fix: upd code placeholder by vrcprl · Pull Request #1760 · lingodotdev/lingo.dev

vrcprl · 2026-01-22T02:13:06Z

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Fixed MDX code placeholder handling to ensure proper processing of code blocks in documentation.

coderabbitai · 2026-02-12T09:15:18Z

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request fixes MDX code placeholder generation and detection by changing the placeholder format from HTML-comment style delimiters to a simpler token format with a trailing suffix and truncating MD5 hashes to 16 characters. The implementation and corresponding tests are updated to reflect this format change.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Changeset `.changeset/polite-jobs-knock.md`	New changeset file declaring a patch version bump for "lingo.dev" with description "fix MDX code placeholder".
MDX Code Placeholder `packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.ts`, `packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts`	Updated placeholder format from `{ /* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash> / }` to `CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash>_END` for code blocks and from `{ / INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash> */ }` to `INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash>_END` for inline code. Hash generation truncated to 16 characters via `.slice(0, 16)`. Test assertions updated to match new placeholder format and expectations.

Estimated Code Review Effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

A placeholder fix hops along the way,
Hash truncated, format saved the day,
No more comments cluttering the code,
Just tokens clean upon the road! 🐰✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 1 | ❌ 2

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	No pull request description was provided; the template sections for Summary, Changes, Testing, Visuals, and Checklist are all missing.	Add a complete PR description following the template, including a summary of changes, key modifications, test coverage details, and confirmation of the changeset.
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'fix: upd code placeholder' is vague and uses abbreviated language ('upd' instead of 'update') that doesn't clearly convey the specific nature of the code placeholder fix.	Use a more descriptive title such as 'fix: update MDX code placeholder format' to clearly communicate the main change.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment
Commit unit tests in branch fix/upd-code-palceholder

Tip

Issue Planner is now in beta. Read the docs and try it out! Share your feedback on Discord.

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 and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts`:
- Around line 607-611: Replace the stale assertion that checks for the old block
comment placeholder with one that asserts the new placeholder format is not
present: update the second expect that currently reads against /\{\/\*
CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/ to instead assert
pushedResult.not.toMatch(/CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/); locate the assertion
referencing pushedResult in code-placeholder.spec.ts and swap the regex
accordingly so the test verifies the new placeholder format.
- Around line 641-645: The test contains a stale assertion checking for the old
block-comment format (/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/) against the
variable pushedResult; replace that assertion with one that ensures the new
end-marker format is not present, e.g. change the second expect to verify
pushedResult does not match /CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/ so the test asserts
absence of the new CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash>_END pattern (refer to pushedResult
and the spec in code-placeholder.spec.ts).

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts (1)

872-874: Stale comment referencing old {/* */} format.

The comment on line 874 still references the old {/* */} placeholder format. Should be updated to reflect the new _END suffix format.

coderabbitai · 2026-02-12T09:20:13Z

packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts

      expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(
-        /\{\/\* INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/,
+        /INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/,
      );
      expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/);



⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Stale assertion checking old placeholder format that no longer exists.

Line 610 still checks for the old {/* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_... */} format. Since code-block placeholders now use CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash>_END, this assertion will always pass trivially and doesn't verify anything useful. It should check the new format instead:

Suggested fix

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch( /INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/, ); - expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/); + expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/);

📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(

/\{\/\* INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/,

/INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/,

);

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/);

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(

/INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/,

);

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/);

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In `@packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts` around lines 607 - 611, Replace the stale assertion that checks for the old block comment placeholder with one that asserts the new placeholder format is not present: update the second expect that currently reads against /\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/ to instead assert pushedResult.not.toMatch(/CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/); locate the assertion referencing pushedResult in code-placeholder.spec.ts and swap the regex accordingly so the test verifies the new placeholder format.

coderabbitai · 2026-02-12T09:20:13Z

packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts

      expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(
-        /\{\/\* INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/,
+        /INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/,
      );
      expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/);
      expect(pushedResult).toContain("`الحصول_على_البيانات()`");


⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Same stale old-format assertion as above.

Line 644 has the same issue — checking for the defunct {/* ... */} format instead of the new CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash>_END format.

Suggested fix

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch( /INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/, ); - expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/); + expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/);

📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(

/\{\/\* INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/,

/INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/,

);

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/);

expect(pushedResult).toContain("`الحصول_على_البيانات()`");

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(

/INLINE_CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/,

);

expect(pushedResult).not.toMatch(/CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/);

expect(pushedResult).toContain("`الحصول_على_البيانات()`");

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In `@packages/cli/src/cli/loaders/mdx2/code-placeholder.spec.ts` around lines 641 - 645, The test contains a stale assertion checking for the old block-comment format (/\{\/\* CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+\s*\*\/\}/) against the variable pushedResult; replace that assertion with one that ensures the new end-marker format is not present, e.g. change the second expect to verify pushedResult does not match /CODE_PLACEHOLDER_[0-9a-f]+_END/ so the test asserts absence of the new CODE_PLACEHOLDER_<hash>_END pattern (refer to pushedResult and the spec in code-placeholder.spec.ts).

vrcprl and others added 3 commits January 21, 2026 18:11

fix: upd code placeholder

7ceebfc

chore: add changeset

f68be0d

Merge branch 'main' into fix/upd-code-palceholder

4a8113b

coderabbitai bot reviewed Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/upd-code-palceholder

3a2b681

cherkanovart approved these changes Feb 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

cherkanovart merged commit c68b34b into main Feb 13, 2026
5 checks passed

cherkanovart deleted the fix/upd-code-palceholder branch February 13, 2026 10:57

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2026

chore: bump package versions #1980

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Comments

fix: upd code placeholder#1760

fix: upd code placeholder#1760
cherkanovart merged 4 commits intomainfrom
fix/upd-code-palceholder

vrcprl commented Jan 22, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated Code Review Effort

Poem

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Comments

Conversation

vrcprl commented Jan 22, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated Code Review Effort

Poem

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot Feb 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot Feb 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

vrcprl commented Jan 22, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading