continue icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
continue copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon continuedev

feat: add support for generating commit message

Open lkk214 opened this issue 6 months ago • 9 comments

Description

Generate commit messages based on selected changes in the workflow UI.

  • Analyze selected changes in the workflow UI and generate relevant descriptive commit messages
  • Support switching between different LLMs, using config.modelsByRole.chat as the model list source

Screenshots

demo0524

lkk214 avatar May 24 '25 15:05 lkk214

Your cubic subscription is currently inactive. Please reactivate your subscription to receive AI reviews and use cubic.

cubic-dev-ai[bot] avatar May 24 '25 15:05 cubic-dev-ai[bot]

Deploy request for continuedev pending review.

Visit the deploys page to approve it

Name Link
Latest commit 0fcc6caf1a309d2018cd06cb66bfae9dae240577

netlify[bot] avatar May 24 '25 15:05 netlify[bot]

@lkk214 I like this a lot! If we add this in IntelliJ, do you think we could add it in VS Code as well? It can be bothersome when there isn't feature parity. Otherwise, I like what you did with the UI and whenever you've got the code in a closer spot I'd be happy to review

sestinj avatar May 26 '25 00:05 sestinj

This is an incredible feature! I've been looking forward to it for quite some time. Will it be supported in VS Code?

nomagicln avatar May 26 '25 16:05 nomagicln

@lkk214 I have a small suggestion: would it be possible to provide a method that allows users to specify the submission format?

nomagicln avatar May 27 '25 01:05 nomagicln

IntelliJ offers deeper integration, while VS Code has limited flexibility with its built-in SCM. For VS Code, I’ll implement a simpler version that only generates commit messages.

demo0527

lkk214 avatar May 27 '25 13:05 lkk214

Hi @sestinj, this PR is now ready for review.

lkk214 avatar Jun 07 '25 12:06 lkk214

⚠️ Only 5 files will be analyzed due to processing limits.

recurseml[bot] avatar Jun 13 '25 20:06 recurseml[bot]

😱 Found 2 issues. Time to roll up your sleeves! 😱

recurseml[bot] avatar Jun 13 '25 21:06 recurseml[bot]

Yes, I do need to consider the thinking model... For handling this, compared to creating a utility method to strip out the thinking for reuse in different places, I prefer disabling thinking directly in the concrete implementation of BaseLLM. If we don't need it, perhaps we shouldn't let it be returned from BaseLLM in the first place—this approach seems more reasonable to me.

lkk214 avatar Jun 20 '25 18:06 lkk214

@sestinj Merge conflicts keep popping up—any ETA on merging this?

lkk214 avatar Jul 12 '25 12:07 lkk214

will merge today if can get the tests to pass

sestinj avatar Jul 14 '25 23:07 sestinj

it seems like there are legitimate failing tests on this and it's been a while that this PR has been open. While I think it is a great change, I'm quite worried given how long it has taken to merge that it's going to become a large maintenance burden. I'm going to close the PR and would love to start a fresh one perhaps if you think there is a better approach we can take, but since I can't merge with failing tests it doesn't feel like this one has been making enough progress. Open to other ideas as usual!

sestinj avatar Jul 31 '25 05:07 sestinj