-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
Fix #609: Windows coding phase not starting after spec/planning #1347
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
AndyMik90
merged 7 commits into
AndyMik90:develop
from
TamerineSky:fix/windows-coding-phase-609
Jan 20, 2026
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5f23e07
Fix #609: Windows coding phase not starting after spec/planning
TamerineSky 4aa30de
Add exception handling for Windows subprocess.run()
TamerineSky 77406c3
Fix linting: remove f-string without placeholders
TamerineSky d33993f
refactor: use is_windows() from core.platform for consistency
TamerineSky efafdca
Address review feedback for consistency
TamerineSky 18bcb83
Fix Ruff formatting: wrap long lines
TamerineSky 309433f
Merge branch 'develop' into fix/windows-coding-phase-609
TamerineSky File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Use print_status for KeyboardInterrupt to keep UI formatting consistent.
Minor UX consistency issue: other error paths here use
print_status, but the interrupt path uses rawprint.Proposed fix
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The existing KeyboardInterrupt handler in the same file (line 403-406) also uses
print()rather thanprint_status():The new handler follows the same pattern for consistency with the existing code. Changing this one would create inconsistency - if we want to update to
print_status(), both handlers should be updated together in a separate PR.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@TamerineSky, you're absolutely right! I verified the existing handler at lines 403-407 and it does useprint()directly. Internal consistency within the file is more important here, and your new code correctly follows the established pattern.If you'd like to update both KeyboardInterrupt handlers to use
print_status()for better UI consistency across the codebase, that could be done as a separate cleanup PR, but it's definitely not necessary for this fix.Thanks for catching that! 👍
🧠 Learnings used