SnapSentry 0.17.3 - #5165
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request! This repository uses a two-stage review: an AI review that you run yourself, followed by a human review. To get started, comment See the pull request review process for the full details. |
|
/ai-review |
Submission reviewNote: This review was done by Claude. Due to the amount of submissions, doing a fully manual review for each pull request is no longer feasible. Thank you for understanding. Remember: The AI reviewer can be wrong - it may misread code, flag correct code as broken, or suggest changes that make things worse. Treat its findings as suggestions to verify, not instructions to follow blindly. You're responsible for the code you submit, so if a finding doesn't hold up, say so instead of changing working code to satisfy it. Please address the following issues. The items in the collapsed sections are optional, so it's your call whether to address them. No blocking issues — looks good to merge. I diffed the full source against the merged 0.17.2 and the only change below the version line is the extension list in Optional improvements
Minor polish — none of this affects users, so it's your call.
Functionality notes
Non-critical observations and ideas about the feature behavior itself.
Next steps:
See the review process for details. |
881239d to
52fa391
Compare
|
/ai-review |
Submission reviewNote: This review was done by Claude. Due to the amount of submissions, doing a fully manual review for each pull request is no longer feasible. Thank you for understanding. Remember: The AI reviewer can be wrong - it may misread code, flag correct code as broken, or suggest changes that make things worse. Treat its findings as suggestions to verify, not instructions to follow blindly. You're responsible for the code you submit, so if a finding doesn't hold up, say so instead of changing working code to satisfy it. Please address the following issues. The items in the collapsed sections are optional, so it's your call whether to address them. No blocking issues — looks good to merge. The whole change is the version bump plus three entries in Optional improvements
Minor polish — none of this affects users, so it's your call.
Functionality notes
Non-critical observations and ideas about the feature behavior itself.
Next steps:
See the review process for details. |
|
/ai-review |
52fa391 to
96af5f9
Compare
Submission reviewNote: This review was done by Claude. Due to the amount of submissions, doing a fully manual review for each pull request is no longer feasible. Thank you for understanding. Remember: The AI reviewer can be wrong - it may misread code, flag correct code as broken, or suggest changes that make things worse. Treat its findings as suggestions to verify, not instructions to follow blindly. You're responsible for the code you submit, so if a finding doesn't hold up, say so instead of changing working code to satisfy it. Please address the following issues. The items in the collapsed sections are optional, so it's your call whether to address them. Small, self-contained change: version bump, one README paragraph, and a rewritten Multi-page TIFF: the copy keeps page 1, the delete takes all of them.
if (FAILED(decoder->GetFrame(0, &frame)) || ...so for a multi-page file the clipboard ends up holding page 1 while This matters now because Cheapest fix is to let the decoder tell you and treat "more than one frame" the way static bool ClipboardImage(const std::wstring& path, bool* multiFrame) {
...
UINT frames = 0;
if (FAILED(decoder->GetFrameCount(&frames)) || frames == 0) {
break;
}
*multiFrame = frames > 1; // Clipboard will hold frame 0 only.
if (FAILED(decoder->GetFrame(0, &frame)) || ... bool multiFrame = false;
if (forceImage || s.mode == L"image") {
copied = ClipboardImage(path, &multiFrame);
}
...
// forceImage short-circuits payloadReferencesFile, so this has to be its own term.
bool wantsDelete = action != ACTION_COPY_ONLY && !multiFrame &&
(forceImage || (s.deleteFile && !payloadReferencesFile));plus a Optional improvements
Minor polish — none of this affects users, so it's your call.
Functionality notes
Non-critical observations about the feature behavior itself.
Next steps:
See the review process for details. |
## Changelog - Recognizes .tif, .tiff, and .jfif images in a watched folder, alongside the PNG, JPEG, BMP, GIF, and WebP it already handled.
96af5f9 to
cc10cee
Compare
|
/ai-review |
|
This pull request has already had 3 AI reviews in the last 24 hours, which is the limit, so no review was posted this time. Comment |
Changelog
If this pull request updates an existing mod, describe the changes below:
Mod authorship
If this pull request introduces a new mod, please complete the section below.
This mod was created by:
Please select the options that best apply. Your selection does not affect the acceptance criteria, but it helps reviewers understand the context of the code and provide relevant feedback.