[PR #7468] [CLOSED] docs(clients): note VSCODE_CWD as the base for relative VS Code overrides #7856

Closed
opened 2026-11-05 01:48:10 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 0 comments
Owner

📋 Pull Request Information

Original PR: https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7468
Author: @XiaoBinGan
Created: 10/27/2026
Status: ❌ Closed

Base: main ← Head: docs/vscode-cwd-override


📝 Commits (2)

  • 4453c42 docs(clients): note VSCODE_CWD as the base for relative VS Code overrides
  • 8f9b27b chore: retrigger title and readiness checks after the title was corrected

📊 Changes

1 file changed (+4 additions, -2 deletions)

View changed files

📝 docs/client-configuration.md (+4 -2)

📄 Description

Summary

The VS Code section names VSCODE_PORTABLE and VSCODE_APPDATA as the overrides setup honors, but the resolver also consults VSCODE_CWD when a relative value resolves.

Problem and expected behavior

src/application/SupportedClients.ts ends with resolve(env.VSCODE_CWD || process.cwd(), userData), so a relative VSCODE_PORTABLE or VSCODE_APPDATA resolves against VSCODE_CWD when set. Measured with supportedClients("/home/u", "linux", env) and reading .vscode.configPath: VSCODE_PORTABLE=./portable gives <cwd>/portable/user-data/User/mcp.json; adding VSCODE_CWD=/opt/vs gives /opt/vs/portable/user-data/User/mcp.json. The paragraph read as a complete list of honored overrides.

Change and scope

One clause naming VSCODE_CWD as the base for a relative value and the working-directory fallback. Nothing else changes.

Contract and boundary impact

Documentation only. No CLI, MCP/tool-catalog, provider, artifact, or generated-metadata change; docs:check passes unchanged.

  • Documentation or usability only; no target interaction.

Evidence and regression coverage

The source and behaviour evidence is in the section above. No tests added — this changes prose only, and the owning tests already cover the behaviour it describes.

Validation performed

  • npx oxfmt --check on the changed file — exit 0
  • npm run docs:check — exit 0, 9 tests passed

Compatibility, safety, and release

No breaking change, migration step, package or release metadata impact, or security review. Documentation only.

Author readiness

Human owner: @XiaoBinGan

  • I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work.
  • I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps.
  • I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review.

Before merge

  • This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement.
  • Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff.
  • The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows type(scope): outcome.
  • Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above.
  • Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed.
  • I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims.

🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.

## 📋 Pull Request Information **Original PR:** https://github.com/morluto/rea/pull/7468 **Author:** [@XiaoBinGan](https://github.com/XiaoBinGan) **Created:** 10/27/2026 **Status:** ❌ Closed **Base:** `main` ← **Head:** `docs/vscode-cwd-override` --- ### 📝 Commits (2) - [`4453c42`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/4453c42a6544a4a63b86fee339345ae249101302) docs(clients): note VSCODE_CWD as the base for relative VS Code overrides - [`8f9b27b`](https://github.com/morluto/rea/commit/8f9b27bb241f2f5f19ce424a8ec717b6a5c916c3) chore: retrigger title and readiness checks after the title was corrected ### 📊 Changes **1 file changed** (+4 additions, -2 deletions) <details> <summary>View changed files</summary> 📝 `docs/client-configuration.md` (+4 -2) </details> ### 📄 Description ## Summary The VS Code section names `VSCODE_PORTABLE` and `VSCODE_APPDATA` as the overrides setup honors, but the resolver also consults `VSCODE_CWD` when a relative value resolves. ## Problem and expected behavior `src/application/SupportedClients.ts` ends with `resolve(env.VSCODE_CWD || process.cwd(), userData)`, so a relative `VSCODE_PORTABLE` or `VSCODE_APPDATA` resolves against `VSCODE_CWD` when set. Measured with `supportedClients("/home/u", "linux", env)` and reading `.vscode.configPath`: `VSCODE_PORTABLE=./portable` gives `<cwd>/portable/user-data/User/mcp.json`; adding `VSCODE_CWD=/opt/vs` gives `/opt/vs/portable/user-data/User/mcp.json`. The paragraph read as a complete list of honored overrides. ## Change and scope One clause naming `VSCODE_CWD` as the base for a relative value and the working-directory fallback. Nothing else changes. ## Contract and boundary impact Documentation only. No CLI, MCP/tool-catalog, provider, artifact, or generated-metadata change; `docs:check` passes unchanged. - [x] Documentation or usability only; no target interaction. ## Evidence and regression coverage The source and behaviour evidence is in the section above. No tests added — this changes prose only, and the owning tests already cover the behaviour it describes. ## Validation performed - `npx oxfmt --check` on the changed file — exit 0 - `npm run docs:check` — exit 0, 9 tests passed ## Compatibility, safety, and release No breaking change, migration step, package or release metadata impact, or security review. Documentation only. ## Author readiness Human owner: @XiaoBinGan - [x] I reviewed the final diff and relevant existing code, understand the change and its edge cases, and take responsibility for the complete PR, including AI-assisted work. - [x] I checked the evidence above, confirmed it supports the current change, and recorded meaningful validation gaps. - [x] I declare this PR ready for initial maintainer review. ## Before merge - [x] This PR addresses a concrete problem or an agreed enhancement. - [x] Material scope and authority questions are resolved, and any required maintainer scope decision covers the final diff. - [x] The PR has one focused outcome and the title follows `type(scope): outcome`. - [x] Related issue is linked, or the reason for not linking one is stated above. - [x] Owning docs, contracts, and generated metadata are updated where needed. - [x] I checked the final diff for secrets, unrelated cleanup, and unsupported claims. --- <sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
bsakaguchi 2026-11-05 01:48:10 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
morluto/rea#7856
No description provided.