[WEB-4628] chore: return 200 response for work item comment

[NarayanBavisetti]

Description

this pull request fixes the issue where a 200 response was not returned when submitting a work item comment.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved reliability of comment activity logging to ensure accurate tracking of comment IDs.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A single line was updated in the IssueCommentListCreateAPIEndpoint class within the issue API. The model_id argument for the model_activity.delay call now uses serializer.instance.id instead of serializer.data["id"], changing how the comment's ID is retrieved for asynchronous activity logging.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
Issue Comment Activity Logging apps/api/plane/api/views/issue.py	Updated the model_id parameter in the model_activity.delay call to use serializer.instance.id instead of serializer.data["id"] in the post method of IssueCommentListCreateAPIEndpoint.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant APIEndpoint
    participant Serializer
    participant BackgroundTask

    Client->>APIEndpoint: POST new comment
    APIEndpoint->>Serializer: Validate and save comment
    Serializer-->>APIEndpoint: serializer.instance.id available
    APIEndpoint->>BackgroundTask: model_activity.delay(model_id=serializer.instance.id)
    BackgroundTask-->>APIEndpoint: Acknowledge task
    APIEndpoint-->>Client: Return response

Loading

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• [WEB-4435] bug: trigger event for work item comment #7331: Refined the argument passed to model_activity.delay() in the same API endpoint, closely related to the current change as it also involves the handling of comment IDs for background activity logging.

Poem

A comment is posted, a task set in flight,
With instance ID shining, the future is bright.
No more confusion, no mix-up or dread,
The background log hops just as it’s said.
🐇✨

Note

⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!

Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 784b8da and 7e92bd6.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• apps/api/plane/api/views/issue.py (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (2)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: NarayanBavisetti
PR: makeplane/plane#7460
File: apps/api/plane/app/serializers/draft.py:112-122
Timestamp: 2025-07-23T18:18:06.875Z
Learning: In the Plane codebase serializers, workspace_id is not consistently passed in serializer context, so parent issue validation in DraftIssueCreateSerializer only checks project_id rather than both workspace_id and project_id. The existing project member authentication system already validates that users can only access projects they belong to, providing sufficient security without risking breaking functionality by adding workspace_id validation where the context might not be available.

📚 Learning: in the plane codebase serializers, workspace_id is not consistently passed in serializer context, so...

Learnt from: NarayanBavisetti
PR: makeplane/plane#7460
File: apps/api/plane/app/serializers/draft.py:112-122
Timestamp: 2025-07-23T18:18:06.875Z
Learning: In the Plane codebase serializers, workspace_id is not consistently passed in serializer context, so parent issue validation in DraftIssueCreateSerializer only checks project_id rather than both workspace_id and project_id. The existing project member authentication system already validates that users can only access projects they belong to, providing sufficient security without risking breaking functionality by adding workspace_id validation where the context might not be available.

Applied to files:

• apps/api/plane/api/views/issue.py

🔇 Additional comments (1)

apps/api/plane/api/views/issue.py (1)

1468-1468: LGTM! Improved reliability by using instance ID directly.

Using serializer.instance.id instead of serializer.data["id"] is more reliable because it directly accesses the saved model instance's ID rather than relying on the serialized data dictionary. This ensures the background task receives the correct comment ID for activity logging.

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch chore-work-item-comment

---

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

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes a bug where the API was not returning a proper 200 response when submitting work item comments by correcting how the model ID is passed to the activity tracking system.

• Fixes incorrect model ID reference in the activity tracking delay call
• Changes from using serializer data to serializer instance for the model ID

[makeplane]

Pull Request Linked with Plane Work Items

• [WEB-4628] API Call [POST COMMENTS] Gets Error 400 - But it is Woking

Comment Automatically Generated by Plane