* Add add_pull_request_review_comment tool for PR review comments
Adds the ability to add review comments to pull requests with support for line, multi-line, and file-level comments, as well as replying to existing comments.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* Add reply_to_pull_request_review_comment tool
Adds a new tool to reply to existing pull request review comments using the GitHub API's comment reply endpoint. This allows for threaded discussions on pull request reviews.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* Update README with new PR review comment tools
* rebase
* use new getClient function inadd and reply pr review tools
* Unify PR review comment tools into a single consolidated tool
The separate AddPullRequestReviewComment and ReplyToPullRequestReviewComment tools have been merged into a single tool that handles both creating new comments and replying to existing ones. This approach simplifies the API and provides a more consistent interface for users.
- Made commit_id and path optional when using in_reply_to for replies
- Updated the tests to verify both comment and reply functionality
- Removed the separate ReplyToPullRequestReviewComment tool
- Fixed test expectations to match how errors are returned
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* Update README to reflect the unified PR review comment tool
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Javier Uruen Val <juruen@github.com>
* Add ability to view branches for a repo #141
* fix: update ListBranches test to use InputSchema and correct translation helper
* fix: update ListBranches test to use InputSchema and correct translation helper
* fix: update ListBranches test to handle errors in tool result
* fix: replace deprecated github.String with github.Ptr
* docs: add list_branches tool documentation to README
Page size tool parameter names were changed to `perPage` within #90
while GitHub API uses `per_page` parameter name.
This change fixes overlooked inconsistencies.
Follow up on #90
Follow up on #129Fixes#136
Signed-off-by: Alexander Yastrebov <yastrebov.alex@gmail.com>
* Add line parameter support to create_pull_request_review tool
- Updated schema to make path and body the only required fields
- Added line parameter as alternative to position for inline comments
- Updated handler to accept either position or line based on GitHub API spec
- Added new test case that verifies line parameter works properly
- Updated error messages for better validation
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* Expand PR review API with multi-line comment support
- Added new parameters: line, side, start_line, start_side
- Added proper validation for multi-line comment parameters
- Improved validation logic to handle parameter combinations
- Added test cases for regular and multi-line comments
- Updated schema documentation for better tool discoverability
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
* gofmt
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Javier Uruen Val <juruen@github.com>
* Add support for retrieving GitHub Issue Comments
Add new tool 'get_issue_comments' that allows fetching comments associated
with GitHub issues. This complements the existing issue retrieval functionality
and follows the same patterns as the pull request comments implementation.
The implementation includes:
- New getIssueComments function in pkg/github/issues.go
- Tool registration in server.go
- Comprehensive test coverage in issues_test.go
* Support pagination for get_issue_comments
---------
Co-authored-by: Javier Uruen Val <juruen@github.com>
Ashwin Bhat