Conversation
TangZhiZzz
commented
Apr 1, 2026
TangZhiZzz
commented
- 为技能发现添加本地缓存机制，减少网络请求
- 新增强制刷新按钮，允许用户手动更新技能列表
- 支持网格和列表两种视图模式展示技能
- 添加技能列表项组件用于列表视图
- 为技能发现添加本地缓存机制，减少网络请求 - 新增强制刷新按钮，允许用户手动更新技能列表 - 支持网格和列表两种视图模式展示技能 - 添加技能列表项组件用于列表视图
|
@codex review |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e4200a6f6c
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| if !skills.is_empty() { | ||
| Self::deduplicate_discoverable_skills(&mut skills); | ||
| skills.sort_by(|a, b| a.name.to_lowercase().cmp(&b.name.to_lowercase())); | ||
| return Ok(skills); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When force_refresh is false, the function returns as soon as any cached skills exist, even if other enabled repos have no cache. In a mixed state (e.g., one old repo cached + one newly added repo without cache), discover_available_with_cache exits early and never fetches the new repo, so its skills never appear until a manual force refresh. This breaks the normal add-repo discovery flow and produces incomplete results.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| refresh: () => { | ||
| refetchInstalled(); | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The refresh handle now only calls refetchInstalled(), so the Skills Discovery toolbar refresh action no longer refreshes discoverable skills or repo data. As a result, users clicking the existing refresh button won’t see updated discovery results unless they use force refresh, which is a regression from the previous behavior where refresh reloaded discovery content.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
