Remove comment-only and whitespace-only changes #11747

Shyam-123pandey · 2026-01-07T07:16:31Z

This commit removes comment-only and whitespace-only changes that were
introduced during drafting.
This is improved version of things, like previously i only changed in textarea.js but for more improvement some changes in validation also.
No functional or behavioral changes are intended.
#11736

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR claims to remove comment-only and whitespace-only changes, but actually introduces significant new functionality alongside formatting fixes. The main additions include pattern validation for textarea fields and automatic bridge/tunnel tagging when changing feature layers.

Key changes:

Added pattern validation functionality to textarea fields with visual feedback
Implemented automatic bridge/tunnel tagging when adjusting layer values in crossing ways validation
Fixed indentation and comment formatting issues

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

File	Description
modules/validations/crossing_ways.js	Fixed indentation, modernized array method, refactored layer logic, and added new bridge/tunnel tagging behavior based on layer changes
modules/ui/fields/textarea.js	Added pattern validation function with visual feedback, updated event handlers to support validation, and added new imports
css/30_highways.css	Fixed malformed comment syntax and added whitespace for readability

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:02Z

modules/validations/crossing_ways.js

+                // Apply bridge/tunnel ONLY to allowed linear features
+                if (featureType && allowsBridge(featureType) && higherOrLower === 'higher') {
+                    tags.bridge = 'yes';
+                    delete tags.tunnel;
+                } else if (featureType && allowsTunnel(featureType) && higherOrLower === 'lower') {
+                    tags.tunnel = 'yes';
+                    delete tags.bridge;
+                } else {
+                    // Buildings or unsupported features
+                    delete tags.bridge;
+                    delete tags.tunnel;
+                }


The PR description states "No functional or behavioral changes are intended", but this change introduces significant new functionality. The code now automatically adds or removes bridge/tunnel tags based on the layer direction and feature type, which is a behavioral change that should be:

Explicitly documented in the PR description

Covered by tests

Reviewed as a feature addition, not as a refactoring

Consider splitting this into a separate PR with appropriate tests and documentation.

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:02Z

modules/ui/fields/textarea.js

+        try {
+            const regex = new RegExp(field.pattern);
+            isInvalid = !regex.test(value);
+        } catch {


The catch block silently ignores all errors without any logging or handling. If the regex construction fails due to an invalid pattern, this should at least be logged for debugging purposes. Consider logging the error or adding a comment explaining why silent failure is acceptable here.

Suggested change

} catch {

} catch (err) {

// Log invalid regex patterns for debugging while preserving existing behavior

/* eslint-disable no-console */

console.error('uiFieldTextarea: invalid regex pattern for field.pattern', field.pattern, err);

/* eslint-enable no-console */

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:03Z

modules/validations/crossing_ways.js

+                // Apply bridge/tunnel ONLY to allowed linear features
+                if (featureType && allowsBridge(featureType) && higherOrLower === 'higher') {
+                    tags.bridge = 'yes';
+                    delete tags.tunnel;
+                } else if (featureType && allowsTunnel(featureType) && higherOrLower === 'lower') {
+                    tags.tunnel = 'yes';
+                    delete tags.bridge;
+                } else {
+                    // Buildings or unsupported features
+                    delete tags.bridge;
+                    delete tags.tunnel;
+                }


The new logic that automatically adds bridge='yes' or tunnel='yes' tags when changing layers lacks test coverage. Given that test/spec/validations/crossing_ways.js exists and tests layer-related behavior, this new functionality should be tested to ensure:

Bridge tags are correctly added when moving to higher layers

Tunnel tags are correctly added when moving to lower layers

Tags are correctly removed for unsupported feature types

Bridge and tunnel tags are mutually exclusive

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:03Z

modules/ui/fields/textarea.js

            _lengthIndicator.update(tags[field.key]);
        }
+
+        updatePatternValidation();   


This line contains trailing whitespace. Remove the trailing spaces for code cleanliness.

Suggested change

updatePatternValidation();

updatePatternValidation();

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:03Z

modules/ui/fields/textarea.js

+        const value = utilGetSetValue(input).trim();
+
+        if (!value) {
+            wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info').remove();
+            return;
+        }
+
+        let isInvalid = false;
+        try {
+            const regex = new RegExp(field.pattern);
+            isInvalid = !regex.test(value);
+        } catch {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        const info = wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info')
+            .data(isInvalid ? [0] : []);
+
+        const enter = info.enter()


The new function uses modern JavaScript variable declarations (const/let) while the rest of the file consistently uses var. For consistency with the existing codebase style, consider using var instead of const/let throughout this function, or update the entire file to use modern declarations in a separate refactoring PR.

Suggested change

const value = utilGetSetValue(input).trim();

if (!value) {

wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info').remove();

return;

}

let isInvalid = false;

try {

const regex = new RegExp(field.pattern);

isInvalid = !regex.test(value);

} catch {

return;

}

const info = wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info')

.data(isInvalid ? [0] : []);

const enter = info.enter()

var value = utilGetSetValue(input).trim();

if (!value) {

wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info').remove();

return;

}

var isInvalid = false;

try {

var regex = new RegExp(field.pattern);

isInvalid = !regex.test(value);

} catch {

return;

}

var info = wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info')

.data(isInvalid ? [0] : []);

var enter = info.enter()

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:04Z

modules/validations/crossing_ways.js

+                var layer = Number(tags.layer);
+                if (!isNaN(layer)) {
+                    layer += (higherOrLower === 'higher' ? 1 : -1);


The code now uses Number(tags.layer) without checking if tags.layer exists first. If tags.layer is undefined, Number(undefined) returns NaN, which is handled by the isNaN check. However, this is less explicit than the original code which checked tags.layer && before calling Number. Consider adding a comment explaining this intentional change, or revert to the more explicit pattern for clarity.

Suggested change

var layer = Number(tags.layer);

if (!isNaN(layer)) {

layer += (higherOrLower === 'higher' ? 1 : -1);

var rawLayer = tags.layer;

var layer;

if (rawLayer && !isNaN(Number(rawLayer))) {

layer = Number(rawLayer) + (higherOrLower === 'higher' ? 1 : -1);

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:04Z

modules/ui/fields/textarea.js

+    function updatePatternValidation() {
+        if (!field.pattern || !wrap || wrap.empty()) return;
+
+        const value = utilGetSetValue(input).trim();
+
+        if (!value) {
+            wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info').remove();
+            return;
+        }
+
+        let isInvalid = false;
+        try {
+            const regex = new RegExp(field.pattern);
+            isInvalid = !regex.test(value);
+        } catch {
+            return;
+        }
+
+        const info = wrap.selectAll('.form-field-pattern-info')
+            .data(isInvalid ? [0] : []);
+
+        const enter = info.enter()
+            .append('div')
+            .attr('class', 'form-field-pattern-info');
+
+        enter
+            .append('span')
+            .call(svgIcon('#iD-icon-info'));
+
+        enter
+            .append('span')
+            .attr('class', 'form-field-pattern-info-text')
+            .text(t('inspector.invalid_format'));
+
+        info.exit().remove();
+    }


The PR description states "No functional or behavioral changes are intended", but this change introduces new pattern validation functionality for textarea fields. This is a significant feature addition that:

Should be explicitly documented in the PR description

Requires test coverage

Should be reviewed as a feature addition, not as a refactoring

Consider splitting this into a separate PR with appropriate tests and documentation explaining when and how pattern validation works.

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:04Z

modules/ui/fields/textarea.js

+
+        info.exit().remove();
+    }
+    // ============================


This comment line appears to be a separator or section marker but doesn't provide meaningful information. Consider removing it or replacing it with a more descriptive comment explaining what follows (e.g., "// Public API methods").

Suggested change

// ============================

// Public API methods

Copilot · 2026-01-07T07:21:04Z

modules/ui/fields/textarea.js

This line contains trailing whitespace. Remove the trailing spaces for code cleanliness.

Shyam-123pandey added 3 commits December 31, 2025 19:48

Add inline informational validation for regex-based fields

b8bb52c

WIP: save crossing_ways fixes

48accd4

After removing commented code

b39f94b

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 7, 2026 07:16

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of Shyam-123pandey January 7, 2026 07:17 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

Shyam-123pandey closed this Jan 7, 2026

k-yle linked an issue Jan 7, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

Tag this as higher does nothing it seems to the user #11624

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Remove comment-only and whitespace-only changes #11747

Remove comment-only and whitespace-only changes #11747

Uh oh!

Shyam-123pandey commented Jan 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

-        } catch {
+        } catch (err) {
+            // Log invalid regex patterns for debugging while preserving existing behavior
+            /* eslint-disable no-console */
+            console.error('uiFieldTextarea: invalid regex pattern for field.pattern', field.pattern, err);
+            /* eslint-enable no-console */

-                var layer = Number(tags.layer);
-                if (!isNaN(layer)) {
-                    layer += (higherOrLower === 'higher' ? 1 : -1);
+                var rawLayer = tags.layer;
+                var layer;
+                if (rawLayer && !isNaN(Number(rawLayer))) {
+                    layer = Number(rawLayer) + (higherOrLower === 'higher' ? 1 : -1);

Remove comment-only and whitespace-only changes #11747

Remove comment-only and whitespace-only changes #11747

Uh oh!

Conversation

Shyam-123pandey commented Jan 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Shyam-123pandey commented Jan 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading