Skip to content

Conversation

@jezekra1
Copy link
Collaborator

@jezekra1 jezekra1 commented Jan 8, 2026

Summary

Linked Issues

Documentation

  • No Docs Needed:

If this PR adds new feature or changes existing. Make sure documentation is adjusted accordingly. If the docs is not needed, please explain why.

@dosubot dosubot bot added the size:S This PR changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 8, 2026
@jezekra1 jezekra1 merged commit 70e32f4 into main Jan 8, 2026
8 of 9 checks passed
@jezekra1 jezekra1 deleted the fix-cli-stream-event-done branch January 8, 2026 08:41
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @jezekra1, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue in the CLI where the log stream would erroneously report an error upon completion. The change introduces a more precise way to handle different types of log messages, specifically by recognizing and gracefully terminating when a [DONE] event is received, thus ensuring a clean and error-free log output at the end of a process.

Highlights

  • Log Stream Handling Refinement: The logic for processing log stream messages has been refactored from an if/elif structure to a more robust match statement.
  • Error on Finish Fix: An explicit case has been added to handle the {"event": "[DONE]"} message, preventing it from being incorrectly processed and displayed as an error when the log stream finishes.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request fixes an error that occurs at the end of a log stream by handling the [DONE] event. The implementation is changed from an if/elif block to a match/case statement, which improves readability. I've added a suggestion to make the log printing more robust for various message formats by improving the pattern matching logic.

Comment on lines +312 to +320
match line:
case {"stream": "stderr"}:
(out_console or err_console).print(decode(line["message"]))
case {"stream": "stdout"}:
(out_console or console).print(decode(line["message"]))
case {"event": "[DONE]"}:
return
case _:
(out_console or console).print(line)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The new match statement is a good improvement for readability. However, the catch-all case _: might not provide the best user experience for unhandled log messages as it prints the entire line object. If a log entry from an unknown stream type contains a message key, it would be better to extract and print that message, similar to how stdout and stderr are handled.

I suggest expanding the pattern matching to handle any dictionary with a message key as a fallback, and also to use variable binding for cleaner access to the message.

Suggested change
match line:
case {"stream": "stderr"}:
(out_console or err_console).print(decode(line["message"]))
case {"stream": "stdout"}:
(out_console or console).print(decode(line["message"]))
case {"event": "[DONE]"}:
return
case _:
(out_console or console).print(line)
match line:
case {"stream": "stderr", "message": message}:
(out_console or err_console).print(decode(message))
case {"stream": "stdout", "message": message}:
(out_console or console).print(decode(message))
case {"event": "[DONE]"}:
return
case {"message": message}:
(out_console or console).print(decode(message))
case _:
(out_console or console).print(line)

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

Labels

size:S This PR changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants