[UX] Make single store sync more intuitive / verbose

[GLobyNew]

This should resolve #3037

[gemini-code-assist]

Hello @GLobyNew, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

Summary of Changes

This pull request addresses issue #3037 by making the single store sync more intuitive and verbose. The changes modify the output messages during the sync process to indicate whether a single store/remote is being synced or all remotes are being synced.

Highlights

• Improved User Feedback: The pull request enhances the user experience by providing more specific feedback during the sync process, indicating whether a single store or all remotes are being synchronized.
• Conditional Output Message: The output message is now conditional, displaying "Syncing with all remotes ..." only when no specific store is provided. Otherwise, it shows "Syncing with store/remote ""...".

Changelog

• internal/action/sync.go
  • Added a conditional check to determine if the user is syncing a single store/remote or all remotes.
  • Modified the output message to be more specific based on whether a single store or all remotes are being synced.
  • Added a TODO comment to check if the remote exists before attempting to sync.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Trivia time!

What is the purpose of the 'context' package in Go?

Click here for the answer

The 'context' package in Go is used to manage deadlines, cancellation signals, and other request-scoped values across API boundaries and between processes.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request aims to enhance the user experience of the single store sync feature by providing more intuitive and verbose output. The changes introduce conditional printing of sync messages based on whether a specific store/remote is targeted or all remotes are being synced. This helps in clarifying the sync process for the user. The addition of a TODO comment highlights a potential future improvement. Overall, the changes seem reasonable and address the issue mentioned in the pull request description.

Merge Readiness

The changes in this pull request enhance the user experience by providing more informative output during the sync process. The code is well-structured and addresses the issue described in the pull request. I am unable to directly approve the pull request, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging. Given the nature of the changes and the absence of any critical or high severity issues, the pull request appears to be in good shape to be merged.

[AnomalRoil]

You could use if numMPs > 0 before the "All done" print to avoid adding a TODO in the code 👍🏻

Otherwise, LGTM. Thanks for the fix.

[GLobyNew]

@AnomalRoil I forced-pushed updated commit (maybe I shouldn't have done that), is it good enough? :)