feat: implement bookmark account list

[beeman]

Description

List the bookmarks and give an option to manage them (edit label, delete).

Part of #247

---

Important

Implement bookmark account list with management options, update database schema, and add i18n support.

• Features:
  • Implement bookmark account list with options to edit labels and delete in explorer-feature-bookmark-account-list.tsx and explorer-feature-bookmark-account.tsx.
  • Add ExplorerUiBookmarkAccountTable and ExplorerUiBookmarkAccountList for displaying and managing bookmarks.
  • Introduce useBookmarkAccountLive and useBookmarkAccountToggle hooks for real-time updates and toggling bookmarks.
• Database:
  • Add bookmarkAccountToggle function in bookmark-account-toggle.ts for toggling bookmark state.
  • Update bookmarkAccountFindMany to order by updatedAt and reverse results in bookmark-account-find-many.ts.
  • Extend bookmarkAccounts schema with updatedAt field in database.ts.
• i18n:
  • Add English and Spanish translations for bookmark-related UI in locales/en/explorer.json and locales/es/explorer.json.
  • Update i18n initialization in index.ts to include new translations.
• Tests:
  • Add tests for bookmark account creation, deletion, toggle, and update in respective test files.
  • Ensure label length validation and error handling in tests.
• Misc:
  • Add @workspace/i18n dependency in package.json for translation support.
  • Minor UI adjustments in ui-page.tsx and ui-empty.tsx.

^{This description was created by for 913b3bc. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	samui-wallet-web	913b3bc	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Nov 26 2025, 12:16 AM

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to e0edae9 in 3 minutes and 17 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 780 lines of code in 24 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/db/test/bookmark-account-toggle.test.ts:58

• Draft comment:
  Spying on 'where' may not simulate a failure correctly since the toggle function uses bookmarkAccountFindByAddress. Consider spying on the method actually used in the toggle logic.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is speculative about the internal implementation of bookmarkAccountToggle. The diff only shows a new test file being added, not the implementation of the function being tested. To verify this comment, I would need to see the implementation of bookmarkAccountToggle to know whether it uses where directly or calls bookmarkAccountFindByAddress. Since this context is not in the diff, and the rule states "If you are not sure, or if understanding the comment requires more context (such as seeing other files or parts of the codebase), you should delete the comment," this comment should be deleted. The comment requires knowledge of code not shown in the diff. The test might actually be working correctly if bookmarkAccountToggle internally uses db.bookmarkAccounts.where even if it also uses helper functions. The mock could be at the right level. Without seeing the implementation, I'm making assumptions. That's exactly the point - without seeing the implementation in the diff, I cannot verify this comment is correct. The rules explicitly state to delete comments when understanding them requires more context from other files. This comment requires seeing the implementation of bookmarkAccountToggle which is not in the diff. Delete this comment because it requires knowledge of the bookmarkAccountToggle implementation which is not shown in the diff. The comment is speculative about internal implementation details that cannot be verified from the changes shown.

2. packages/explorer/src/explorer-feature-bookmark-account-list.tsx:11

• Draft comment:
  The 'items' from useBookmarkAccountLive might be undefined which can cause a runtime error when passed to a component that maps over it. Consider defaulting to an empty array (e.g., useBookmarkAccountLive() || []).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is speculative ("might be undefined") and doesn't provide evidence that there's actually a problem. The rules explicitly state "Do NOT make speculative comments, such as 'If X, then Y is an issue'. Only comment if it is definitely an issue." Without seeing the implementation of useBookmarkAccountLive() or the type definitions, we can't confirm this is a real issue. Additionally, this is a new file, so while technically everything is "changed," the comment is making defensive programming suggestions rather than identifying a clear bug. The comment also assumes the component will fail without evidence. Could this actually be a legitimate concern if the hook's return type allows undefined? Perhaps the author has context about this codebase where hooks commonly return undefined during loading states, making this a valid defensive programming suggestion. Even if hooks in this codebase can return undefined during loading, the comment is still speculative without evidence. If TypeScript types allow undefined, that would be caught at compile time if the component expects an array. If the types are correct and allow undefined, then the component should handle it properly. This is a "might" comment without proof of an actual issue. This comment should be deleted because it's speculative ("might be undefined") without providing evidence of an actual issue. It violates the rule against speculative comments and doesn't demonstrate that there's definitely a problem with the code.

3. packages/explorer/src/ui/explorer-ui-bookmark-account-table.tsx:55

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The confirmation description "ARE YOU SURE DELETE" appears grammatically incorrect. Consider changing it to a clearer sentence like "Are you sure you want to delete?"
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about new code (the file is being created). It points out a clear typo/grammar issue in user-facing text. The rules say "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required" - but is fixing a typo/grammar issue in UI text a "code change required"? The rules also say "Do NOT comment on any pure frontend UI or styling changes, only logic" - but this is about the text content, not styling. The text "ARE YOU SURE DELETE" is objectively poor grammar and would look unprofessional to users. This seems like actionable feedback that improves code quality. The comment is clear, actionable, and identifies a real issue. The rules state "Do NOT comment on any pure frontend UI or styling changes, only logic." This could be interpreted as covering UI text/copy changes. The author may have intentionally written it in all caps as a placeholder or for emphasis, and fixing grammar might be considered a minor UI polish issue rather than a critical code change. While the rule mentions not commenting on UI/styling, this is about user-facing text quality and professionalism, not just styling. Poor grammar in confirmation dialogs reflects badly on the product. However, the rule is quite broad and could encompass text changes. Given the instruction to err on the side of deleting comments when unsure, and the explicit rule about not commenting on UI changes, I should lean toward deletion. Despite the text being grammatically incorrect, the rules explicitly state not to comment on frontend UI changes, which could include copy/text. Since there's ambiguity about whether this falls under "UI changes" and the instruction is to delete when unsure, I should delete this comment.

4. packages/explorer/src/ui/explorer-ui-bookmark-account-table.tsx:54

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The actionLabel is set to "Export", which seems inconsistent with the delete action. Please confirm if this should be changed to something like "Delete".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_pYrZLktEy4eI2rlO

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed 4ae6fae in 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1024 lines of code in 31 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/explorer/src/explorer-feature-index.tsx:41

• Draft comment:
  Guard against an undefined value for 'bookmarkAccounts' before accessing its length. Use optional chaining (bookmarkAccounts?.length) or default to an empty array.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The comment is about newly added code (line 41), so it passes the "is about changes" test. The issue is whether bookmarkAccounts can be undefined. Without seeing the implementation or type definition of useBookmarkAccountLive(), I cannot definitively know if it returns undefined | array or just array. However, the fact that line 42 uses bookmarkAccounts ?? [] suggests the author may have already considered this. But that's inconsistent - if they're guarding on line 42, why not on line 41? This could be a legitimate issue. However, I don't have strong evidence that the hook can return undefined - it might always return an array (possibly empty). The comment is speculative without knowing the hook's return type. I don't have access to the type definition of useBookmarkAccountLive() to confirm whether it can return undefined. The presence of ?? [] on line 42 could be defensive programming or could indicate the value can be undefined, but it's not conclusive evidence. The comment might be raising a non-issue if the hook always returns an array. While I can't see the hook's implementation, the inconsistency between line 41 (no guard) and line 42 (using ?? []) is suspicious. However, per the rules, I should only keep comments with STRONG EVIDENCE of correctness. Without seeing the hook's type signature or implementation, this is speculative. The code might work perfectly fine if the hook always returns an array. This comment is speculative without knowing the return type of useBookmarkAccountLive(). The rules state to avoid speculative comments and require strong evidence. Since I cannot confirm the hook can return undefined, I should delete this comment.

2. packages/i18n/locales/es/explorer.json:2

• Draft comment:
  The Spanish translations are all set to null. Ensure proper translations are provided if localization is required for production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the author to ensure proper translations are provided, which violates the rule against asking the author to ensure something. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code.

3. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:141

• Draft comment:
  Possible typo: 'Derivation patch' might be intended to be 'Derivation path'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. packages/i18n/locales/en/explorer.json:11

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider using "cannot" instead of "can not" in the string "This action can not be reversed." for better readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a minor grammar/style preference between "can not" and "cannot". Both forms are grammatically correct in English, though "cannot" is more common. However, this falls under the rule "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant." This is a very minor stylistic preference that doesn't affect functionality. The comment also doesn't clearly require a code change - it's more of a suggestion about style. According to the rules, I should "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required." This is borderline, but leans toward being too minor and not clearly required. While "cannot" is more commonly used, "can not" is not technically incorrect. This could be a legitimate style improvement for professional English copy. Translation files often have specific style guides, and consistency in language matters for user-facing text. Even if this is a valid style improvement, it falls under "obvious or unimportant" comments. The difference between "can not" and "cannot" is extremely minor and doesn't affect the meaning or clarity of the message. This is the type of nitpicky comment that doesn't provide significant value. This comment should be deleted. It's a minor stylistic preference that falls under "obvious or unimportant" comments. While "cannot" may be slightly more common, both forms are correct and the suggestion doesn't represent a clearly required code change.

5. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing "can not" to "cannot" in the string for bookmarkDeleteDescription.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a comment about a newly added line (line 12 in the explorer section), so it is about changes in the diff. The comment is suggesting a grammatical/stylistic improvement from "can not" to "cannot". While both forms are technically correct, "cannot" is indeed the more standard and professional form in UI text. This is a code quality suggestion that is clear and actionable. However, I need to consider if this is "obvious or unimportant" per the rules. This is a very minor stylistic issue in a string literal. It's not a bug, it's not a logic error, it's just a preference for one grammatically acceptable form over another. The rules say "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant." This seems to fall into the "unimportant" category - it's a very minor wording preference that doesn't affect functionality. While "cannot" is generally preferred, "can not" is not technically incorrect and this is an extremely minor stylistic point. The comment might be considered too trivial and unimportant to warrant reviewer attention, especially since it's just a preference between two acceptable forms. Although minor, consistency in UI text is important for professional appearance, and "cannot" is the standard form used in most professional software. This is a clear, actionable suggestion that improves code quality, even if slightly. However, given the rule about not making "obvious or unimportant" comments, and considering this is purely cosmetic with no functional impact, this likely falls below the threshold of importance. This comment is about a change in the diff and provides an actionable suggestion. However, it addresses an extremely minor stylistic preference between two grammatically acceptable forms. Given the rule against "obvious or unimportant" comments, this falls into the unimportant category and should be deleted.

6. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:13

• Draft comment:
  Possible text inconsistency: The string refers to 'delete this label' in bookmarkDeleteTitle. It might be intended to refer to the bookmark rather than a label.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 35% vs. threshold = 50% The comment raises a valid point about potential inconsistency. The key is bookmarkDeleteTitle and the preceding key is bookmarkDelete: 'Delete bookmark', which suggests the dialog is about deleting a bookmark. However, I can also see that there are label-related keys nearby (editLabel, label, labelInputPlaceholder, labelNone), which suggests that bookmarks might have labels as a feature. It's possible that: 1. This is a bug and should say "bookmark" 2. This is intentional because you're deleting the label of a bookmark (not the bookmark itself) Without seeing the actual UI implementation or how this is used, I cannot be certain which interpretation is correct. The comment is speculative - it says "might be intended" which shows uncertainty. According to the rules, I should not keep speculative comments that say "If X, then Y" or suggest something "might" be an issue without being definitive. However, the inconsistency is quite glaring - the key name is bookmarkDeleteTitle and the description on line 12 says "This action can not be reversed" which sounds like deleting something permanent (like a bookmark), not just a label. The comment does point to a real textual inconsistency that seems likely to be a bug. While there is an apparent inconsistency, I cannot be 100% certain without seeing the implementation. The presence of label-related keys suggests labels are a feature of bookmarks. The comment uses uncertain language ("might be intended") which indicates speculation. According to the rules, I should delete speculative comments unless there's STRONG EVIDENCE the comment is correct. The comment identifies a potential inconsistency but uses speculative language ("might be intended"). Without seeing the actual implementation to confirm whether bookmarks have labels as a separate feature, I cannot determine with strong evidence that this is definitely a bug. Following the principle that I should only keep comments with strong evidence of correctness, I should delete this comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_yiTMdpk9FF4KSpZ1

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 2b44dd8 in 2 minutes and 46 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1048 lines of code in 32 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/db-react/src/options-bookmark-account.tsx:39

• Draft comment:
  The update mutation function destructures an 'id' property but the type BookmarkAccountUpdateMutateOptions doesn’t include it. Consider updating the type to include 'id: string' in the payload.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages/db-react/src/use-bookmark-account-live.tsx:7

• Draft comment:
  Passing 'input' directly in the dependency array can trigger unnecessary re-executions if its reference changes. Consider memoizing the input if it’s derived from a non-stable object.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is speculative - it says "can trigger unnecessary re-executions if its reference changes" and suggests to "consider memoizing". It's not pointing out a definite bug or issue. The rules explicitly state "Do NOT make speculative comments, such as 'If X, then Y is an issue'. Only comment if it is definitely an issue." This is a classic "if the reference changes" speculative comment. Additionally, whether or not to memoize inputs is a design decision that depends on how the hook is used, and the current implementation is not incorrect. The comment is also somewhat informative/advisory rather than pointing to a clear code change that must be made. Could this actually be a real issue that would cause problems in practice? Maybe the author has seen this pattern cause issues elsewhere in the codebase, and this is a legitimate concern about performance. Even if this could theoretically cause performance issues, the comment is still speculative because it's conditional ("if its reference changes"). The rules are clear that speculative comments should be removed. Additionally, this is a performance optimization suggestion, not a bug fix, and there's no evidence that this is causing actual problems. The implementation is not incorrect as written. This comment should be deleted because it's speculative ("can trigger" and "if its reference changes") and advisory ("consider memoizing") rather than pointing to a definite issue that needs to be fixed.

3. packages/i18n/locales/es/explorer.json:1

• Draft comment:
  All Spanish translation values are set to null. Consider providing proper translations or fallback strings so that the UI doesn’t display missing content.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is essentially asking the PR author to fill in translation values instead of leaving them as null. However, this appears to be an initial scaffolding of a translation file - a common pattern in i18n setups where translation keys are defined first and values are filled in later. The comment doesn't identify a bug or clear issue; it's more of a suggestion about what "should" be done. According to the rules, I should not make comments that are obvious or unimportant, and I should not make speculative comments. This seems like an obvious observation (yes, the translations are null) without evidence that this is actually problematic. The i18n system likely has fallback mechanisms. The comment also doesn't suggest a specific, actionable code change - it says "consider" which is wishy-washy. Perhaps the i18n system doesn't handle null values properly and this would cause runtime errors? Maybe there's evidence in the codebase that null translations break the UI? Without seeing how the translation system works, I can't be certain this isn't a real issue. While it's possible that null values could cause issues, the comment provides no evidence of this. Creating skeleton translation files with null values is a standard practice in i18n workflows. If null values were problematic, this would likely be caught by the build or runtime testing. The comment is speculative and not clearly actionable. This comment should be deleted. It's making an obvious observation about null values in a new translation file without demonstrating that this is actually a problem. It's speculative ("consider") and doesn't provide a clear, actionable code change requirement.

4. packages/ui/src/components/ui-prompt.tsx:49

• Draft comment:
  The onOpenChange callback now only sets isOpen to false without resetting the input value. If intended behavior is to clear the input when the dialog closes, consider resetting the 'value' state.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

5. packages/i18n/locales/en/explorer.json:11

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: Consider changing "can not" to "cannot" in 'bookmarkDeleteDescription' for better clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This is a stylistic/grammatical suggestion about word choice in an English translation string. While "cannot" is generally preferred in formal writing, "can not" is not grammatically incorrect - it's just less common. This falls into the category of "obvious or unimportant" comments. The comment doesn't point out a functional bug, a logic error, or even a significant clarity issue. Both forms are understandable and convey the same meaning. This is the kind of nitpicky comment that would likely annoy a PR author without providing substantial value. The rules explicitly state "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant." Could this be considered a legitimate clarity improvement? Some style guides do prefer "cannot" over "can not" for better readability. Perhaps in a user-facing string, even minor improvements to professional writing quality could be valuable. While there might be a slight preference for "cannot" in formal writing, this is an extremely minor point that doesn't rise to the level of "clearly a code change required." The existing text is perfectly understandable and not incorrect. This is exactly the type of unimportant, nitpicky comment that should be filtered out. This comment should be deleted. It's a minor stylistic preference about English grammar that doesn't represent a clear, important code change. Both "can not" and "cannot" are acceptable and convey the same meaning clearly.

6. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider replacing "can not" with "cannot" in the string 'This action can not be reversed.' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a newly added line in the diff (line 12 in the explorer section). It's suggesting a minor grammar/style improvement. However, looking at the rules: 1) This is not a code logic issue, it's a style/grammar preference in a translation string. 2) The comment is somewhat minor/unimportant - both forms are acceptable English. 3) This could be considered a "code quality refactor" suggestion, but it's extremely minor. 4) The rules say "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant." This seems to fall into that category - it's a very minor stylistic preference. The comment IS about a change in the diff, so it passes that test. But is it important enough to warrant a comment? This seems borderline. While "cannot" is more standard, "can not" is not incorrect. This is a very minor stylistic preference in a translation string, not a code logic issue. The rules explicitly state not to make obvious or unimportant comments, and this seems to fall into that category. It's debatable whether this rises to the level of an actionable code quality improvement. You're right that this is very minor. However, consistency in user-facing text is important, and "cannot" is the standard form. This is an actionable suggestion that improves the quality of user-facing text. But given the rules emphasize not making unimportant comments, and this is about as minor as it gets, it probably should be deleted. This comment is about a change in the diff, but it's an extremely minor stylistic preference in a translation string. Given the rules explicitly say not to make obvious or unimportant comments, and this is very minor, the comment should be deleted.

Workflow ID: wflow_AeISve1n5ZalhNX1

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed b0489a0 in 3 minutes and 15 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1050 lines of code in 32 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/i18n/locales/es/explorer.json:2

• Draft comment:
  The Spanish explorer translation file has null values. Ensure these keys are populated with proper strings to avoid runtime translation issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The comment starts with "Ensure these keys are populated..." which is explicitly mentioned in the rules as a pattern to avoid ("If the comments starts with 'Verify that...' or 'Ensure that...', it is likely not useful"). The comment is asking the PR author to ensure/confirm something rather than pointing out a definite issue. Additionally, this could be intentional - perhaps the file is being scaffolded first and translations will be added later, or perhaps null values are handled gracefully by the i18n system. The comment is speculative about "runtime translation issues" without evidence that this will actually cause problems. It's also somewhat obvious that a translation file with null values isn't complete. However, having null values in a translation file could legitimately cause runtime issues if the i18n system doesn't handle nulls properly. This might be a real bug that needs fixing, not just a suggestion to "ensure" something. The comment could be pointing out a concrete problem rather than just asking for confirmation. While null values could cause issues, the comment uses the word "Ensure" which is explicitly called out in the rules as a red flag. The comment doesn't definitively state there IS a problem, it asks the author to ensure there won't be one. This is speculative and not actionable without more context about whether the i18n system handles nulls or whether this is intentional scaffolding. This comment should be deleted because it starts with "Ensure that..." which violates the explicit rule against asking authors to confirm, verify, or ensure things. It's also speculative about potential runtime issues without definitive evidence of a problem.

2. packages/i18n/locales/en/explorer.json:11

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: Consider replacing "can not" with "cannot" in the text "This action can not be reversed." for improved clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a minor grammatical suggestion about "can not" vs "cannot". While "cannot" is generally preferred in formal writing, "can not" is not technically incorrect - it's just less common. The rules state "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required" and "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant." This is a very minor stylistic preference that doesn't affect functionality. It's arguably an "unimportant" comment. However, it is about actual changes (new content being added), and it is actionable. The question is whether this rises to the level of "clearly a code change required" - for a translation/i18n file, consistency and clarity in language is somewhat important, but this is still a very minor point. This could be considered a legitimate quality improvement for user-facing text. In professional English writing, "cannot" is the standard form and "can not" is generally considered less polished. For user-facing messages, especially error/warning messages, clarity and professionalism matter. While there is some merit to improving user-facing text quality, the rules explicitly state not to make "obvious or unimportant" comments. This is a very minor stylistic preference that most users wouldn't notice. The current text is perfectly understandable and not incorrect. This falls into the category of an unimportant comment that doesn't meet the bar of "clearly a code change required." This comment should be deleted. While it's technically a valid grammatical suggestion, it's too minor and unimportant to meet the threshold of "clearly a code change required." The existing text is understandable and functional.

3. packages/i18n/locales/en/explorer.json:12

• Draft comment:
  Possible inconsistency: The key is "bookmarkDeleteTitle", but the text reads "Are you sure you want to delete this label?". If the intention is to delete a bookmark, consider updating the text to "Are you sure you want to delete this bookmark?".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a tricky case. The comment is pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency, but without seeing how these i18n keys are actually used in the codebase, I cannot be certain whether "label" or "bookmark" is the correct term. It's possible that bookmarks have labels, and when you delete a bookmark, you're actually deleting its label. Or it could be that the text should say "bookmark" instead. The comment is somewhat speculative - it says "Possible inconsistency" and "If the intention is to delete a bookmark, consider...". This is not definitive. According to the rules, I should not make speculative comments like "If X, then Y is an issue" - I should only comment if it's definitely an issue. Without seeing the actual usage context in the code, I cannot be certain this is an issue. The comment could be correct - there might genuinely be an inconsistency here. The key name does suggest it's about deleting a bookmark, not a label. However, I'm making an assumption about the intended behavior without seeing how this translation key is actually used in the application. While the comment might be pointing to a real issue, the rules explicitly state not to make speculative comments. The comment itself uses tentative language ("Possible inconsistency", "If the intention is", "consider updating"), which indicates uncertainty. Without strong evidence from the actual code usage, this falls into the category of speculative comments that should be removed. This comment should be deleted because it's speculative and uses conditional language ("Possible inconsistency", "If the intention is"). Without seeing how this i18n key is used in the actual code, there's no strong evidence that this is definitely an issue. It could be that bookmarks have labels and the text is correct as written.

4. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: Consider using "cannot" instead of "can not" in the message for bookmarkDeleteDescription.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a newly added line (line 12), so it IS about changes in the diff. The suggestion is purely stylistic - both "can not" and "cannot" are correct English. The rules state "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant" and "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required." This is a very minor stylistic preference that doesn't affect functionality. While "cannot" might be slightly more standard, this is borderline pedantic for a code review. However, for user-facing text in an i18n file, consistency and proper grammar could be considered important for professional appearance. The comment is actionable and clear. I'm leaning toward this being too minor to keep, but there's an argument that user-facing text quality matters. User-facing text quality is important for professional software, and "cannot" is indeed the more standard form. This is an actionable suggestion that improves the quality of user-facing messages. It's not just pedantic - it's about maintaining professional standards in UI text. While user-facing text quality matters, this is an extremely minor stylistic preference between two grammatically correct forms. The rules explicitly state not to make comments that are "obvious or unimportant." A distinction between "can not" and "cannot" falls into the category of unimportant - users will understand the message perfectly either way, and this doesn't rise to the level of requiring a code change. This comment should be deleted. While it's technically a valid stylistic suggestion, it's too minor and unimportant to warrant a review comment. Both forms are correct, and the difference doesn't affect user understanding or functionality.

5. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:13

• Draft comment:
  The text for bookmarkDeleteTitle says "Are you sure you want to delete this label?" – this appears to be inconsistent with the bookmark context. Please confirm if it should refer to "bookmark" instead of "label".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% The comment raises a valid point about potential inconsistency. However, looking at the context, there are separate keys for labels (editLabel, label, labelInputPlaceholder, labelNone), which suggests that bookmarks have labels as a property. The bookmarkDeleteTitle might be intentionally saying "delete this label" because when you delete a bookmark, you're deleting its label. But this is speculative - I don't have enough context to know the actual UI behavior. The comment asks to "confirm" which violates the rule about not asking the PR author to confirm their intention. The comment is also speculative because it says "appears to be inconsistent" and asks for confirmation rather than stating definitively that it's wrong. I might be missing the actual implementation context. Perhaps in the UI, when deleting a bookmark, the dialog specifically refers to the label being deleted. Or perhaps "label" and "bookmark" are used interchangeably in this context. Without seeing the actual UI code or understanding the domain model, I cannot be certain this is actually an error. The comment violates the rule "Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention, to explain, to double-check things, to ensure the behavior is intended" - it explicitly says "Please confirm if it should refer to 'bookmark' instead of 'label'". Additionally, this is speculative - the comment says it "appears to be inconsistent" rather than definitively identifying an error. Without seeing the actual implementation, I cannot determine if this is truly incorrect. This comment should be deleted because it asks the PR author to confirm their intention ("Please confirm if..."), which violates the rules. It's also speculative rather than definitively identifying an error. Without more context about how bookmarks and labels relate in the UI, this cannot be confirmed as a real issue.

6. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:135

• Draft comment:
  Typo/consistency: The title text for 'walletCreateHardwareUnruggableTitle' includes a trailing period ('Connect Unruggable.'). For consistency with similar entries (which don't end with punctuation), consider removing the period.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_4cFisE3ikTAwAtDA

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 4df5050 in 2 minutes and 43 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1105 lines of code in 35 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/db-react/src/options-bookmark-account.tsx:37

• Draft comment:
  In the update option, the mutationFn destructures an object including 'id', but the corresponding type (BookmarkAccountUpdateMutateOptions) only specifies { address, input } — causing a type mismatch. Please update the type to include 'id' (e.g. { id: string; address: Address; input: BookmarkAccountUpdateInput }) to keep the API consistent.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages/db-react/src/use-bookmark-account-live.tsx:7

• Draft comment:
  The hook’s dependency array directly uses the 'input' object, which may change on every render if not memoized. Consider memoizing 'input' (using useMemo or a stable object) to avoid unnecessary re-fetches.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is suggesting a performance optimization but falls into the "speculative" category. The comment says the input "may change on every render if not memoized" - this is conditional on how the caller uses the hook. If the caller passes a stable object or already memoizes it, there's no issue. The comment is asking the author to add defensive code for a problem that may not exist. It's also not clearly a bug - it's a performance suggestion that depends on usage patterns. According to the rules, I should NOT make speculative comments like "If X, then Y is an issue" - I should only comment if it's definitely an issue. This is clearly speculative ("may change"). The comment could be valid if this is a known pattern in the codebase where input objects are frequently passed inline without memoization, causing real performance issues. It's also possible that the library documentation (dexie-react-hooks) specifically recommends this pattern. Even if this is a common pattern issue, the comment is still speculative because it depends on how callers use this hook. The rules explicitly state not to make speculative comments. Without evidence that this is causing an actual problem in this specific case, this is a "consider doing X" suggestion rather than a clear code change requirement. This comment should be deleted because it's speculative ("may change") and suggests a defensive optimization without evidence of an actual problem. It violates the rule against speculative comments.

3. packages/i18n/locales/es/explorer.json:1

• Draft comment:
  All Spanish translation values are currently null. Ensure these are updated with appropriate strings to prevent missing text or fallback issues in the UI.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment violates multiple rules. First, it's asking the author to "ensure" something is done, which is explicitly mentioned as a pattern to avoid ("If the comments starts with 'Verify that...' or 'Ensure that...', it is likely not useful"). Second, this is a new translation file being added - it's common practice in i18n workflows to add skeleton files with null values that get filled in later by translators. The author clearly intentionally added this file with null values. Third, the comment doesn't suggest a specific code change - it's more of an informative/warning comment rather than actionable feedback. The comment is speculative about "potential" issues rather than pointing to a definite problem. Could this be a legitimate concern if the PR is being merged to production and these null values would actually cause runtime errors or display issues? Maybe the i18n system doesn't handle null values gracefully and this needs to be addressed before merge. Even if null values could cause issues, the comment doesn't provide actionable guidance on what specific strings to use or how to fix it. It's asking the author to "ensure" things are updated, which is asking for confirmation rather than requesting a specific change. If the i18n system can't handle nulls, that would likely be caught by tests or the build process. This comment should be deleted. It uses the "Ensure that..." pattern which is explicitly called out as not useful, and it's commenting on an obvious aspect of a new file (that translation values need to be filled in) without providing actionable guidance on what to change.

4. packages/i18n/locales/en/explorer.json:11

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the string "This action can not be reversed.", it might be better to use "cannot" instead of "can not".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50% This is a grammar/style suggestion on a translation file. While "cannot" vs "can not" is a valid grammar point (they have slightly different meanings - "cannot" means unable to, while "can not" emphasizes the choice not to), this is a very minor stylistic preference. The rules state "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant" and "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required." This is arguably an unimportant comment - both forms are grammatically acceptable in English, though "cannot" is more common. This doesn't represent a clear code change requirement, more of a stylistic preference. However, it is actionable and specific. This could be considered a useful comment because it improves the quality of user-facing text, and translation/copy quality is important for UX. "Cannot" is indeed the more standard and professional form in English, and this is an actionable suggestion with a clear fix provided. While copy quality matters, the rules explicitly state not to make comments that are "obvious or unimportant." This is a very minor stylistic preference between two acceptable forms. The comment doesn't point out a clear error or bug - both "can not" and "cannot" are grammatically correct, just with slightly different emphasis. This falls into the category of unimportant comments that don't require a code change. This comment should be deleted. While it's technically a valid grammar suggestion, it's too minor and unimportant to warrant a review comment. Both forms are acceptable, and this doesn't represent a clear code change requirement.

5. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In 'bookmarkDeleteDescription', consider changing "can not" to "cannot" for standard phrasing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a minor stylistic/grammar preference between "can not" (two words) and "cannot" (one word). While "cannot" is generally more common in formal writing, "can not" is not grammatically incorrect - it's just less common. This is an i18n file containing user-facing text strings. The rules state I should not make comments that are "obvious or unimportant" and should only comment when "there is clearly a code change required." A grammar preference between two valid forms doesn't clearly require a code change. This is more of a nitpick about style rather than a functional issue. The comment doesn't identify a bug, logic error, or code quality issue that needs fixing. However, in user-facing text, consistency and professional phrasing do matter for user experience. "Cannot" is the standard contraction and more commonly used in professional software. This could be considered a legitimate quality improvement for user-facing strings, not just a trivial nitpick. While user-facing text quality matters, the rules explicitly state not to make comments that are "obvious or unimportant." A preference between two grammatically correct forms is minor and subjective. The PR author chose "can not" deliberately when writing this new content, and there's no clear evidence this is wrong or requires change. This falls into the category of unimportant stylistic preferences. This comment should be deleted. It's a minor stylistic preference about grammar in user-facing text where both forms are technically correct. It doesn't identify a clear code issue that requires fixing, and falls under "obvious or unimportant" comments that should be avoided.

6. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:135

• Draft comment:
  Typographical suggestion: In line 135, 'Connect Unruggable.' has a trailing period that may be inconsistent with other title strings (e.g., 'Import an account' or 'Watch an account'). Consider removing the period if it's not intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_fCMt8v494Xqa4rLD

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[beeman]

Refactored the 'create or delete' logic from the frontend into this Toggle function.

[beeman]

The UiPrompt component needed changed to accommodate for prompts with default text.

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed 97d72dd in 2 minutes and 25 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1132 lines of code in 37 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/db-react/src/options-bookmark-account.tsx:39

• Draft comment:
  The update mutation fn destructures an 'id', but its type (BookmarkAccountUpdateMutateOptions) only expects { address, input }. Update the type to include 'id: string' to avoid type inconsistencies.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages/db-react/src/use-bookmark-account-live.tsx:7

• Draft comment:
  Using an object (input) directly in the dependency array may trigger unnecessary re-renders if its reference changes. Consider memoizing or stabilizing 'input'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is speculative - it says "may trigger unnecessary re-renders if its reference changes." The key word is "if" - this is a conditional/speculative comment. The comment doesn't point to a definite bug or issue. It's suggesting a potential optimization that may or may not be needed depending on how the hook is used. According to the rules, I should NOT make speculative comments like "If X, then Y is an issue". This falls into that category. Additionally, this is a standard pattern for React hooks - accepting parameters and using them in dependency arrays. The caller is responsible for memoizing if needed. Could this actually be a real issue that should be addressed? In some cases, hooks do internally memoize their inputs to provide a better developer experience. Maybe this is a legitimate suggestion for improving the API design of this hook. While internal memoization could improve the API, the comment is still speculative ("may trigger") and doesn't point to a definite issue. The standard React pattern is for callers to memoize their inputs if needed. This comment doesn't meet the bar of being a clear code change that's required - it's an optional optimization suggestion based on hypothetical usage patterns. This comment should be deleted because it's speculative ("may trigger unnecessary re-renders if...") and doesn't point to a definite issue. It's suggesting an optional optimization rather than identifying a clear bug or required code change.

3. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the string for bookmarkDeleteDescription, consider replacing "can not" with the more conventional "cannot".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a very minor stylistic/grammatical preference. While "cannot" is indeed more conventional than "can not" in most contexts, both are technically correct English. The rules state "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required" and "Do NOT make comments that are obvious or unimportant." This falls into the category of an unimportant comment - it's a minor stylistic preference in a user-facing string that doesn't affect functionality. The comment is about a change (the new line was added), so it passes that test, but it's not clearly a required code change. This is more of a nitpick than a substantive issue. While "cannot" is more conventional, "can not" is not technically incorrect, and this is a very minor stylistic point in a user-facing message. The rules emphasize not making obvious or unimportant comments, and a grammatical preference this minor could be considered unimportant. However, consistency in user-facing text is valuable for professional polish. Although consistency in user-facing text has value, this is an extremely minor stylistic preference that doesn't rise to the level of "clearly a code change required." The current text is understandable and not incorrect. This type of minor grammatical nitpick is exactly what the rules aim to filter out as "obvious or unimportant." This comment should be deleted. It's a very minor stylistic preference about "can not" vs "cannot" that doesn't constitute a clearly required code change. Both forms are acceptable English, and this falls under the category of unimportant comments that should be filtered out.

4. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:135

• Draft comment:
  The trailing period in the walletCreateHardwareUnruggableTitle string ('Connect Unruggable.') looks inconsistent with other title strings which do not include punctuation. Consider removing the period for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_jawCqTrYEJtYUs8Q

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed 1f12481 in 2 minutes and 32 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1301 lines of code in 42 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:141

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The key 'walletInputDerivationPathLabel' is set to 'Derivation patch'. Likely it should be 'Derivation path'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_8gHAl9F55v9phvXk

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed c7b3be8 in 2 minutes and 17 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1301 lines of code in 42 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/i18n/locales/es/explorer.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Translation values in the Spanish locale are set as null. It's recommended to provide actual strings (or empty strings) to prevent UI issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is problematic for several reasons: 1) It's speculative - it says "it's recommended" and mentions potential UI issues without evidence that null values actually cause problems in this i18n system. 2) Many i18n systems handle null values gracefully, often falling back to a default locale or the key itself. 3) This is a new file being added, and having null placeholders is a common pattern for locale files that will be translated later. 4) The comment doesn't provide a clear, definitive action - it's more of a suggestion/recommendation rather than pointing out a definite bug. 5) Without seeing how the i18n system handles null values, we can't be sure this is actually an issue. Could this i18n system actually have issues with null values that would cause runtime errors or display problems? Perhaps the author knows this is a valid intermediate state and the translations will be added in a follow-up PR or by a translation team. Even if null values could theoretically cause issues, the comment is speculative ("it's recommended") rather than definitive. Without clear evidence that this breaks something or violates the project's i18n patterns, this is more of a suggestion than a required change. The author likely added this file intentionally with null values as placeholders. This comment should be deleted. It's speculative and doesn't point to a definite issue. Creating locale files with null placeholders is a common pattern, and without evidence that this breaks the i18n system, the comment is not actionable.

2. packages/ui/src/components/ui-prompt.tsx:47

• Draft comment:
  The reset logic (in the handleSubmit) checks if the passed 'inputValue' is empty and resets the local state accordingly. Confirm that this behavior is as intended, especially for controlled input components.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

3. packages/explorer/src/data-access/use-explorer-bookmark-account.tsx:15

• Draft comment:
  In the toggle function, a generic error is caught and logged. Consider adding more specific error handling or messages to aid debugging.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

4. packages/settings/src/ui/settings-ui-network-list.tsx:41

• Draft comment:
  The confirmation text is hardcoded. For consistency, consider using i18n translation keys instead of hardcoded strings.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

5. General:1

• Draft comment:
  Overall, top-level functions are defined using function declarations as required, and inline arrow functions are properly used for callbacks. Great adherence to best practices!
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_q4tia6h1YvMDYcba

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 264a6ee in 3 minutes and 6 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1335 lines of code in 44 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/db-react/src/options-bookmark-account.tsx:37

• Draft comment:
  Consider destructuring the 'address' parameter in the update mutationFn for clarity (since it's later used in onSuccess).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages/db-react/src/use-bookmark-account-live.tsx:7

• Draft comment:
  The 'input' object in the dependency array may cause extra re-renders if not memoized. Consider memoizing or ensuring a stable reference.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is making a speculative suggestion about potential performance issues. The rules explicitly state "Do NOT make speculative comments, such as 'If X, then Y is an issue'. Only comment if it is definitely an issue." The comment says "may cause extra re-renders if not memoized" - this is conditional on how the caller uses the hook, not a definite issue with the code itself. The code as written is not incorrect; it's a standard pattern for React hooks. The issue would only occur if the caller passes unstable references, which is the caller's responsibility. Additionally, the rules state "Do NOT comment unless there is clearly a code change required" - this is more of a performance optimization suggestion rather than a required change. Could this actually be a definite issue rather than speculative? The default value {} creates a new object on each call, which could be a concrete problem. However, that's only if the caller doesn't pass an input, and even then, it's a performance consideration rather than a bug. While the default {} could create new references, this is a standard React pattern and the behavior is expected. The comment is still speculative because it says "may cause" and suggests the caller should memoize their input, which is advice about usage rather than a code defect. This doesn't meet the bar of "clearly a code change required." This comment should be deleted because it's speculative ("may cause") and doesn't identify a definite code issue. It's suggesting a potential optimization that depends on how callers use the hook, not a clear defect in the implementation itself.

3. packages/ui/src/components/ui-prompt.tsx:47

• Draft comment:
  Clarify the logic in handleSubmit regarding resetting the input value; review the condition dependent on the initial value.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

4. packages/i18n/locales/es/explorer.json:1

• Draft comment:
  All translation values are set to null. Confirm if these are placeholders; if not, provide proper translations to avoid missing localized strings.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment violates multiple rules: 1) It asks the PR author to "confirm" something, which is explicitly prohibited ("Do NOT ask the PR author to confirm their intention, to explain, to double-check things"). 2) It's speculative - "if not, provide proper translations" suggests uncertainty. 3) It's not pointing out a clear code issue that needs fixing - having null values in a translation file could be intentional as placeholders for future translation work, which is a common pattern in i18n setups. 4) The comment doesn't suggest a specific code change, it's more informational/questioning. Could this be a legitimate issue where null values would break the application? Perhaps the i18n library requires actual string values and null would cause runtime errors. Without seeing how this file is used, I can't be certain that null values are acceptable. While null values could potentially cause issues, the comment doesn't assert this definitively - it asks for confirmation and makes a conditional suggestion ("if not"). If null values were truly problematic, the comment should state that clearly and request specific translations. The speculative and confirmatory nature of the comment violates the rules regardless of whether null values are technically acceptable. This comment should be deleted because it asks the PR author to confirm their intention and makes speculative suggestions rather than pointing out a definite code issue. It violates the rule against asking for confirmation and doesn't provide clear, actionable feedback.

5. packages/i18n/src/resources.d.ts:135

• Draft comment:
  The title string 'Connect Unruggable.' ends with a period, which is inconsistent with the style of other title strings (they don't end with punctuation). Please confirm if the trailing period is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_kMER0bB2wM61Z7ty

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[beeman]

Any suggestions on how to do this without using useEffect is welcome

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 913b3bc in 2 minutes and 4 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1355 lines of code in 45 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. packages/db-react/src/options-bookmark-account.tsx:39

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the update mutation’s input type is consistent. The mutationFn destructures { id, input } but the defined mutate options type (BookmarkAccountUpdateMutateOptions) only specifies { address, input }. Adjust the type definition or destructuring to include the 'id' parameter explicitly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages/db-react/src/use-bookmark-account-live.tsx:7

• Draft comment:
  Consider memoizing or ensuring the 'input' object is referentially stable when passed as a dependency to useLiveQuery. This can prevent unnecessary re-executions if 'input' is recreated on every render.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is essentially saying "the caller might pass an unstable reference, which could cause issues." However, this is speculative - it assumes the caller will misuse the hook. The implementation itself is correct. The comment doesn't suggest a specific code change to this file that would fix the issue. The only way to "fix" this would be to add useMemo inside the hook, but that would be premature optimization and could actually cause issues if the input is already stable. This is more of an informative comment about how to use the hook correctly, rather than a required code change. According to the rules, I should not make speculative comments like "If X, then Y is an issue" - this comment is essentially saying "If the caller passes an unstable reference, then there will be unnecessary re-executions." The comment could be valid if there's a clear pattern in this codebase where all similar hooks handle this concern internally. Maybe other hooks in the codebase use useMemo or similar techniques to handle this, and this hook should follow that pattern for consistency. Without seeing other similar hooks in the codebase, I cannot verify if there's an established pattern. The comment is speculative about how the hook will be used, and doesn't point to a definite issue in the current implementation. It's the caller's responsibility to pass stable references, not this hook's responsibility to defensively handle unstable ones. This comment should be deleted. It's speculative about potential misuse by callers rather than identifying a concrete issue with the implementation. It doesn't suggest a clear, actionable code change to this file, and falls under the category of "speculative comments" that the rules explicitly say to avoid.

Workflow ID: wflow_If3rnI9lqCKsvpIX

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}