy changed.
Checks
npm.cmd run typecheck— passed on the exact merged head.npx vitest --run --maxWorkers=2 src/tests/utils/paperBoardPreferences.spec.ts src/tests/views/paper/PaperBoardView.spec.ts src/tests/composables/useReviewProposals.healthReactivity.spec.ts— 80/80 passed on the exact merged head.npm.cmd run build— passed, including Vite/PWA generation.npm.cmd run lint— passed with 9 existing warnings and 0 errors.npx vitest --run --maxWorkers=2— 6,466 passed, 3 skipped across 419 files before merging the unrelated current-main base update; the post-merge targeted run covers that base's added review-proposal test.Review notes
The branch includes a conflict-free merge of current
origin/main(3105aede0) so the proposed diff is against the latest main line. Please review the utility boundary and confirm the preserved storage contract.