Skip to content

fix same-mode focus restore not stealing deliberate focus - #1792

Merged
cursor[bot] merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
cursor/same-mode-focus-no-steal-6df8
Aug 10, 2026
Merged

fix same-mode focus restore not stealing deliberate focus#1792
cursor[bot] merged 9 commits into
mainfrom
cursor/same-mode-focus-no-steal-6df8

Conversation

@BigSimmo

@BigSimmo BigSimmo commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Why

CodeRabbit flagged that PR #1790's same-mode focus fix could override deliberate focus moves after the mode menu closed. That correction raced auto-merge and did not land in the squash, so this PR lands it on main.

Areas touched

  • MasterSearchHeader same-mode focus restore path
  • Mode-menu DOM coverage
  • Branch review ledger (append-only)

Verification

  • Focused change is a 4-line behavior fix plus one DOM test and one ledger row.
  • Full PR CI will validate on this head.

Risk and compatibility

  • No route, API, schema, retrieval, ranking, or clinical-output changes.
  • Narrow focus-behavior correction only.

RAG impact: no retrieval behaviour change — focus restore and DOM test only; submission routing, retrieval, ranking, and answer generation are unchanged.

Open in Web Open in Cursor 

PR #1790 landed with a force-focus fallback that could override deliberate
focus moves after the mode menu closed. Keep only restoreFocusUnlessMoved
and cover the no-steal path with a DOM test. Records the #1790 babysit
ledger row.

Co-authored-by: BigSimmo <BigSimmo@users.noreply.github.com>
@supabase

supabase Bot commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been ignored for the connected project sjrfecxgysukkwxsowpy because there are no changes detected in supabase directory. You can change this behaviour in Project Integrations Settings ↗︎.


Preview Branches by Supabase.
Learn more about Supabase Branching ↗︎.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in: 46 minutes

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 084262df-72a3-49cb-9684-d73c5b4f8c79

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1074c0d and 4712a12.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)
  • docs/branch-review-ledger.md
  • src/components/clinical-dashboard/master-search-header.tsx
  • tests/check-lighthouse-budget.test.ts
  • tests/mode-menu-prefetch.dom.test.tsx
  • tests/test-runner-safety.test.ts

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@BigSimmo
BigSimmo marked this pull request as ready for review August 10, 2026 09:47
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

CI triage

CI failed on this PR. Automated classification of the 2 failed job(s):

  • Unit coverageneeds investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.
  • PR requiredneeds investigation: inspect the failing step and uploaded diagnostics; rerun only after classifying the cause.

Compared with main CI run #9583 (cancelled).

Classification is evidence routing, not permission to ignore a failure. Exact quarantined Playwright identities remain governed by the flake ledger.

Next 16.3 surfaces TS5101 when the Playwright/Lighthouse run-root
tsconfig still injects baseUrl. Resolve @/* with root-relative paths
instead so Production UI critical can typecheck again after the main sync.
Unit coverage failed after merging #1798: runners keep baseUrl +
ignoreDeprecations, but this branch still asserted root-relative paths.
Update the two contract tests to match the kept runner shape.
@cursor
cursor Bot merged commit 3c193fb into main Aug 10, 2026
26 checks passed
@cursor
cursor Bot deleted the cursor/same-mode-focus-no-steal-6df8 branch August 10, 2026 11:46
@cursor

cursor Bot commented Aug 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Babysit summary (merged)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants