Skip to content

fix: return an error from CheckForUpdate instead of conflating failure with no-update - #242

Closed
youngjinjung-linq wants to merge 1 commit into
DevopsArtFactory:mainfrom
youngjinjung-linq:fix/issue-206-checkforupdate-error
Closed

fix: return an error from CheckForUpdate instead of conflating failure with no-update#242
youngjinjung-linq wants to merge 1 commit into
DevopsArtFactory:mainfrom
youngjinjung-linq:fix/issue-206-checkforupdate-error

Conversation

@youngjinjung-linq

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

Implements #206: CheckForUpdate() returned an empty string for both "you are on the latest version" and "the update check failed", so broken checks were silently swallowed.

  • Signature changed to CheckForUpdate(currentVersion string) (string, error); HTTP/API/parse failures are wrapped as update check failed: ....
  • The TUI update check (internal/app/app.go) logs the error through the structured logger and still proceeds with an empty version, so startup behavior is unchanged for users.
  • Cache and dev-version fast paths keep returning ("", nil).

Testing

  • go test ./... passes; new tests cover the error path (wrapped error, empty version) and the newer-version path via a seam for the GitHub API call.

Closes #206

…e with no-update

CheckForUpdate now returns (string, error) so callers can distinguish
"no newer version" from "the check itself failed". HTTP/API failures
are wrapped and logged by the TUI update check instead of being
silently swallowed.

Closes DevopsArtFactory#206

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BFhLrnpVxivu62cC3k9NZB
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@youngjinjung-linq, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 30 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 0109758a-d1a8-4584-8707-39aa6900cc76

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 744b139 and 49cc048.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • internal/app/app.go
  • internal/update/update.go
  • internal/update/update_test.go

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

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@YoungJinJung

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Recreated as #255 from an in-repo branch under the maintainer account; this PR is superseded.

@youngjinjung-linq
youngjinjung-linq deleted the fix/issue-206-checkforupdate-error branch August 13, 2026 23:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

fix: CheckForUpdate() should return an error instead of conflating failure with no-update

2 participants