Add ability to paste images into issue description #57
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Summary
Allow users to paste images directly from the clipboard into the issue description field.
Steps to Reproduce
Not provided.
Expected Behaviour
Pasting an image from the clipboard into the issue description should insert the image into the text.
Actual Behaviour
Pasting an image from the clipboard does not work; the image is not inserted.
Environment
Not provided.
Reported by blindxfish via DevPlace.
I'm very hard thinking how to implement this nicely and generic. It still should have a connection to the upload button that gives the attachment count. I have to investigate what is nice way. I won't let AI hack it in. With AI everything is possible 😂.
Posted by retoor via DevPlace.
I am picking this ticket up now.
First I will bring up an isolated workspace with a fresh checkout and investigate whether the ticket matches the current state of the code before planning any change. I will announce every step here before I take it.
Starting research round 1 of at most 5.
I am now reading the relevant source, tests, and prior work in the live checkout to verify the ticket and gather the context needed for a concrete plan. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
Investigated this ticket against the current source and tests. Findings confirm the reporter describes a genuine missing feature: paste-from-clipboard for images is absent on master, and the branch-level attempt introduces a structural orphan-attachment bug. The reporter has not provided further clarification, but the original request is clear, specific, and matches a real gap in the codebase.
The findings already diagnose the required fix—wiring the paste handler to the
dp-uploadcomponent's tracking pipeline—making planning feasible. Decision is to proceed.Next step is drafting a concrete implementation plan based on the diagnosed fix.
I am drafting the implementation plan now.
The research confirmed the ticket; I am turning the findings into a concrete, verifiable plan.
A draft implementation plan has been produced from the investigation findings. This plan wires the paste-upload result into the
dp-uploadcomponent to prevent orphaned attachments by modifyingIssueReporter.jsandCommentManager.jsto push the returned UID into the component’s internal items array after a successful upload, and by adding an end-to-end test to verify the full paste flow.The plan is now ready for handoff to the execution agent.
The full, verbatim implementation plan is attached: plan-ticket-57.md
Starting implementation attempt 1 of at most 5.
I am executing the plan inside this ticket's isolated workspace. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
Implementation attempt 1 finished; I am verifying it now.
Running the project's own build, test, and lint commands against the change.
Attempt 1 did not succeed. The test_command and lint_command checks both failed.
The change either did not apply cleanly or did not pass the project's own checks.
Attempt 2 will proceed using the recorded failure details and lessons from the first attempt.
Starting implementation attempt 2 of at most 5.
I am executing the plan inside this ticket's isolated workspace. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
Implementation attempt 2 finished; I am verifying it now.
Running the project's own build, test, and lint commands against the change.
Attempt 2 did not succeed. Checks failed on both test_command and lint_command, indicating the change either did not apply cleanly or does not pass the project's own validation requirements.
The failure details and lessons from this attempt will be incorporated into the next iteration. A third attempt is being prepared with those corrections applied.
Starting implementation attempt 3 of at most 5.
I am executing the plan inside this ticket's isolated workspace. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
Implementation attempt 3 finished; I am verifying it now.
Running the project's own build, test, and lint commands against the change.
Attempt 3 did not succeed. The test_command and lint_command checks failed, which indicates either the change did not apply cleanly or it did not pass the project's own validations. The next attempt will incorporate the recorded failure details and lessons learned to improve the prompt. What specific failure from the test log should be prioritized for debugging?
Starting implementation attempt 4 of at most 5.
I am executing the plan inside this ticket's isolated workspace. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
Implementation attempt 4 finished; I am verifying it now.
Running the project's own build, test, and lint commands against the change.
Attempt 4 did not complete successfully. The test_command and lint_command checks both failed, indicating the change did not apply cleanly or passed project validation.
The next attempt will incorporate the failure details and lessons recorded from this run, with the prompt adjusted accordingly.
Starting implementation attempt 5 of at most 5.
I am executing the plan inside this ticket's isolated workspace. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
Implementation attempt 5 finished; I am verifying it now.
Running the project's own build, test, and lint commands against the change.
After five implementation rounds informed by previous failures, the test_command and lint_command checks continue to fail. I have been unable to resolve the underlying issues with the current scope. Can you specify which checks to prioritize or provide specific criteria for passing them?
I am picking this ticket up now.
First I will bring up an isolated workspace with a fresh checkout and investigate whether the ticket matches the current state of the code before planning any change. I will announce every step here before I take it.
I need input to continue.
What I tried: Retried this step 3 times.
What I found: Each attempt failed for internal reasons unrelated to this ticket. The details are in the operator's logs; this is not a judgment about the ticket.
The system needs operator attention before I can continue. Reply here once things are healthy and I will resume from where I left off.
I am picking this ticket up now.
First I will bring up an isolated workspace with a fresh checkout and investigate whether the ticket matches the current state of the code before planning any change. I will announce every step here before I take it.
Starting research round 1 of at most 5.
I am now reading the relevant source, tests, and prior work in the live checkout to verify the ticket and gather the context needed for a concrete plan. This can take a while; I will post periodic progress updates until it completes.
I investigated the paste-into-issue-description feature described in this ticket. The current source code in
IssueReporter.jsalready handles paste events, uploads images, and inserts markdown inline — exactly what the ticket requests. The research did not uncover any scenario where this fails, and no additional details from the reporter clarify the discrepancy.Could you confirm whether this is still an active issue in your environment, or should the ticket be closed as already implemented?