Skip to content

Conversation

@imodeveloper
Copy link
Contributor

@imodeveloper imodeveloper commented Feb 4, 2026

Summary

  • add an optional worktree name field in the new worktree prompt
  • auto-derive a codex/ branch slug from the name until the branch is manually edited
  • display the worktree name in the sidebar/header when provided
  • pass the optional display name through the worktree creation flow
  • preserve custom worktree names on branch rename and cover it with tests
  • cover name/branch sync behavior with hook tests

Motivation

Sometimes a friendly label is easier to scan than a raw branch name. This keeps worktrees readable while still producing valid branch names, and it lets users opt into custom labels without extra steps. It also helps when you paste a ticket title that includes special characters—branch names are normalized automatically for a fast, valid branch.

Testing

  • npm run test -- useWorktreePrompt
  • cargo test (in src-tauri)
  • npm run tauri build (fails at bundle_dmg.sh: failed to run bundle_dmg.sh / command not found)

@imodeveloper imodeveloper marked this pull request as draft February 4, 2026 11:43
@imodeveloper imodeveloper changed the title Add optional worktree name that syncs branch Add optional worktree display name with branch auto-sync Feb 4, 2026
@imodeveloper imodeveloper marked this pull request as ready for review February 4, 2026 11:55
@Dimillian Dimillian changed the title Add optional worktree display name with branch auto-sync feat: add optional worktree display name with branch auto-sync Feb 4, 2026
@Dimillian
Copy link
Owner

@codex review

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c21c73a591

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".

@imodeveloper
Copy link
Contributor Author

Addressed: rename_worktree now keeps the display name unless it matched the old branch, so custom labels survive renames. Added worktree rename tests to cover both cases.

@imodeveloper
Copy link
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link

To use Codex here, create a Codex account and connect to github.

@imodeveloper
Copy link
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link

To use Codex here, create a Codex account and connect to github.

@imodeveloper
Copy link
Contributor Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link

To use Codex here, create a Codex account and connect to github.

@Dimillian
Copy link
Owner

@codex review

@Dimillian
Copy link
Owner

@imodeveloper he only listen to me 🤣

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray!

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".

@Dimillian Dimillian merged commit 84dce20 into Dimillian:main Feb 4, 2026
5 checks passed
@imodeveloper
Copy link
Contributor Author

@imodeveloper he only listen to me 🤣

I have mine configured too, not sure why it is not working 🤓, or it works only on my repositories?

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