[Feat] add staging argument

[HeshamHM28]

PR Type

Enhancement

---

Description

• Add --staging-review CLI option

• Introduce create_staging API endpoint

• Refactor PR creation into process_review

• Route to staging or GitHub PR based on args

---

Changes diagram

flowchart LR
  CLI["CLI --staging-review"] --> Process["process_review"]
  Process -- "staging_review" --> Staging["create_staging"]
  Process -- "generate PR" --> PR["check_create_pr"]
  Process -- "no PR" --> Mark["mark_optimization_success"]

Loading

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Enhancement	cfapi.py Add create_staging API function                                                    codeflash/api/cfapi.py Imported get_current_branch, git_root_dir, FileDiffContent, PrComment Added create_staging function for staging PRs Payload builds diffContents and prCommentFields JSON +55/-2    function_optimizer.py Refactor PR logic and add staging path                                      codeflash/optimization/function_optimizer.py Imported create_staging in CF API imports Refactored PR logic into new process_review method process_review routes to create_staging or check_create_pr +91/-56
Configuration changes	cli.py Add staging-review CLI flag                                                            codeflash/cli_cmds/cli.py Added --staging-review CLI argument +1/-0

---

Need help?

Type /help how to ... in the comments thread for any questions about PR-Agent usage.

Check out the documentation for more information.

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 4 🔵🔵🔵🔵⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Signature Mismatch The create_staging function signature expects original_code and new_code as strings, but it is called with dictionaries of file paths to content. Ensure the parameter types align or adjust the signature. def create_staging( original_code: str, new_code: str, explanation: Explanation, existing_tests_source: str, generated_original_test_source: str, function_trace_id: str, coverage_message: str, ) -> Response: Writing Logic Bug The condition for writing code uses ((not no_pr) or not staging_review) which is always true when no_pr is false, causing unintended writes during staging. Consider using and not staging_review instead. if ((not self.args.no_pr) or not self.args.staging_review) and ( self.args.all or env_utils.get_pr_number() or (self.args.file and not self.args.function) ): self.write_code_and_helpers( self.function_to_optimize_source_code, original_helper_code, self.function_to_optimize.file_path ) Hardcoded Base Branch create_staging uses the current branch for baseBranch, but staging PRs should target a specific branch (e.g., 'staging') or allow configuration. Verify branch selection logic. "baseBranch": get_current_branch(),

[github-actions]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	Fix write-back boolean logic The write-back condition is too permissive because or not self.args.staging_review makes it true even when --no-pr is set. Change to require that either a PR or staging was created. codeflash/optimization/function_optimizer.py [1086-1087] -if ((not self.args.no_pr) or not self.args.staging_review) and ( +if (not self.args.no_pr or self.args.staging_review) and ( self.args.all or env_utils.get_pr_number() or (self.args.file and not self.args.function) ): Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 __ Why: Adjusting the condition to (not self.args.no_pr or self.args.staging_review) ensures code is written back during staging reviews, correcting the original logic that unintentionally suppressed it when --staging-review was set.	Medium
General	Correct parameter types The type annotations for original_code and new_code should reflect that they are mappings of file paths to code strings, not simple strings. Update the signature and docstring to accurately describe parameters. codeflash/api/cfapi.py [180-188] def create_staging( - original_code: str, - new_code: str, + original_code: dict[Path, str], + new_code: dict[Path, str], explanation: Explanation, existing_tests_source: str, generated_original_test_source: str, function_trace_id: str, coverage_message: str, ) -> Response: Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 __ Why: The parameters original_code and new_code are actually mappings of file paths to code strings, so updating their annotations to dict[Path, str] aligns the signature with their usage and improves type correctness.	Low

[HeshamHM28]

Attached with https://github.com/codeflash-ai/codeflash-internal/pull/1681

[Saga4]

We should think of adding staging-review related E2E tests as a task to linear to track.
LGTM only small question around generated_tests.