refactor: refactor conversation settings component

[ErikBjare]

Important

Refactor ConversationSettings component by modularizing into smaller components and using a custom hook for form logic.

• Refactor:
  • Split ConversationSettings.tsx into smaller components: EnvironmentVariables, ToolsConfiguration, and McpConfiguration.
  • Moved form logic to useConversationSettings hook in useConversationSettings.ts.
• Components:
  • EnvironmentVariables.tsx: Manages environment variables input and display.
  • ToolsConfiguration.tsx: Handles tools configuration including tool format selection.
  • McpConfiguration.tsx: Manages MCP server settings including server environment variables.
• Schemas:
  • Moved form schema definitions to conversationSettings.ts.
  • Defined mcpServerSchema and formSchema for form validation using zod.

^{This description was created by for 8c63467. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 8c63467 in 2 minutes and 2 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1718 lines of code in 6 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/components/ConversationSettings.tsx:215

• Draft comment:
  Consider using a router-based navigation (e.g. useNavigate) instead of setting window.location.href directly to avoid full page reloads in an SPA.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

2. src/components/settings/McpConfiguration.tsx:217

• Draft comment:
  Using form.getValues to retrieve nested server env variables in the render may lead to stale data; consider using useFieldArray for nested fields to ensure proper reactivity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% 1. The component already uses useFieldArray via serverFields prop. 2. The actual inputs use form.register() which handles reactivity. 3. getValues() is only used to map over the initial array to create registered inputs. 4. Changes to the inputs will be handled by the register() bindings, not the initial getValues() mapping. 5. The pattern used here appears to be a valid react-hook-form pattern. I could be wrong about the reactivity model of react-hook-form. Maybe there are edge cases where this could cause issues that I'm not seeing. The code is using proper form.register() for the actual inputs which ensures reactivity. The getValues() is only used to determine what fields to render initially, not for the actual form values. The comment should be deleted. The code is using proper react-hook-form patterns with form.register() for reactivity, and the use of getValues() here won't cause stale data issues.

3. src/hooks/useConversationSettings.ts:121

• Draft comment:
  Parsing 'args' using split(',') might break if any argument contains a comma. Consider a more robust serialization or input method for server arguments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment raises a theoretically valid point about comma parsing, this appears to be an intentional UI design choice where arguments are meant to be comma-separated. The matching join(', ') when loading suggests this is the expected format. This is likely a simple settings form where complex argument handling isn't needed. The current implementation is consistent and works for the intended use case. The comment raises a valid technical point - command line arguments could contain commas. However, am I making assumptions about the UI/UX requirements? Given this is a settings UI with matching join/split operations, the simple comma-separation appears to be an intentional design choice that meets the requirements. If more complex argument handling was needed, it would be handled differently. The comment should be removed as it questions an intentional design choice that appears suitable for this use case. The current implementation is consistent and functional.

4. src/hooks/useConversationSettings.ts:157

• Draft comment:
  Deep equality check using JSON.stringify on sorted arrays could be brittle. Consider using a dedicated deep equality utility (e.g., lodash.isEqual) for more robust comparison.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% While JSON.stringify comparison can be brittle in some cases (like with undefined values or circular references), in this specific case we're dealing with simple arrays of strings and objects with primitive values. The code also handles null checks and sorts the arrays first. The current implementation is actually reasonable for this use case. Adding a lodash dependency just for this would be overkill. The comment raises a valid general point about JSON.stringify brittleness. There could be edge cases I'm not considering where the current implementation could fail. Given the simple data structures being compared and the sorting/null handling already in place, the current implementation is sufficiently robust for this specific use case. The suggested change would add complexity without significant benefit. The comment should be removed as the current implementation is appropriate for this specific use case and adding a dedicated deep equality utility would be unnecessary complexity.

Workflow ID: wflow_11AcucaAYPDvrB13

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}