Enhance checkpoints documentation: detail functionality, images

[hannesrudolph]

Important

Enhances checkpoints documentation with detailed functionality, user interaction, technical implementation, and Git installation instructions.

• Functionality:
  • Checkpoints automatically version workspace files during Roo Code tasks using a shadow Git repository.
  • Enables non-destructive exploration of AI suggestions and easy recovery from changes.
  • Checkpoints capture file content changes, new files, deletions, renames, and binary changes.
• User Interaction:
  • Checkpoints appear in chat history as initial or regular checkpoints.
  • Users can view differences and restore checkpoints via chat interface.
  • Restoration options include restoring files only or files and task.
• Technical Details:
  • Checkpoints are stored as Git commits in a shadow repository.
  • System handles Git operations, state management, and UI components.
  • Uses intelligent file exclusion patterns and respects .gitignore.
  • Special handling for nested Git repositories and concurrency control.
• Installation:
  • Git installation instructions provided for macOS, Windows, and Linux.
  • Checkpoints require Git and use simple-git library for operations.

^{This description was created by for a44335c. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to e5c2a60 in 1 minute and 47 seconds

More details

• Looked at 264 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 8 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Ensure consistent usage of the info block (:::info) across docs. Confirm that your documentation generator supports this syntax.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to confirm that their documentation generator supports a specific syntax, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or verification. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or point out a clear issue with the code itself.

2. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:90

• Draft comment:
  Clarify the irreversible nature of the 'Restore Files & Task' option for improved user awareness.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

3. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:167

• Draft comment:
  The explanation of handling nested Git repositories is clear. Consider noting any troubleshooting tips if renaming operations encounter issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:175

• Draft comment:
  This documentation is very comprehensive. Verify that images are optimized for web and alt texts are sufficiently descriptive for accessibility purposes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 20% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:179

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a troubleshooting section in the 'Git Installation' area to help users resolve common Git-related issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is suggesting an addition to documentation, which is not directly related to code quality or functionality. It doesn't align with the rules provided, as it is more of a suggestion for documentation improvement rather than a code review comment.

6. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:1

• Draft comment:
  For a lengthy document like this, adding a table of contents at the top could improve navigation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The admonition block at line 11 starts with '::::info Important Notes'. This appears to have an extra colon. Typically, admonition blocks use three colons (e.g., ':::info'). Please correct this.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

8. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:17

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The closing admonition block at line 17 uses '::::' with four colons. Please update it to use the correct format with three colons (':::') to ensure consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_afVCIfcA0ld3RoEG

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on de65bc3 in 1 minute and 32 seconds

More details

• Looked at 20 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Verify the change from ':::info' to '::::info'. Ensure this syntax is supported by your markdown parser for admonition blocks.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify the change in syntax for markdown admonition blocks. This falls under asking the author to confirm or double-check something, which is against the rules. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue with the code.

2. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Admonition markup update: The opening tag changed from :::info Important Notes to ::::info Important Notes and the closing from ::: to ::::. Please verify that this change is intentional and that it aligns with the markdown parser/admonition syntax used elsewhere in the docs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify their intention regarding a change in markup syntax. According to the rules, comments should not ask the author to confirm their intention or verify changes. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

3. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:11

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The opening admonition syntax shows ':::::info Important Notes'. Typically, such blocks use three colons (:::info) or four colons consistently. Please verify the intended syntax and adjust the colon count accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is technically correct in pointing out that the syntax changed, but it's not clear if this is actually an issue. Documentation frameworks often support various numbers of colons for admonitions. Without knowing the specific documentation framework being used, we can't be certain this is a problem. The change appears intentional since both opening and closing tags were changed consistently.
  I might be missing documentation framework requirements. Some frameworks might have strict requirements about colon counts.
  Even if there are framework requirements, the consistent change from 3 to 4 colons suggests this was an intentional change rather than a typo. The author likely knows the framework requirements.
  Delete the comment. The change appears intentional and without knowing the framework requirements, we can't be certain this is an issue.

4. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:17

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The closing admonition block appears as ':::::' (five colons). Please confirm if this is the desired syntax or if it should match the opening tag (commonly ::: or ::::). Consistency is key.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

Workflow ID: wflow_QdJ6oXB0OxRnNe9b

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 7ea3831 in 1 minute and 26 seconds

More details

• Looked at 29 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:30

• Draft comment:
  The updated description now states "Roo Code captures snapshots..." without mentioning immutability. If immutability is a key feature, consider including that detail for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:33

• Draft comment:
  The bullet point 'New files added' was shortened from 'New files added to the workspace'. Ensure that the shorter phrasing still clearly indicates the intended behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:30

• Draft comment:
  The updated description is clearer, but the original text mentioned 'immutable snapshots'. If immutability is still an important property of checkpoints, consider reintroducing that detail to avoid potential ambiguity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  Looking at the technical implementation section, there's no explicit mention of immutability being a key property. Git commits are immutable by default, but that's an implementation detail. The change seems to be simplifying the language without losing important meaning. Adding "immutable" could actually confuse readers who aren't familiar with Git internals.
  The comment could be valid if immutability is a key feature that users need to understand. Git's immutability provides important guarantees about checkpoint integrity.
  While Git's immutability is important internally, it's not a critical concept for users to understand in order to use checkpoints effectively. The documentation focuses on practical usage rather than technical details.
  The comment should be deleted as it suggests adding technical detail that isn't necessary for users to understand how to use checkpoints.

4. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:35

• Draft comment:
  The bullet point was shortened from 'New files added to the workspace' to 'New files added'. If the workspace context is important, consider clarifying this to maintain consistency in what exactly is tracked.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 20% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the author to consider clarifying a change in wording. It doesn't directly suggest a code change or improvement, nor does it point out a specific issue with the code. It seems to be more about ensuring consistency in documentation or comments, which doesn't align with the rules provided.

Workflow ID: wflow_a0RDLBkDCEEEuoCW

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on a44335c in 48 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:114

• Draft comment:
  Removing the 'Runs git clean to remove any untracked files' step is a significant change in the restoration process documentation. Confirm that this change is intentional and that the restoration logic in the code does not rely on cleaning untracked files. If it's intentional, please ensure that users are aware of any implications this removal might have.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 40% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm their intention and ensure users are aware of implications, which violates the rules. However, it does point out a significant change that could affect functionality, which is useful. The comment could be rephrased to focus on the potential impact of the change without asking for confirmation.

2. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:114

• Draft comment:
  The restoration process documentation has been updated by removing the 'Runs git clean to remove any untracked files' step. Ensure that this accurately reflects the current restoration behavior—if untracked files are no longer removed, consider adding a note clarifying their treatment.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure that the documentation accurately reflects the current behavior, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior. It also suggests adding a note, which is not a direct code suggestion or request for a test. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

3. docs/advanced-usage/checkpoints.md:11

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be a potential typographical error at the info note marker. The line ":::::info Important Notes" might have extra colons. Typically, a format like ":::info" is used. Please confirm if this was intended or if it should be corrected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_DHsEPmoUmT4ShJlE

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.