fix(code): fix branch vs default diff for unpushed changes

[adboio]

Problem

when a user has committed but unpushed changes, they do not show up in the "branch vs [default]" diff because we use the github APIs and compare to the remote branch

Changes

updates to use local instead of assuming remote for this case

How did you test this?

manually repro'd and tested after fix

[adboio]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• fix(code): fix branch vs default diff for unpushed changes #1874 👈 (View in Graphite)
• feat(code): add PR comments to local tasks #1868
• feat(code): use chosen diff source for badge #1865
• feat(code): add PR diff source #1864
• feat(code): add PR actions to local tasks #1862
• feat(code): add method for finding PR for branch #1861
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[greptile-apps]

Prompt To Fix All With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: packages/git/src/queries.test.ts
Line: 101-145

Comment:
**Prefer parameterised tests for `splitUnifiedDiffByFile`**

The four cases for `splitUnifiedDiffByFile` all follow the same pattern — supply a raw diff string, check keys and values in the returned map — and could be collapsed into a single `it.each` table per the team's preference for parameterised tests. The test for the two-file case is the outlier (multiple assertions), but even that can live as a row with a callback to an inline assertion helper.

```ts
it.each([
  ["empty input", "", []],
  ["binary diff", "diff --git a/image.png b/image.png\nBinary files ...", ["image.png"]],
  ["rename keyed by new path", "diff --git a/old.txt b/new.txt\nsimilarity index 100%\n...", ["new.txt"]],
] as const)("splitUnifiedDiffByFile: %s", (_label, raw, expectedKeys) => {
  const result = splitUnifiedDiffByFile(raw);
  expect([...result.keys()]).toEqual(expectedKeys);
});
```

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "fix(code): fix branch vs default diff fo..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[greptile-apps]

Prefer parameterised tests for splitUnifiedDiffByFile

The four cases for splitUnifiedDiffByFile all follow the same pattern — supply a raw diff string, check keys and values in the returned map — and could be collapsed into a single it.each table per the team's preference for parameterised tests. The test for the two-file case is the outlier (multiple assertions), but even that can live as a row with a callback to an inline assertion helper.

it.each([
  ["empty input", "", []],
  ["binary diff", "diff --git a/image.png b/image.png\nBinary files ...", ["image.png"]],
  ["rename keyed by new path", "diff --git a/old.txt b/new.txt\nsimilarity index 100%\n...", ["new.txt"]],
] as const)("splitUnifiedDiffByFile: %s", (_label, raw, expectedKeys) => {
  const result = splitUnifiedDiffByFile(raw);
  expect([...result.keys()]).toEqual(expectedKeys);
});

Prompt To Fix With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: packages/git/src/queries.test.ts
Line: 101-145

Comment:
**Prefer parameterised tests for `splitUnifiedDiffByFile`**

The four cases for `splitUnifiedDiffByFile` all follow the same pattern — supply a raw diff string, check keys and values in the returned map — and could be collapsed into a single `it.each` table per the team's preference for parameterised tests. The test for the two-file case is the outlier (multiple assertions), but even that can live as a row with a callback to an inline assertion helper.

```ts
it.each([
  ["empty input", "", []],
  ["binary diff", "diff --git a/image.png b/image.png\nBinary files ...", ["image.png"]],
  ["rename keyed by new path", "diff --git a/old.txt b/new.txt\nsimilarity index 100%\n...", ["new.txt"]],
] as const)("splitUnifiedDiffByFile: %s", (_label, raw, expectedKeys) => {
  const result = splitUnifiedDiffByFile(raw);
  expect([...result.keys()]).toEqual(expectedKeys);
});
```

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!