Allow rescorings to same category again

[zkdev]

What this PR does / why we need it:
Useful to allow commenting on rescorings, without actually applying a re-rating.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

Rescorings can now be rescored to the very same category, allowing "comment-only" rescorings.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@zkdev, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 59 minutes and 8 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has used up its prepaid credits, and credit purchases are no longer available. Enable the review add-on in the billing tab to keep reviews running — you're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based credits.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan refill rate.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, the refill rate gradually slows as usage increases. The highest same-day bursts are limited more strictly.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: d5b674a9-f938-41cf-b837-9e30759cffb9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 63a974a and 258cf64.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/rescoring.js

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

rescoringNeedsComment in src/rescoring.js gains an isSelected parameter (default true), replacing the prior severity/due-date divergence check with a selection-state check under the CUSTOM_RESCORING rule. All three callsites are updated accordingly, and the allowedRescorings filter condition is replaced.

Changes

Custom rescoring comment requirement refactor

Layer / File(s)	Summary
rescoringNeedsComment signature and allowedRescorings filter src/rescoring.js	rescoringNeedsComment accepts a new isSelected flag (default true) and evaluates comment requirement based on selection state under CUSTOM_RESCORING; allowedRescorings filter replaces the prior rescoring.severity / rescoring.due_date inequality block with a new condition.
UI callsites: TextField error and Apply Rescoring gating src/rescoring.js	The Comment TextField error prop computes isSelected from selectedRescorings and passes it to rescoringNeedsComment; the customRescoringsWithoutComment gating call passes true explicitly.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐇 A flag called isSelected hops into place,
No more checking severity's face!
The comment is needed when chosen, you see,
The gating now flows with selection-state glee.
🥕 Small diff, big meaning — the rabbit approves!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the main feature: allowing rescorings to the same category, which is the primary change enabling comment-only rescorings.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers the main purpose and includes a properly formatted release note, though the issue reference is incomplete and special notes section is empty.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)

src/rescoring.js (1)

3659-3661: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win

Update stale filtering text to match selection-based submission.

allowedRescorings now filters by explicit selection, but the inline comment and footer tooltip still describe the old “categorisation did not change” rule. That is misleading now that same-category/comment-only rescorings are valid.

Suggested copy update

-  // only rescorings are allowed iff their severity has changed OR they allow a custom due date
-  // input and the due date has changed
+  // only selected rescorings that are still visible after filtering are submitted
   return (
     selectedRescorings.find((r) => rescoringIdentity(r) === rescoringIdentity(rescoring))
   )

-                `${filteredOutRescoringsLength} ${pluralise('rescoring', filteredOutRescoringsLength, 'is', 'are')}
-                filtered out or the categorisation did not change`
+                `${filteredOutRescoringsLength} ${pluralise('rescoring', filteredOutRescoringsLength, 'is', 'are')}
+                currently filtered out`

Also applies to: 3857-3861

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@src/rescoring.js` around lines 3659 - 3661, The inline comment at
src/rescoring.js lines 3659-3661 and the footer tooltip at src/rescoring.js
lines 3857-3861 both describe an outdated filtering rule about categorization
changes. Since allowedRescorings now filters by explicit user selection rather
than automatically excluding unchanged-category rescorings, update both the
inline comment and footer tooltip text to accurately reflect that the filtering
is selection-based and that same-category or comment-only rescorings are valid
when explicitly selected by the user.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Outside diff comments:
In `@src/rescoring.js`:
- Around line 3659-3661: The inline comment at src/rescoring.js lines 3659-3661
and the footer tooltip at src/rescoring.js lines 3857-3861 both describe an
outdated filtering rule about categorization changes. Since allowedRescorings
now filters by explicit user selection rather than automatically excluding
unchanged-category rescorings, update both the inline comment and footer tooltip
text to accurately reflect that the filtering is selection-based and that
same-category or comment-only rescorings are valid when explicitly selected by
the user.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 05f45a11-b4b3-45d5-a537-e42c94ad0bc2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b6b50b3 and 63a974a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/rescoring.js

[8R0WNI3]

/lgtm

[8R0WNI3]

/lgtm