Add bilingual English and French documentation - #5
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 43 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (15)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe PR adds French versions of project documentation and translates existing French documents into English. It covers contribution, licensing, security, setup, compatibility, research, roadmap, scope, and project vision. Several research and roadmap sections also update measured hardware and session-status findings. ChangesDocumentation du projet
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
![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: 58e41228e5
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".
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/publishing-checklist.md (1)
38-49: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick winClarify the version of the completed compatibility evidence.
The checklists mark the Input
0.17.2Import/Export evidence as a current Claude V1 gate, whiledocs/getting-started.mddescribes the0.17.2layer format as historical and the active profile workflow uses Input0.17.3. Verify the intended status. If0.17.2is historical, label the checkbox accordingly or update it to the0.17.3evidence.
docs/publishing-checklist.md#L38-L49: clarify the0.17.2checkbox.docs/fr/publishing-checklist.md#L38-L49: apply the same clarification in French.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate. In `@docs/publishing-checklist.md` around lines 38 - 49, The Claude V1 compatibility checklist must identify the evidence version accurately: update the `0.17.2` Import/Export checkbox in `docs/publishing-checklist.md` to the active `0.17.3` evidence, or explicitly label `0.17.2` as historical; apply the same clarification to the corresponding French checkbox in `docs/fr/publishing-checklist.md`, preserving each document’s language.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@CONTRIBUTING.fr.md`:
- Line 142: Update the security-document link in the French contributing guide
to reference SECURITY.fr.md instead of SECURITY.md, preserving the existing
instruction text and language-consistent navigation.
In `@docs/compatibility.md`:
- Line 16: Update the focus-loss validation status in docs/compatibility.md at
line 16 from pending to the measured-and-validated result documented in the
configuration files, then apply the identical English status wording to
docs/fr/compatibility.md at line 16.
In `@docs/fr/installation.md`:
- Around line 241-246: Replace the literal AppSense IDs in the documented
build-input-profile command with explicit placeholders or shell variables
representing the user’s device-specific values, while preserving the command
structure and the French explanation of the repair use case.
- Around line 254-260: Update the guidance around the
`~/Library/Logs/input/main.log` reference to state that the log must remain
local and that users should redact addresses, tokens, and other sensitive
parameters before sharing or inspecting excerpts. Instruct them to copy only the
required AppSense `linkedAppId` values.
In `@docs/fr/research/effort-wheel-calibration.md`:
- Around line 17-18: Correct the French agreement in the `⌘⇧E` toggle
description by changing “vérifié” to “vérifiée” after “bascule,” while
preserving the rest of the sentence.
In `@docs/installation.md`:
- Around line 253-259: Update the installation documentation near the
`~/Library/Logs/input/main.log` guidance to warn that the log may contain
private device data; instruct users to keep it local, never paste it into
issues, and redact identifiers and other sensitive values before sharing.
- Around line 240-251: The installation example exposes stable-looking AppSense
identifiers that readers may copy incorrectly. Replace the literal values in the
build-input-profile command with clearly non-copyable placeholders or variables,
and instruct readers to resolve and verify the corresponding identifiers from
their current device configuration before running it, consistent with the
local-identifier guidance in the surrounding documentation.
In `@docs/research/thread-status-feasibility.md`:
- Around line 84-85: Update the evidence status for the Claude Desktop route in
docs/research/thread-status-feasibility.md:84-85 from “refuted” to an equivalent
of “confirmed on this machine.” Apply the corresponding status correction from
“réfuté” to a confirmed equivalent in
docs/fr/research/thread-status-feasibility.md:84-85; leave the supporting route
and UUID-validation evidence unchanged.
- Around line 7-16: Update the navigation conclusions in
docs/research/thread-status-feasibility.md lines 7-16 to describe terminal
window-focus navigation as implemented but unverified, reserving “solved” for
the verified Claude Desktop route; apply the same distinction in
docs/fr/research/thread-status-feasibility.md lines 7-16 while preserving the
existing bilingual structure.
In `@docs/scope-and-limitations.md`:
- Around line 56-67: Update docs/scope-and-limitations.md (lines 56-67) and
docs/fr/scope-and-limitations.md (lines 55-66) so the “Restore on exit”
condition accurately reflects the implemented behavior: either document only
shutdown/exception paths that actually close or restore lighting, or add the
missing restore handling for interrupts, shutdowns, and uncaught failures before
retaining those claims. Keep both language versions synchronized.
---
Nitpick comments:
In `@docs/publishing-checklist.md`:
- Around line 38-49: The Claude V1 compatibility checklist must identify the
evidence version accurately: update the `0.17.2` Import/Export checkbox in
`docs/publishing-checklist.md` to the active `0.17.3` evidence, or explicitly
label `0.17.2` as historical; apply the same clarification to the corresponding
French checkbox in `docs/fr/publishing-checklist.md`, preserving each document’s
language.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 8e3efc01-4a26-43c0-b672-0b625d1dd519
📒 Files selected for processing (34)
CONTRIBUTING.fr.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdLICENSING.fr.mdLICENSING.mdSECURITY.fr.mdSECURITY.mddocs/codex-micro/configuration.mddocs/codex-micro/local-observation-2026-07-27.mddocs/compatibility.mddocs/fr/codex-micro/configuration.mddocs/fr/codex-micro/local-observation-2026-07-27.mddocs/fr/compatibility.mddocs/fr/getting-started.mddocs/fr/installation.mddocs/fr/publishing-checklist.mddocs/fr/research/appsense-behavior.mddocs/fr/research/effort-wheel-calibration.mddocs/fr/research/hid-lighting-protocol.mddocs/fr/research/input-0.17.2-sharing.mddocs/fr/research/thread-status-feasibility.mddocs/fr/roadmap.mddocs/fr/scope-and-limitations.mddocs/fr/vision.mddocs/getting-started.mddocs/installation.mddocs/publishing-checklist.mddocs/research/appsense-behavior.mddocs/research/effort-wheel-calibration.mddocs/research/hid-lighting-protocol.mddocs/research/input-0.17.2-sharing.mddocs/research/thread-status-feasibility.mddocs/roadmap.mddocs/scope-and-limitations.mddocs/vision.md
|
@codex review |
|
Review feedback addressed in
Revalidation after the fixes:
|
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Hooray! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
1 participant
Summary
.fr.mdanddocs/fr/pathsEnglish · Françaislanguage switch to every affected documentThis pull request contains documentation only: 34 Markdown files, with no source-code or configuration changes.
Validation
npm run validatenpm run checkgit diff --cached --checkpassed before commitDocstring density note
A separate whole-repository AST audit found sparse formal JSDoc (4/95 exported functions, 4.21%), while 52/256 named functions (20.31%) have a leading explanatory comment. No blanket comment churn is included here; a focused follow-up should document exported and complex boundaries.
Summary by CodeRabbit