revert frameid change in studio

[Kitenite]

Description

Related Issues

Type of Change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Documentation update
• Release
• Refactor
• Other (please describe):

Testing

Screenshots (if applicable)

Additional Notes

---

Important

Reverts frameId to webviewId across the studio app and models package, with minor dependency updates.

• Renaming:
  • Reverts frameId to webviewId in dom.ts, remove.ts, helpers.ts, and index.ts in studio app.
  • Updates ActionTarget and LayerNodeSchema in target.ts and layers.ts to use webviewId.
• Dependency Updates:
  • Changes nanoid version in package.json and bun.lock.
  • Updates next version in bun.lock.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Minor import reordering in index.tsx and PositionInput.tsx.

^{This description was created by for 49644ad. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 2e6ee79 in 51 seconds

More details

• Looked at 713 lines of code in 22 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:19

• Draft comment:
  Tests now use 'webviewId' consistently instead of 'frameId', which aligns with the revert. The test cases for merging style changes and different action types are comprehensive.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:107

• Draft comment:
  Style merge tests correctly use 'webviewId' in targets; the merging logic appears sound.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:210

• Draft comment:
  Test for handling multiple actions of different types confirms that non-style actions are preserved; the usage of 'webviewId' is consistent.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:280

• Draft comment:
  Custom style change test verifies that custom style updates use webviewId correctly; no issues found.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:7

• Draft comment:
  Test descriptions and assertions are clear; they span various scenarios (appending, replacing, merging, handling empty arrays, etc.). Great job covering multiple use cases.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:62

• Draft comment:
  Style merging tests (e.g. Test case 3 and 4) are well designed. Consider adding tests for situations where multiple targets with identical domIds appear to ensure the merging logic handles all edge cases.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:210

• Draft comment:
  Test case 7 for handling custom style changes is clear. Verify that updateTransactionActions consistently handles custom style types in multiple scenarios.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. apps/studio/tests/history.test.ts:234

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding inline comments in some test cases (especially those merging actions) to clarify when an action should replace an existing one versus when changes should be merged.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. apps/studio/electron/preload/webview/elements/helpers.ts:29

• Draft comment:
  Consider renaming the variable 'nested_shadow' to 'nestedShadow' for consistency with the camelCase naming convention used elsewhere in the code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_0SAuwOUuWDIenhUF

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 49644ad in 50 seconds

More details

• Looked at 307 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/studio/src/routes/editor/EditPanel/DevTab/index.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The import section is cleaned up and now uses a type import for FileNode. Looks fine, but note that the ordering changes and removal of duplicate Button import should be verified for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. apps/studio/src/routes/editor/EditPanel/DevTab/index.tsx:270

• Draft comment:
  Changed file ID generator from uuidv4() to nanoid() – ensure this is an intended revert of a previous change and is consistent across the project.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. apps/web/preload/package.json:5

• Draft comment:
  Nanoid package version changed from ^11.1.0 to ^5.0.7. Verify that this downgrade is intentional and consistent across environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. bun.lock:8

• Draft comment:
  Multiple dependency version and checksum updates in bun.lock are present. Confirm that these changes are expected and tested. They update various packages (Next.js, agent-base, https-proxy-agent, etc.) and might affect compatibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. N/A:1

• Draft comment:
  PR title and description mention a revert of frameid change and onboarding docs update, which do not align with these dependency and ID generation changes. Please update the PR title and description to accurately reflect the changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. apps/studio/src/routes/editor/EditPanel/DevTab/index.tsx:272

• Draft comment:
  Using nanoid() instead of uuidv4() is a functional change. Please verify that the API used here matches the downgraded nanoid version in package.json.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to verify the compatibility of the nanoid version with the code change. This is indirectly asking the author to ensure the behavior is intended, which violates the rules. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written. Therefore, it should be removed.

7. apps/web/preload/package.json:24

• Draft comment:
  The nanoid dependency was downgraded from ^11.1.0 to ^5.0.7. Confirm that this older version provides the same API and behavior expected by the code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the older version of a dependency provides the same API and behavior, which is against the rules. It is not making a specific code suggestion or pointing out a specific issue with the code.

8. bun.lock:8

• Draft comment:
  Multiple dependency versions have been updated in bun.lock. Ensure that these updates (e.g. for Next.js, agent-base, https-proxy-agent, web-streams-polyfill, etc.) are intentional and tested.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that dependency updates are intentional and tested, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation or testing of dependency changes. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the dependency updates.

9. apps/studio/src/routes/editor/EditPanel/DevTab/index.tsx:1

• Draft comment:
  The PR description mentions adding onboarding docs for frameworks, but the changes here only revert a frameid change and update dependencies. Please ensure the PR title/description aligns with the actual changes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to update the PR description to align with the changes, which violates the rule against asking for PR description updates. It does not provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written.

Workflow ID: wflow_A3oN9jrIOvzNNCxC

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.