refocus last component after copying

[achristmascarl]

Important

Change focus behavior after copying data to refocus the last component instead of defaulting to data view in src/app.rs.

• Behavior:
  • In src/app.rs, change focus behavior after Action::CopyData from Focus::Data to the last focused component using last_focused_component().
• Functions:
  • Modify Action::CopyData handling to call last_focused_component() instead of set_focus(Focus::Data) in run() method.

^{This description was created by for 3263f76. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 3263f76 in 2 minutes and 7 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/app.rs:469

• Draft comment:
  Using last_focused_component() here restores the previously focused component rather than forcing Focus::Data, which is in line with the PR title. Ensure that the last_focused_component field is consistently updated across all focus changes. Consider renaming the method (e.g., to restore_last_focus()) to clarify its purpose.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% The comment starts with "Ensure that..." which is explicitly called out in the rules as likely not useful. The comment is asking the author to verify/ensure something rather than pointing out a definite issue. The second part about renaming is a code quality suggestion, which could be acceptable if actionable and clear. However, the first part about "consistently updated" doesn't point to a specific bug - it's asking the author to double-check. Looking at the code, the last_focused_component field IS consistently updated in set_focus (line 126), so there's no evidence of an actual issue. The renaming suggestion is subjective and not clearly necessary. The method name last_focused_component() is reasonably clear in context. The renaming suggestion might be valid as a code quality improvement, even if subjective. The method name could indeed be clearer. However, without evidence that the current name is causing confusion or bugs, this is a minor stylistic preference. The first part about ensuring consistency is definitely a "verify/ensure" type comment that should be removed. While renaming could be helpful, the comment combines an "ensure that" verification request with a subjective naming suggestion. The rules explicitly state not to ask authors to verify or ensure things. There's no evidence of an actual bug with field consistency - the field appears to be properly maintained. The renaming is purely subjective and not clearly actionable as a must-fix issue. This comment should be deleted. It starts with "Ensure that..." which violates the rule against asking authors to verify/confirm things. The consistency concern has no evidence of being an actual issue. The renaming suggestion is subjective and not clearly necessary. There's no strong evidence this comment is correct or actionable.

Workflow ID: wflow_etbo48cERmgY4JjT

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}