I have an idea for an app. I want to plan everything out first, so do not jump to implementation yet. We will approach it as a regular development cycle: 1. Specs/AC, 2. ADR, 3. Implementation.


I have an idea for an app. I want to plan everything out first, so do not jump to implementation yet. We will approach it as a regular development cycle: 1. Specs/AC, 2. ADR, 3. Implementation. Right now we will be beginning step 1 - Specs/AC. I will describe you the idea of an app and a some key stuff and you will need to create a document with Specs/AC which we will refine and then you will be able to use to make necessary architectural decisions and implement


Imagine a car service book where you write down all the maintenance and repairs you're doing for your vehicle. You write down odometer reading, you specify work that has been performed and, possible, add a few documents - receipts for the work down or parts bought. The idea is to have an app that streamlines that process and allows to manage that for multiple vehicle - so have an ability to add multiple vehicle, specify their VIN (for future easy copy and stuff). BUT THERE'S A CATCH - the main idea is not only this app be a modern designed and easy to use but also store the data in an open format - kinda like Obsidian does it, so that user has full control and ownership of the data he/she is inputting and accessing and, if wanted, can implemented backup strategies, without relying on the app to do it. We can implement some kind of built-in cloud sync (to charge money, lol) but it's not in MVP and that just the plans for the future. The document we are creating now will not only be a spec/ac document but also a document FOR YOU to reference so that you can make weighted architectural decisions in step 2 and do proper implementation in step 3. Target platform, for now, is Android, but other platforms (iOS, Web) are a future possibility. I want app to be performance oriented - it shouldn't feel sluggish or bloated


I think the idea being it performant relies on it being as native to the platform as possible. Do you agree?


And also, Id like for the platform specific design language be also followed, so we can, again, use platform native framework so that we use native controls


Can you build an apk so I can load it on my phone and test it out?


I currently have access to this CLI only, unfortunately. If you have other ways of testing this without me needing to physically access the PC - I'm open


/btw What is the reason of using older kotlin version?


Just create the file and I will download this. I have an access to the file system from the browser


Installed the app. First screen, to select the folder, opened good, I've selected the folder, it asked for permissions, which I allowed and then it crashed. And now it crashed right after opening the app


Same behavior. If I install the Claude app on the phone, will it be easier for you to determine what's exactly wrong? Or maybe we should spend some time setting up some e2e testing framework and writing some tests?


And then I can attach the file using Claude app on the phone?


Do you remember what we left last session?


The app initially opens, to show the screen to select the folder and allow access to it. After that it crashed. You wanted to add log dump or something, because the only way I currently can test the app is to download the apk to my phone and run it there


I need you to build the apk. I will then download it


It crashed but no matter how many times I open the app, it won't show any message with the error


In the same folder as .apk file, I've created a crash-report.txt file which contains the error log


Now the app launched and didn't crash. 2 issues: 1 high severance, 1 low. High: when adding a new vehicle and pressing Save the vehicle does not appear in the list, so I cannot progress further. No even after app relaunch. Low: the transitions between screens are generic fade which looks dated especially on a device running Android 16 (Pixel 6a) - modern Material 3 Expressive should be utilized for the design and animations


The transitions now look better but still don't look like native Android 16 transitions. Like the ones you will find in Settings apps. And also bug: entering Default Currency is broken - the input moves the cursor sporadically when entering a value. Plus, I think it would be beneficial to have a predefined list of currencies already in the dropdown (with filtering), but also allow to enter custom. The same can be applied to "Make" field in vehicle creation screen. Moreover, I think the should make Make and Model fields optional (adjust specs aswell).


Transitions: holding back gesture works but not, how it's supposed to - it's doing the wrong animation. Aren't there presets for that kind of stuff? Currency in service entry should also be a dropdown. Dropdown also has issues: the focus from the input is constantly lost, so I cannot easily remove the text and select other options - I constantly have to tap on the field so it has the focus.


Dropdown - looks better but I'm wondering, aren't there any ready-to-go solutions? I'm asking because it still has issues - the cursor is placed and strange positions sometimes, the dropdown appears over the input, which looks strange and hides, what you're inputting and in general it doesnt look user friendly and aligning with Material 3 Expressive guidelines. Transitions - are you sure there are no pre-baked transitions? Like popExitTransition works, but it's a wrong transition - Android 16 transition for back is not a pure slide in - when you hold back gesture it will kinda become smaller and then, when you release it, it will "swipe it out". There should be baked api for that or something


But then why aren't why using OS-level activities? Why aren't we using what is already done by Android developers in native apps?


Currently, the visual difference is starking - the back animation is not even close to what they're with vanilla. You're clearly missing something


I clicked around and for MVP it's looking good. I honestly want this animation to work. You said that Android developers discourage the approach used in Settings app even though they themselves just recently implemented this new animations. Why do they discourage it?


So they've showcased it on legacy approach but havent shipped a solution to modern approach?


Im setting up a git repo. Is gitignore set up corrrctly?


We need to stage this andcmake sure that currently staged files do not contain wgat we dont need


theres a local commit. we need to reset it (soft)


Currently, Navigation 2.8 is used. 3.0 is stable. We need to update and use new NavDisplay


The app crashed on launch. There's a log.txt file in the same folder as .apk


The app launches and works functionally. Now transition animations: in Nav 3 to which we just migrated there should be a built-in animation present to closely mimic vanilla Android 16 back animation (like in Settings app). AFAIK, it's something like "transitionSpec = {
            PredictiveBackDefaults.systemScaleTransition()
        }" defined in NavDisplay or something along those lines.


Apps opens but animations feel generic and unpolished. They look like chineese knockoff off a vanilla animations. The transition in looks like a generic fade and back has predictive gesture but it looks strange


It looks better but doesnt mimick what I wanted. There's also slight scaleout when going back and then it slides out when you release the finger


I've created docs/transition-animations-spec.md file. It contains guidelines on how to achieve those transition animations. Please read it through, understand it and tell me whether you agree with what is written in the context of achieving Settings app like transition animations


I've updated the file. Reread it and tell me what you think of it now


I've updated the file again. What we implemented looked decent but I had some adjustments. Please review the spec and tell me what you think


After the implementatation it still didn't look correct. Please review the latest edition of spec and tell me what do you think


No, current approach was implemented against previous version of the spec. After I saw it, I gave the screen recording for a review to Gemini 3.1 Pro and this is the new spec given by it based on the screen recording


It still looked off. Please read latest revision of the file. What do you think?


Review latest spec file revision. It should be much simpler - no trying to mimic vanilla Android. Just modern, polished look


I've staged changed but for some reason build output folder was also included. It should be ignored


We have a bug to fix with transitions: when system is in dark mode, when doing a transition, briefly some bright white colour appears


We need to make Year of the car optional and one more thing related to that: the folder name for the car is generated based on year make and model. Since all the properties are optional, we should not rely on that. Either add some hash or use nickname (which should be mandatory) or use both. Up to you. Also don't forget to update related doc files


Bug: In vehicle list, if there's a car that has no make/model/year, second row shows null. It should be either completely missing or dash shown


There's an ability to add an attachment to the service entry. While it is shown, it cannot be opened.


The attachments now open. But for image attachments, I think, it would be beneficial for UX for the app to be able to open them by itself. With all the expected functionality of viewing images. Is there an "easy way" to do this or we need to implement the whole logic ourselves?


It works, but there is 2 issues: 1. Swiping to move moves the image very slowly; 2. When swipiping the image and it goes outside the screen boundaries, it doesnt move back inside the screen


Good. Now last thing: there's no double tap to zoom and double tap to unzoom


Now update relevant docs to reflect the changes


There's a bug. I have 2 vehicles in my value: 1 has 1 service record with an attachment, the second doesnt have any service records. When opening both vehicles, they both show the same record from the vehicle 1


It's the same with Service Item view. Verify all the views for the same behavior


I've created "service-list-screen-rework.md" file with specs to rework service list screen. What do you think of it?


I've updated the file. What do you think now?


What do you think of the idea in terms of UI/UX? Good upgrade?


Can you do the implementation using that spec?


Update relevant spec files according to the changes


Now create a sample data vault to test the app. Place it in tge repo. I shoukd be able to test multitude of scenarios imaginable


Now, couldve we created a script that would have been able to do this dynamically? For the future and to save on tokens


Can the script also create a archive file?


We need to fix fundamental UX issue. Right now theres siggificant popin effect when data loads. Especially notixablw in larger vaults. Wgat are our options?


Now we need to update relwvant docs to reflect the changes


In the docs forlder there's design-spec.md file. This file now contains design specs to rework Vehicle list screen. Please read it and tell me what do you think


The file has been updated. Please review it


Bug regarding delete functionality: when pressing Cancel in confirmation dialog, the swiped item will not go back to it's place - it's stuck in swiped out state


What git config is needed for commit identifiaction?


Name: Igor Vinogradov, Email: igor.vinogradov.82@gmail.com. Set it please


docs/design-spec.md file now contains design spec to rework Service Entry Detail screen. What do you think?


docs/design-spec.md file contains design spec for Settings page rework. What do you think of it?


With the amount of currencies in the popup, it woild be beneficial to have filtering in there. Follow Material 3 design


Now, the currency popup looks good and it should be reused for currency input in Add/Edit service entry form


The currency popup should be opened when pressing on the whole field, not just the icon the suffix. Service entry add/edit screen


docs/design-spec.md contains design spec for Add/Edit service entry screen. What do you think of this?


The specs file is now updated with some of the findings I found when tested the implementation. What do you think?


Now we need to arjust veh8cle list to support this new Work Done approaxh


We have a bug: when having 3 button navigation enabled, the Save button of service entry will be ubder the buttons. Verify all views for that


3 button is good. Gesture has a shadow there which looks strange


 I want to address one design iasue: right now we have light background and
  then dark carss and stuff. But looking at the vanilla apps its the other way
  around. We need to address that.


Those colors... Wont they overwrite the Material You coloring?


Nothing changed, lol. Lets try different approach: go view by view. Starting with Vehicle List. Theres chat/current.png image which is a screenahot of it now abd theres chat/reference.png which is a screnshot of vanilla Settings app which style I want to achieve


Good. Still 2 things: 1. Background is still light and card dark. I wanted other way around. 2. Can we mimick Settings app divider? Each iten, while the geoup is in the card, is kinda separated conpketely, not just divider put in


Ive updated current screenshot. I want top bar to be the same background color, background color be a tone lighter and divider be the same color as background


Ive updated the screenshot. Now we are working with Srrvice list view. The changes are simple - revert colors. Background should be the same as in vehicle list and year titles should be lighter


Please inspect docs file regarding transition animations, inspect the relevant files and tell me, what do you think. Just to the review


Now. What can we do about isPop to address the concerns you had?


Now the black scrim doesnt appear on back transition


Do a full review on current worktree changes


Review current worktree changes. Do you have any complaints?


Anyting else on the currebt worktree chabges?


Review currenr worktree changes. Anything to say?


Regarding ConfirmDeleteAttachment: Since the AddEditRecordState is properly
  encapsulated as a StateFlow without a public setter, using the natural event
  flow (AttachmentPicked → RequestDelete → ConfirmDelete) is the most idiomatic
  way to set up the test state. It guarantees we are testing the actual
  integration between the intent to attach and the intent to delete.


Review latest worktree changes. Any issues?


Youre code reviewer. Review current worktree changes


Now shorter version, so i can put it to gemini cli to fix


Revisit your comments. They should be fixed


I havent asked you to fix anything. I asked to do the review again, since the code canged and your comments should be addressed


So, no anything to say about the changes overall?


You're code reviewer. Review current worktree changes


Do the whole review again. Anything to say?


Do the review again. The files have been chaned


Should be fixed. Files changed. Please do the whole review again from the ground up


I want to set up linter for hte project. It should be able to fix at least some parts of the fails and report others. The build should fail if the linter founds issues. What are my options?


Both. Also regarding Android lint and in general - I want the debug build to also fail to catch those issues early


Can we also add check to pre-commit hook?


In node world there's a husky library that does that. Is there anything in kotlin?


2. Can it be set up in a way that enforces its automatic install on the machine?


Option A actually sounds like using gradle as "universal runtime", so yeah


Let's try running assembleDebug to test that


Hm, that looks like cumbersome solution - having something to install and availability depends on distro... Again - what are our options to achieve that?


We should test this with more generic task. Like loading dependencies or doing debug build


Did you check the files existince and contents?


Let's try to remove it and run the build again. Just to be sure


Now let's edit some file so the check will fail. I will then to commit manually and see whether it failed


Just to make sure - will our CI actions run those checks aswell?


So it just runs tests and that's it? I think it should include building the release bundle (which should include tests and check). That would be most logical


Check includes unit tests? Is that correct?


But is it correct approach having both lint and tests in the same task?


You're code reviewer. Review the current worktree changes


What do you mean that IT naming is incorrect? What it should be then?


There are linter errors currently in the worktree changes. Can you run linter tasks, accumulate all errors and fix all of them?


We need to do 2 things: 1 - Adjust git pre-commit hook set up script, so the new script doesnt to check but linter tasks specifically (and clear current hook, so the new one is generated); 2 - Set Java 21 (which should be installed) as main Java so the Gradle picks it up in the env automatically


The Github CI fails: * What went wrong:
Value '/usr/lib/jvm/java-21-openjdk' given for org.gradle.java.home Gradle property is invalid (Java home supplied is invalid)


We need to just local android test to run sofrware acceleration - the hardwate one causes the host machine to hang


I've increased distrobox memory limit. At leasy it should have swap file now. Can you try now?


What is the difference compared to swiftshared?


What is the difference compared to swiftshader?


Could the issue with qemu be resolved with distrobox config?


I think it's worth documenting this somewhere - how to run with hardware acceleration (both on distrobox and directly) and with software


When you ran the android test, did everything pass?


Gemini tried to enable gpu acceleration for instrumented tests. Youre in distrobox environment with gpu passed in (1080ti). The was a moment when those worked but since then I was trying to resolve host pc hanging during insturmented test runs and now, possibly, resolved that, I want to reenable gpu acceleration. Your end goal should be passing instrumented tests with gpu acceleration enabled. Worth mentioning 2 things: whole test suite in CI is passing, so the tests are functioning properly. And secondly, the distrobox env was recreated with the fixes for hanging (chattr), so we may need to set up something


Do you need C flag if the parent folder has it?


The VK_FILENAMES was set explicitly by Gemini. It thought that that was the problem but it wasnt because it was still failing although with different issue. I still think it's incorrect to do it


I want to plan out a new feature. It's a paywall for the features of the app but the limit is simple - free tier will be able to manage one vehicle. The full feature unlock will be a one-time lifetime payment. How does this look? And how do we go about implementing this?


We also need to account for the fact that user can change the vault and the new value can have multiple vehicles in it already saved. And the user initially can select a vault that can have multiple vehicles in it. I think we can handle it 2 ways and we need to decide which direction to go (maybe you will have other options): 1. Just prohibit selecting the vault that has more than one vehicle. 2. Prompt to copy a single vehicle (and allow to select which) to a new vault and a screen to select the folder where the new vault will live.


"a use who can hand-edit json can also decompile the apk" - this is not strictly true. The idea is not to prevent it 100% but to make it signifacntly more effort than just copying the existing vehicle and adjusting it's base json


Now we need to create a separate .md file explaining the plan to implement this


Continue where you left off. The previous attempt was rate limited.


In the current PR there are unresolved comments regarding the changes. We need to review those and either respond to them or address


It's possible that specs and adr file changes you did regarding that (they were the first, before the plan) were lost. I did some switchbacks with folder structure and git repo in the folder was lost and needed to be reinitialized and Gemini did it wrong at first. Can you recall from this session what were the changes and restore them?


Now we need to go back to addressing the comments


What about the third comment about plan-paywall.md file?


There are 2 more comments. We need to review the validity of them aswell


Review the changes implemented in this PR. What do you think?


We are currently working on testing refactor Phase 3. What i want is to create another doc file describing in details all the scenarios that should be covered by smoke tests


Also, include phased implementation plan


Let's start implementing Smoke Tests using the plan in docs. Phase 1


com.servicebook.SmokeTest > test_01_coreHappyPath_flow[pixel2api33] FAILED
        androidx.compose.ui.test.ComposeTimeoutException: Condition still not satisfied after 8000 ms
                at androidx.compose.ui.test.AndroidComposeUiTestEnvironment$AndroidComposeUiTestImpl.waitUntil(ComposeUiTest.android.kt:809)
Tests on pixel2api33 failed: There was 1 failure(s).


com.servicebook.SmokeTest > test_01_coreHappyPath_flow[pixel2api33] FAILED
        androidx.compose.ui.test.ComposeTimeoutException: Condition still not satisfied after 10000 ms
                at androidx.compose.ui.test.AndroidComposeUiTestEnvironment$AndroidComposeUiTestImpl.waitUntil(ComposeUiTest.android.kt:809)
Tests on pixel2api33 failed: There was 1 failure(s).


Still same failure but adb logcat doesnt show anything


> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest
Starting 1 tests on pixel2api33

pixel2api33 Tests 0/1 completed. (0 skipped) (0 failed)

> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest

com.servicebook.SmokeTest > test_01_coreHappyPath_flow[pixel2api33] FAILED
        androidx.compose.ui.test.ComposeTimeoutException: Condition still not satisfied after 15000 ms
                at androidx.compose.ui.test.AndroidComposeUiTestEnvironment$AndroidComposeUiTestImpl.waitUntil(ComposeUiTest.android.kt:809)
Tests on pixel2api33 failed: There was 1 failure(s).

Finished 1 tests on pixel2api33

> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest FAILED

> Task :app:mergeDebugAndroidTestTestResultProtos
Test execution completed. See the report at: file:///home/Messier82/projects/service-book/app/build/reports/androidTests/managedDevice/debug/allDevices/index.html

FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest'.
> There were failing tests. See the report at: file:///home/Messier82/projects/service-book/app/build/reports/androidTests/managedDevice/debug/pixel2api33/index.html

* Try:
> Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace.
> Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output.
> Run with --scan to get full insights.
> Get more help at https://help.gradle.org.

BUILD FAILED in 1m 25s
67 actionable tasks: 67 executed
^C
📦[Messier82@dev-box service-book]$


Build still fails: [Pasted text #1 +34 lines]


Still fails with the exact same error. I hope we are not running in circles


We have progress: [Pasted text #1 +34 lines]


We have progress: > Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest
Starting 1 tests on pixel2api33

pixel2api33 Tests 0/1 completed. (0 skipped) (0 failed)

> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest

com.servicebook.SmokeTest > test_01_coreHappyPath_flow[pixel2api33] FAILED
        androidx.compose.ui.test.ComposeTimeoutException: Condition still not satisfied after 15000 ms
                at androidx.compose.ui.test.AndroidComposeUiTestEnvironment$AndroidComposeUiTestImpl.waitUntil(ComposeUiTest.android.kt:809)
Tests on pixel2api33 failed: There was 1 failure(s).

Finished 1 tests on pixel2api33

> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest FAILED

> Task :app:mergeDebugAndroidTestTestResultProtos
Test execution completed. See the report at: file:///home/Messier82/projects/service-book/app/build/reports/androidTests/managedDevice/debug/allDevices/index.html

FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest'.
> There were failing tests. See the report at: file:///home/Messier82/projects/service-book/app/build/reports/androidTests/managedDevice/debug/pixel2api33/index.html

* Try:
> Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace.
> Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output.
> Run with --scan to get full insights.
> Get more help at https://help.gradle.org.

BUILD FAILED in 1m 25s
67 actionable tasks: 67 executed
^C
📦[Messier82@dev-box service-book]$claude /resume


We have progress: > Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest
Starting 1 tests on pixel2api33

pixel2api33 Tests 0/1 completed. (0 skipped) (0 failed)

> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest

com.servicebook.SmokeTest > test_01_coreHappyPath_flow[pixel2api33] FAILED
        androidx.compose.ui.test.ComposeTimeoutException: Condition still not satisfied after 15000 ms
                at androidx.compose.ui.test.AndroidComposeUiTestEnvironment$AndroidComposeUiTestImpl.waitUntil(ComposeUiTest.android.kt:809)
Tests on pixel2api33 failed: There was 1 failure(s).

Finished 1 tests on pixel2api33

> Task :app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest FAILED

> Task :app:mergeDebugAndroidTestTestResultProtos
Test execution completed. See the report at: file:///home/Messier82/projects/service-book/app/build/reports/androidTests/managedDevice/debug/allDevices/index.html

FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:pixel2api33DebugAndroidTest'.
> There were failing tests. See the report at: file:///home/Messier82/projects/service-book/app/build/reports/androidTests/managedDevice/debug/pixel2api33/index.html

* Try:
> Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace.
> Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output.
> Run with --scan to get full insights.
> Get more help at https://help.gradle.org.

BUILD FAILED in 1m 25s
67 actionable tasks: 67 executed
^C
📦[Messier82@dev-box service-book]$claude /resumeclaude


There's different error but I have trouble copying the message. Can you run it yourself?


Continue where you left off. The previous attempt was rate limited.


We are working on smoke test implementation. Let's plan out Step 4


While the Copilot review is underway, let's address test_07 flakiness


There are unresolved comments that need to be addressed


During a few previous commits, Ive implemented smoke test coverage according to the documented plan. I want you to review all related files abd determine whether theres room for improvement and i want to get an overall review of the impkementation


Lets document those first in a separate file


1. Verify that the initial improvements file has been deleted, as it is no longer needed.
2. Address the two PR review comments.


I'm planning on making my public repo private on github and I want to create an Issue to track the prepearation progress of that. I'm using some of the features that are completely free on public and paid in private repos and we need to comprise a plan to replace those features with free alternatives. We have already tackled smoke test coverage so that GMD tests handle only this and the idea was to make Smoke Tests run only on master commits and in the PRs it's manual trigger. And for coverage we have comprised a plan on storing the GMD coverage in repo (LFS) and then generate unit test coverage and then combine stored gmd coverage with the newly generated one. Any objections, improvements? What else we need to do?


Create a PR with changes, and yeah - schedule an agent


The smoke test run on Actions failed: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/actions/runs/24980458091/job/73141242317?pr=23    We actually had a working config in CI.yml. It was removed - check the history


The run failed: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/actions/runs/24980806572/job/73142332138?pr=23  Likely because you've removed swiftshader whcih you should not have done.


Regarding stale baseline. First - in smoke test workflow it runs parallel to the smoke test run meaning that the coverage will be stale even if the smoke test runs. We need to run the check in CI workflow for PRs (I think) and run it also AFTER the smoke test run so the sticky comment is updated. I'm open to suggestions though. Also regarding the stale comment - it would be good to also have "last checked 1 minute ago" text, so I know when the last check was done


Agree on timestamp. I just have second thoughts on the whole approach


Maybe it would be a better approach to have a simple script that posts a "reminder" comment to do the coverage upload if the changes include the files that can affect it?


Now there are a bunch of comments that needs to be evaluated and possible addressed


We have an issue opened for a preparation to go private on the repo. There are a bunch of stuff checked off and now, it would seem, that only flipping the switch is what is left to do. Can you verify as much as you can and give the green light?


There's a doc file with a paywall implementation plan. Read it. Anything to add/improve?


Let's fix the concerns and also specify how to test and debug that. Let's say I want to install the debug apk on the phone and want to test out both scenarios - paid and free versions and upgrade path


No, currently I want just the plan doc to be adjusted


Now 2 things we need to do: first - create a phased implementation plan if not done yet; second - create a Github issue (like a user story) describing the feature with phases done as sub-issues so everything can be linked and tracked. Effectively, we are moving the doc file to the Github


The plan should also include smoke test adjustments (with documentation amendments)


Considering we have added smoke test adjustments which is not a small part, we need to revisit the phased implementation plan first


Review the changes in this pr: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/pull/44


Please post those as review comments in the PR


There were changes to address your comments. Please review


Pull current branxh. The CI builds fail - we need to resolve that


The build for this pr fails in CI. we need to resolve that


The CI builds in this PR  fail - we need to resolve that


The build smoke tests in the current PR fail - we need to resolve that


Run 67 can't be from the same PR because run 68 is the first one done for this PR


I don't like the fact that you're applying fixes without reproducing the issue locally first. It would mean that the only way we could verify it is through pipeline which costs us run minutes


Why the difference in acceleration makes the test results different? This does not sound right


Nope, no screenshot. Maybe we can add the property so it includes it? There's a bunch of logs and reports, but no screenshot


Gemini reverted the doc changes. Can you restore them?


Can you dig the conversation history and restore the changes?


Review tge changes in the current pr and post them in the comments


Pull the latest code and redo the review


Review this PR: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/pull/52


If ktlint is the only remaining issue - just fix it and push


I wsnt you to analyze review comments and commits of the current PR. What i want to see is whether we are going in circles or not


Before we p4oceed to phase 6 of paywall impkementation I want you analyze the current impkementation and review it. Are there any improvements to do? Is everything clean frok security standpoint


Do i understand correctly that the code for paywall debugging wont be even there in the release build?


Good. Now i want you to create an issue in github with this review and action plan


The CI build fails. We need to resolve that


This is a specification for read-only banner visual rework plus other UX stuff. Is everything good here? [Pasted text #1 +44 lines]


1. I've originally meant snackbar. You got me there. 2. Let it be your call. 3. I don't like the fact that clicking fab in read only mode opens Google Play purchase right away. Feel like the app tries to steal the money. 4. One shot snackbar sounds good. 5. Good. 6. End aligned. 7. Add those   ......   Now rewrite the spec to include everything fixed


Correction: I think, performing an action locked by readonly should not trigger a fab but rather a full popup explaining why it is read only and remediation actions


Correction: I think, performing an action locked by readonly should not trigger a snackbar but rather a full popup explaining why it is read only and remediation actions


Now create a Github issue for the future implementation


The current checked out. The one that we were reviewijg before


Also, I want to adjust pipeline configs: I want to see whether we can make so that running them required an explicit manual approval. For CI and Smoke pipelines


I don't see required reviewers in environment setup


I'm not considering 1/2 at this point. Let's do labels if this is our only option then


We need to review the artifacts being uploaded to github. I've blown through the 500mb free tier storage


Just push in the same branch as previous pipeline changes


How old workflow runs will allow be to continue run builds?


So i have to wait for 24h? Can't I do anything to make this faster?


Can you analyze CI run times and determine whether we can optimize it?


Parallelizm. The issue is not that it takes a long time. The issue is that it takes a long time for which I have to pay or hit 2000 minute limit


We should be mindful of caching aswell. There's included 10gb free and i've blown that once and had to clear it up


The workflow is not valid. .github/workflows/ci-label.yml (Line: 28, Col: 3): Error calling workflow 'Mesya82/Service-Book/.github/workflows/ci.yml@6064bc6e1cc9716784946b001105fef25a6fe651'. The workflow is requesting 'pull-requests: write', but is only allowed 'pull-requests: read'.


You wanted to do some checks after they're done


Our local smoke test execution fails for some reason using GPU acceleartion. It worked before. We need to resolve that


No, GPU acceleration worked in current env


There are a bunch of dependabot PRs which needs to be resolved. The plan is: checkout the branch, run the build, jvm test suite, smoke tests. If everything passes - merge. If not - fix. If fixes needed to be done - do not merge right away - ping me to do a review


Maybe the better solution would be to mirate Java to 21?


But having to do this will also fail CI pipelines?


We need to implement this story: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/56


It checked everything - kvm is available, the folder is the same as yours, jvm tool option is passed, cleaned managed devices. Try it yourself now


I want you to analyze jvm test suite and determine whether we can speed it up. The issue is that even locally, it runs almost 2 minutes which, in my eyes, for the suite that runs less that 400 tests, is slow


I want to plan out an implementation of a feature. The feature is "Report a bug". The name is self explanatory: I want the users to be able to report to me as a developer a bug they've encountered or suggest a feature/improvement. How can we approach that?


Maybe there are free services to handle that?


Let's explore Sentry. Let's assume that the app blew and we have a lot of users, what are we expecting money wise? Also - isn't it a potential way for a potential abusive user, to flood it?


Okay, let's plan out the implementation of this feature and create a GitHub issue. Assess whether we need phased implementation approach. Also keep in mind that the whole feature should closely adhere to Material 3 Expressive guidelines


If we need Phases, then we need sub issues


Is it worth covering this feature in the smoke test suite?


We need to explicitly add this either as a separate phase or as a part of an existing one


Does this feature include a popup to ask user for the usage analytics and stuff?


Also add a comment in the issue that these amendments were done - the implementation already has been started and it will much easier for Gemini to do the adjustments if there's a specific comment describing what has been changed


Gemini was working with implementing this story: "https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/69". While it did the implementation it had issues with smoke tests - they were not passing. It said that this was here before that - flakiness. But I remember that there were nothing, so I'd say it introduced it. We need to resolve smoke test failures and finish the story implementation


/btw What is the command to run smoke tests?


What? I'm talking about smoke test command you've provided


No, it succedes, but in 2s which is not correct


Theres a review comment on the current Pr. We need to address the issues raised in it


There's another comment posted. Fix the issues raised there


I meant nothing else on the PR as a whole?


Post, but old specify that existing smoke test scenarios must not be simplified unless explicitly required


<command-name>/compact</command-name>
            <command-message>compact</command-message>
            <command-args></command-args>


Post those. While we are here, does make sense to fix everything


/review 73 rereview (there's a new commit)


Yes, rereview. There's a new commit, as I previously told you


There's a new commit. I've said that to you already


The implementation of first 2 Phases has been done. Now I need to setup Sentry for dev env to test e2e


Does our current sentry implementation send the env? Like debug or release


There was a new commit. Why havent you checked that?


The commit is "fix: address PR review comments for Sentry integration and email validation"


Recheck the PR branch. Should be there now


ci=skipping should not be included in the PR review. This is intentional and the tests were verified locally


Also, remember to not include "this should be out of scope", etc. If it is a subject to raise in the comment, then it is a subject to fix it right away and not leave it as a debt which will be forgotten about


Also, always, when doing a rereview, do an additional full sweep, in case something was missed or changed when having everything in the context


That's the only available target, so yeah


Regarding full sweep: let's adjust your memory. Dont do full sweep everytime, wait for me to ask you. But also - do not post the review unless I ask AND if I ask to do full sweep before posting - post as one comment


I've reported a bug: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/82     I want you to analyze it and post in the comment an implementation plan for Gemini to execute


There's a bug reported: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/80     Please plan out the fix to implement for Gemini and post it in the comments


There's an issue: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/83   We need to plan out the fix for Gemini to implement and post it as a comment


The one in settings and app setup screen is good. The one in report bug/suggestion form looks off (better, but still off, especially collapse). I would guess, that this will applicable to the popup consent dialog aswell


I just had a thought: wouldnt it be a better UX for those Learn more texts to appear in popup dialogs? Like learn more button is the same, but instead of expanding a section ,it would show a popup. If it is in the popup already, then we expand, because popup over popup is a bad UX.


There's an issue reported: https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/84    We need to plan out the implementation for Gemini to execute and post it as a comment


How supportintContent option will look like?


Can you send me a link with docs for ListItem? It may have screenshots


Supporting text in this case won't cut it. Choose the best solution, please


https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/85   Please plan out the fix for this issue for Gemini to execute and post it to comments


2 - I actually like that it is a separate card. I just wanted to match the bigger radius for consistency


https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/87  Please plan out the fix for this issue for Gemini to execute and post it to the comments


https://github.com/Mesya82/Service-Book/issues/89  Please, plan out the fix for this issue for Gemini to implement and post it to comments


Remove the last flag. It's the work already started in the background for other issue


PR description to code discrepancy is not a blocker. Row wrapper, I think, is a better, more robust solution. The scroll target is what I've asked excplicitly because targeting the button itself doesn't scroll all the way and part of the container is out of the screen on the screenshot


1 - there's a comment that describes, why it was done


1 - I think it would be better for this to match other icons. No reason for currency to pop


Don't some other points needs to be updated to account for that?


There's this "Use MaterialTheme.colorScheme.background, not the shared appTopAppBarColors() helper (ui/theme/Theme.kt:80). That helper uses surfaceContainerHigh, which is the intentional separation other screens (vehicle list, settings, etc.) use to distinguish bar from content. Setup is the only flow where the bar should visually disappear into a centered hero layout, matching step 1." which is not true. It's specifically made to be one color across the app to match vanilla Android


I'm getting ready to publish the app on Google Play. It asks for privacy policy, so we need that and we need to make that somehow publicly accessible. Theoretically, I have a domain and it's connected with github pages, so we can publish it there. So we need to write it up


I've just noticed one thing. The app is called "Service Book", but I found out that there's already an app called "ServiceBook". https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.servicebookapp.mobile&hl=en-AU&pli=1


I think changing the name is the most logical. It's just we need to figure out which


1. I want the name to be descriptive enough to easily understand, whether you need this app or not. 2. No, actually. 3. Descriptive. 4. International. Everyone around the globe, who is doing DIY car maintenance/repair/work is a target


Also - in the future there might be an iOS version. So worth checking that aswell


They sound like spanish or something. I think we can "create" our own word, if needed


I'm currently registering a gmail account. What should I choose? Personal?


There's child, personal, work or my business


I've started with business but then it started to ask me of the type of business, so I backed off. But the account was registered. How do I make sure that it's stayed personal? I did sign in


I've registered x, instagram, tiktok. What else should I grab?


I'm currently doing reddit. How do I change user tag?


Registered everything. Domain is the last thing left. I decided to go with yorvana.app. Trying to buy it on cloudflare and the registration failed and now it says that it's temporarily blocked


1. Yes. 2. Igors Vinogradovs. 3. Yeah, that looks good.


Please init a repo for this in the different directory (same level as where this project sits) and push this. "https://github.com/yorvana/site.git"


Trying to open the page. It throws 525 code


DNS is not set up. This is what I have currently. I remove all of those? [Pasted text #1 +36 lines]

A
yorvana.app
44.227.65.245

Proxied

Auto
EditWhen toggled open, an additional table row will be added below this row to enable editing DNS records.

A
yorvana.app
44.227.76.166

Proxied

Auto
EditWhen toggled open, an additional table row will be added below this row to enable editing DNS records.

CNAME
www
pixie.porkbun.com

Proxied

Auto
EditWhen toggled open, an additional table row will be added below this row to enable editing DNS records.

CNAME
*
pixie.porkbun.com

Proxied

Auto
EditWhen toggled open, an additional table row will be added below this row to enable editing DNS records.


Set DNS records up (both A and AAAA) and now it works.


Let's do 3 but the repo in the yorvana org should be named to signify that this is android app


Full test suite including smoke tests was run twice at this point


Codex said that it has addressed all the items and left a comment. He does tend to amend commits, not do new ones, so keep in mind


I'm getting ready to publish the app on Google Play. Play required a closed beta before the app can be released. So what I'm planning to do is to have a premium being accessible to all the closed beta testers and then, on public release, I want to gift the first 12 beta testers (basically, the ones who made the public release possible) the lifetime premium for free.


There are commits though. Why havent you checked?


In prepeartion for the release I want to adjust the public web page for the app. The repo is "site" within the org. I want you to create an issue (not there, in current repo, since it's private, or if you have other better places to put it - suggest them) with a plan for Codex to implement the changes. Right now the site is very rudimentary - basically just for the Privacy policy. I want you to make a plan to make this site a proper app web page. The idea for it to describe what the app does, maybe have screenshots and stuff (I will upload them if needed), and most importantly, for the closed beta, I want to make a form there for the user to easily apply for it. I want your suggestions on how to better approach that. Of course it should be good looking (most likely, again, Material 3 Expressive, to match the apps style)


Let the screenshots be the same. Do a full sweep


There's a commit with fixes and a dark mode screenshots


I want to create a release to upload to internal track of Google Play. What do I need?


Whatbis path to base64 file? I need to open it in file explorer


Ive set thosw as Actions repository secrets


Im now app access part. It asks whether it is full access or restricted. Im not sure


Does your app collect or share any of the required user data types?


Is all of the user data collected by your app encrypted in transit?


Do you provide a way for users to request that their data is deleted? (Optional)


So a link to request user data deletion is privacy policy?


It asks whether yhe data is processed ephermally


now its Financial features in your app section


Now its store listing which I think i dont need for internal ans closed beta tracks


Generate text stuff in the separate file


So it actually required 7 inch and 10 inch tablet screenshots. The thing is, I don't have tablets and I don't have easy access to emulator. Maybe there's a way to set up a remote emulator on this host (Bazzite) and access it somehow from LAN?


I have an idea. Roborazzi on JVM is not that accurate. Let's plan out the GMD suite, that will create all the required screenshots (phone, tablets) using Roborazzi in GMD. It's automated and if ever the UI will change, or we need something additional - it won't be hard to add


Now adapt this as a plan for Codex to execute and create an issue with this


Codex added a comment in that issue regarding your plan


Yes. And add a comment highlighting the amendments


If I mention it again, would be safe to assume, that I meant that there are fixes and you should check it again


There's also a summary comment that was added by Gemini, who implemented the fixes


There are multiple changes that require full rereview


There are additional changes that require review


Post but forceHideDeveloperPanel should be removed since we should rely on release build for screenshot generation


We have smoke test suite. I want to plan out the implementation of fukll blown automated regression test suite. It can run for long time - the goal is to potentially catch bugs before they go live. we need to decide on technical approach, testing plan and phased implementation plan


Create a PR from latest master with test plan file


Gemini left a comment in the PR regarding your changes


Does the file we are creating include an implementation plan aswell?


Gemini left another review comment. PTAL


There's another review comment posted, PTAL


The PR was merged. Now we need to create github issues to track the phased development progress


The PR was merged. Now we need to create github issues to track the phased development progress. Keep in mind that the issues will be picked up either by Codex or Gemini


Let gpu host be because agents are often confused with testing docs and try to run swiftshader or angle


cleanManagedDevices also can be omitted. If there will be issues regarding that - the agent will figure it out themselves


Commit and push for this specific scenario can be omitted - dependabot updates can be patches or minors which may not introduce code changes, so an agent can go through. So this can be added somewhere


Phase 1 issue. It was reviewed by Codex and a comment has been left


Edit and post a comment highlighting the changes made


Now Phase 2 issue. There is a comment aswell


Now phase 3 issue has been reviewed and comment posted


There are now additional comments in Phase 1 and Phase 7 issues. Read them both and address accordingly


I mean, I've sent those to you to address


You sure R-A03 should belong in Phase 2? I think it was specifically moved out from it during review process


You specifically said that it belong on Phase 2, that's why I felt the need to correct you


Codex left review comments in Phase 2 and Phase 4 issues


There's additional comment from Codex on Phase 1 issue


issues 119 and 118 - issues left by Codex there


Now we are done with issues. I want you to read the latest versions of those phases and amend the plan doc file so they're in sync


There's a review comment posted by Codex


There's another review comment posted by Codex


There are fixes now and a reply comment. Do a full sweep


There are theese 2 issues: https://github.com/yorvana/android/issues/131, https://github.com/yorvana/android/issues/132. They are indirectly connected to each other. I want to plan out and document a fix which is kinda based on TDD - I want to implement the regression part first, which should fail because of the bug. And then we will fix the bug which will make the regression pass


It should as close to how real user will do it as possible without this being flaky. Like the current sitation is - the regression suite seems to be very comprehensive but as basic scenario as current non working one is being missed


Write this to the issue comment, so then agent can pick it up. Specifically say, that after phase A, we should see the failure because of the bug present


There are additional commits that fix CI pipeline. We need to review them doing a full PR sweep


There were additional regression run fixes. PTAL


The goal was to make the run red if there are failures


The regression test suite has been implemented. The current doc file is formed more like a plan to impmement, but we need to make it as a permanent doc file about implemented feature. And before that we need to go through the doc file and the code to see whether there are discrepancies (do not fix anything, juat list everything out)


The regression test suite has been implemented. The
  current doc file is formed more like a plan to
  impmement, but we need to make it as a permanent doc
  file about implemented feature. And before that we
  need to go through the doc file and the code to see
  whether there are discrepancies (do not fix anything,
   juat list everything out)


I have an idea of an app. In Latvian market there are multiple places where to buy car parts and the prices can vary quite significantly. We have compare sites (salidzini, kurpirkt) but you cannot use them for car parts. What I'm thinking is the site, that allows you to enter a car part number and it will scrape multiple car part stores to get the prices and compare them side-by-side. Is this feasible? Is the actual business case valid? Let's do a research


I think the main reason why we don't have that yet is because the stores themselves are not interested to be listed in such a sites, because that will mean more competition for them


The potential legal letters is what scare me the most


Okay, let's create a functional specification. No technicalities. That we will tackle later


1 - I think the typical user will want to compare the prices for a part for a specific brand aswell. So we might want to group by brand or filter or something


1 - I think the typical user will want to compare the prices for a part for a specific brand aswell. So we might want to group by brand or filter or something; 2 - new part only; 3 - domain is not a scope of poc, for now. Right now I will want to built something to see for myself; 4 - we will figure that out later


Before proceeding with other adapters, let's refine the ui. Right now it looks very rudimentary and not very friendly to actually compare the prices. What we should be adding is at least a manufacturer filter and a product variant. The typical usecase: for example my vehicle has 2 variants of aftermarket brake discs - factory style 2 piece (with alu hub) and a regular steel one. Right now it's impossible to distinguish those on the page. Moreover, considering the functionality that, i think, would need to be present (filtering, etc) for a good ux, we must go from the native. Let's go with Angular (I professionally use and it very maintainable if done correctly). Plus let's polish the looks a bit. For component lib start with Spartan Ng and icons use phopshor icons. In the end, the UI is the thing that the user will first encounter and interact with. It should be nice


While now I can see the different variants and it's easier to navigate now, there's still a few things we could do. 1 - should be easy - get the product image, so user can actually look at it (should "zoom in" on hover) and second. If you go to the site, you can see something like "Bremžu diska tips:
Ar iekšējo ventilāciju / Divdaļīgi bremžu diski". Having that would be ultra cool. But I know it could be tricky to determine, what exactly should be retreived, so I'm open to solutions


Looks very good. Lets continue on the next mileatone


Lets do git init and kick off next milestone. I want to see nore stores


What if we brrak the rule to test the waters? What are our options?


I just feel like 3 stores is not a significant amount to.compare


I see that we can still have a chanxe with handler.lv


Maybe there are other stores like that, tgat youve misjudget


Okay, now lets talk money side of things. We can add some banners, but what about clicks? If already preaent stores already have the ttaffic from is, what is the incentive for them to pay for clicks?


So the main money will come from ne showing the data, that the traffic comes from the app and the sto4e paying for it. What if they still wont?


Yes. Regarding free public tool: 2 points - the price to run infra and legal


I thibk free tool part can be kinda offset with "buy me a beer" button


What is legal part in detail? What can i get myself into?


Now, if i keep as my personal tool, private. Can we cross the line to add a few stores?


But how automated access can be criminal if done for personal use? How is this different to me menually entering the page and doing the search?


So i will need to solve that for each store?


And how this approach lands on our current architecture?


Maybe open a page thriugh oroxy to resolve the challenge


What if the frontend will do the scraping? That will align the ips for any device tgat has an accesa


I dont like the extension idea. Half of my isages wil be from phone


Cant we build an Android app that will do the walled scraping on device?


This is the tool for my own use. To save time and be able to do an educated buy. Im target audience just using my knowledge and technology to be able to save money


I have an idea. Run browser on host, open page, STREAM THE BROWSER IMAGE and inputs, solve challenge, continue


I would like this to be a headless solution. Maybe even docker for ease of deploy? And yes, most likely i wont be hosting this on a big cloud data center


Ftom UX perspective - have the ones, tgat we al43ady have fetch automatically on search, walled ones are listed but marked as not fetched, clicking on them kick off the process for the store


So we stream by drfault or only we encointer a challenge?


Good, do technical docs and kick off the impkementation


Theres dev-box file in home dir. Thats for distrobox youre running in. Can you adjust it so it automatically include podman and fnm?


Can fnm install also node lts and select it by drfault? Anf install claudr code, codrx and antigravity cli?


Keep in mind that if native install is preferred, we shpuld do it insread


If codex recommended way is npm package, lets be it. I said aboit native packages where theyre preferred, youve missed it


Can we have spmethibf so crratibg it is just a matter of running assemble create, withoit anything?


Tried doing create, it juat hangs, doing nothing


Creating dev-box-test...                             /usr/bin/distrobox-assemble: line 475: BOXUSER: unbound variable


Now its on installing basic packages. How long can i expect it to run?


It entered but did not output the versions


Its atill does nothing when i run recreate


Now you should have podman access, if you need me to verify anythibg


Question: the idea was that Angular spa will be opening the VNC stream, so I can solve the challenge of needed. Is this implemented?


Now we have built a cf challenge solver solution. It works. Now we need to add more stores


Trodo. Doea the cpde try to fetch it without a solve prpcess?


Now, the current state lpoks genuinely significant. But i remember Latvia had a few more big stores. Lets add them. And lets fetch all the stores at once and then just highlight those that require a challenge. Bwcause as it seems, only 1 out of 9 consistently wants that


ic24 - prices are not login gated. I'm currently not logged in and see the prices


The novnc I've just launched for trodo check has a bunch of opened tabs and the one I saw was ic24.lv. I think we should have a code that will launch show us a blank state with the target site. Also would be nice to hide browser ui


The browser also should not just open new tab. Old ones must be closed so that they don't eat the memory unnecessarily


Can we also resize the browser window to better match the screen of the device the challenge is being solved from?


Can you drop the sessions, so trodo will challenge me and I can test


1. On desktop the popup is too small. We can make it way larger (close to fullscreen or even fullscreen). 2. On phone looks good


Good, now we can revert forced challenge.


Now we have core functionality that works well. Before we go any further (I have an idea for a nice QoL feature), I want you to go through the existing code line by line (you can divide the chunks, if that will make the process more effective) and determine the parts that can be improved. Effectively I want the code go from PoC state to actual, maintainable code. Frontend and backend


Let's go back on the legal topic. What if I opensource it? I genuinely think this is a useful piece of software we were able to build


If I would go opensource I also am thinking about different "distribution models". Right now it's quite technical, but I'd like to make an effort of it being more user friendly. I.e. - something standalone. For example a portable .exe or an installer and launching that will launch all the backend it requires and frontend. Maybe electron?


Just funny thought - is there an adequate way of selling this?


I mean, having an open source with downloadable binaries / installer - no one will stop a mechanic just using it, no?


So what would be an actual step by step guide for monteization? How would that look like in detail?


Can you write it up here in laymans terms? I don't really know much about business side of things - I'm software developer


Considering that with the new model, we will basically have a local browser, we could technically implement a feature, for the users to be able to login into the store accounts and then have an ability to automatically add everything to cart (or even without an account)


Create a separate file with a general idea


Let's plan out the implementation of standalone app design. Both desktop (Windows/Linux/MacOS) and Android


I hope this refactor doesnt mean that the app launching will launch the same backend just on the device


So frontend is shared between all of the distributions. Backend changes. Correct?


While I remember, I want a separate doc file to plan out the adapters. Code is shared, but if I ever will need to reach out multiple countries... Lithuanian user won't need Latvian stores. So my idea was the user will either select adapter sets during install or first app startup and the app will download them automatically (from github?). That will also enable us OTA updates for adapters which will be very beneficial


1 - i think 2 tier split is not needed. 2 - sounds good, I guess? What are the options anyway. 3 - I think browser-session part might be the baseline functionality exposed by the core and adapter can call it, if needed. 4 - sounds good. 5 - will decide when actually occurs


3 - adapters calls browser api. No security implications here?


Theoretically, a compromised adapter can redefine it's manifect and access any site


And at this point it would look like that it would be easier to ship everything (just have a user to select needed sets on install) and just push the update as an installer?


And I would also think that the platform specific shell also defines generic sdk actions for adapters, like solving a anti-bot challenge


I think we also need to add a phased implementation plan for this


I mean the whole standalone distribution implementation. Is the implementation of it phased?


Give me the detailed report so I can feed it into the agent that did the implementation


Additional fixes are in. Verify and do full rereview


Can you creatr a scratchpad file abd give me the path?


Create a scratchpad file with the review and give me the path