fix: detect unchecked tasks in nested PR task lists

[TomerFi]

Summary

• The pr-tasks-list handler only inspected top-level list items from marked, so unchecked tasks nested under checked parents were never detected — causing false success outcomes.
• Added recursive extractTaskItems to walk the full token tree including item.tokens for nested lists.
• Added getTaskText helper to extract only the direct text of a task item, excluding nested list content that marked includes in item.text.
• Added two test cases covering nested task scenarios (all checked, some unchecked).

Closes #48

Test plan

• Existing tests still pass (102 passing)
• New test: unchecked nested tasks under checked parents → failure with unchecked subtasks reported
• New test: all nested tasks checked → success with full task list reported

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Enhanced task list parsing to detect and extract nested tasks/subtasks from pull request descriptions, ensuring subtasks are treated alongside parent tasks.
• Tests
  • Added tests covering nested task scenarios, including unchecked nested items and fully completed nested tasks to validate reporting and pass/fail outcomes.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The handler now recursively extracts task list items (including nested subtasks) from Markdown tokens and uses a helper to obtain visible task text when building task lists. Tests exercising nested unchecked and all-checked scenarios were added.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Handler — nested extraction src/handlers/pr-tasks-list.js	Added extractTaskItems(tokens) for recursive traversal of nested task lists and getTaskText(item) to obtain visible task text; parseTasks() updated to use these helpers so nested subtasks are included when classifying checked vs. unchecked tasks.
Tests — nested task coverage tests/handlers/pr-tasks-list.test.js	Added two tests: one asserting failure when nested subtasks are unchecked, another asserting success when all nested subtasks are checked; validates reporter/check-run behavior for nested lists.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐰 I dug through lists both near and deep,
Found hidden chores that liked to sleep,
With recursive hops I brought them light,
Now every subtask shows up right,
🥕 All checked, the burrow sleeps tonight.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 6

✅ Passed checks (6 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main fix: detecting unchecked tasks in nested PR task lists, which aligns with the core objective.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The changes directly address issue #48 by implementing recursive task extraction to detect unchecked nested tasks and return appropriate failure outcomes.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are focused on nested task detection in pr-tasks-list handler; no unrelated modifications are present.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Merge Conflict Detection	✅ Passed	✅ No merge conflicts detected when merging into main

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/pr-tasks-list-nested-tasks

---

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

🧹 Recent nitpick comments

src/handlers/pr-tasks-list.js (1)

112-112: map().forEach() chain triggers Biome lint and is unnecessarily indirect.

Biome flags the implicit return from push() in the forEach callback. More importantly, chaining .map().forEach() allocates a throwaway intermediate array. A single for...of or a direct forEach is cleaner.

♻️ Suggested fix

-    tasks.map(task => getTaskText(task)).forEach(text => tasksLines.push(`- ${text}`));
+    for (const task of tasks) {
+        tasksLines.push(`- ${getTaskText(task)}`);
+    }

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 98.77%. Comparing base (6aa5f27) to head (3679eb9).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #807      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.85%   98.77%   -0.08%     
==========================================
  Files           7        7              
  Lines         958      981      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits          947      969      +22     
- Misses         11       12       +1     

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.