Skip to content

Conversation

@joshsmithxrm
Copy link
Owner

Summary

  • Check userMappingFile (the CLI argument) instead of importOptions.UserMappings to determine if the user provided a mapping file
  • When --strip-owner-fields is used without --user-mapping, the code creates an auto-default mapping that should not report "userMappingProvided": true

Test plan

  • Build succeeds
  • Unit tests pass

Closes #202

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…ummary

Check userMappingFile (the CLI argument) instead of importOptions.UserMappings
to determine if the user provided a mapping file. When --strip-owner-fields is
used without --user-mapping, the code creates an auto-default mapping that
should not report "userMappingProvided": true.

Closes #202

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <[email protected]>
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 10, 2026 01:07
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link

Summary of Changes

Hello @joshsmithxrm, 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 where the import summary incorrectly indicated that a user mapping file was provided, even when only an auto-generated default mapping was in use. The change ensures that the UserMappingProvided flag accurately reflects whether a mapping file was explicitly supplied by the user through a command-line argument, enhancing the clarity and correctness of import operation reports.

Highlights

  • Corrected User Mapping Detection: Modified the logic to accurately determine if a user-provided mapping file was supplied, distinguishing it from internally generated default mappings.
  • CLI Argument Check: The UserMappingProvided flag now checks the userMappingFile CLI argument directly instead of the importOptions.UserMappings property, preventing false positives when an auto-default mapping is created.
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

@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 correctly addresses an issue where the import summary would incorrectly report that a user mapping file was provided when an auto-created default mapping was used with --strip-owner-fields. The fix, which involves checking the userMappingFile argument directly instead of the populated importOptions.UserMappings property, is clear, correct, and effectively distinguishes between a user-provided mapping and an internally generated one. The change is well-contained and improves the accuracy of the import summary. I have no further comments, great work!

Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a bug where the import summary incorrectly reports userMappingProvided: true when --strip-owner-fields is used without --user-mapping. The auto-created default mapping should not be considered as user-provided.

  • Changes the summary field UserMappingProvided to check the CLI argument userMappingFile instead of the processed importOptions.UserMappings object

@joshsmithxrm joshsmithxrm merged commit 7aeca4e into main Jan 10, 2026
45 of 50 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Todo to Done in PPDS Roadmap Jan 10, 2026
@joshsmithxrm joshsmithxrm deleted the issue-202 branch January 10, 2026 01:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

fix: distinguish user-provided mapping from auto-created default in summary

1 participant