feat(ui): codebase review improvements and design system ratcheting - #1286
Conversation
Append merge-readiness and prlanded outcome for remediate-repository-audit-findings @ 8637fec: DO NOT MERGE, not landed, CONFLICTING vs main.
Capture the 2026-07-26 close decisions and merge-ready keep list after re-triaging the Antigravity/Cursor queue. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
This pull request has been ignored for the connected project Preview Branches by Supabase. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 9 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
✨ 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 |
|
@cursoragent please review for the merge conflicts and fix these. Please also run bugbot looking for any issues. Please resolve any comments and failing CI checks also. |
|
PR #1286 is mergeable and CI-green again. Merge conflictsWas
Also synced through later BugbotNo remaining P0–P2 on the unique product delta. Earlier P1s (phone CSS regression, lock coordinator rewrite, truncated phone-scroll suite, fragile mockup Comments / CI
Ready for your merge when you want. |
Keep main's soft-glass phone chrome, shared test-run-lock coordinator, tokenized document-nav mockups, and accessible-name Playwright contract. Preserve this PR's forced-colors:border control/field styles, design-system literal-shadow ratchet, and knip tailwindcss ignore.
Remove nine exact duplicate branch-review-ledger rows created by the union merge with main, which failed Static PR checks. Append the conflict-repair and Bugbot outcome for fix-test-run-lock.
Append the superseding ledger row for bef2377 after the duplicate-row cleanup so Static PR and review throttle see the current tip.
Append the approve row for tip b9ac162 after hosted PR required and Production UI passed post merge-conflict repair.
Append a superseding ledger row after shell backtick expansion dropped the fix-test-run-lock branch cell from the prior closeout entry.
CI triageCI failed on this PR. Automated classification of the 2 failed job(s):
Compared with main CI run #6020 (success). Classification is evidence routing, not permission to ignore a failure. Exact quarantined Playwright identities remain governed by the flake ledger. |
Production hydration can briefly overlap server and client favourites
trees, so getByTestId('favourites-hub') resolves to two mains and trips
Playwright strict mode. Reuse expectSingleSettledOwner before hub
assertions, matching the existing mode-home hydration guard.
Remove exact duplicate branch-review-ledger rows introduced when merging origin/main so Static PR checks stay green.


Summary
RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change -- codebase review and design system ratcheting.