feat: publish inline reviews with forgejo

[mariusvniekerk]

Adds Forgejo inline review support on top of the shared draft flow:

• Publish local inline draft comments through Forgejo pull-review APIs.
• Ingest provider review comments back into timeline review-thread metadata during publish and sync.
• Keep range support aligned with Forgejo's current single-line publishing behavior.
• Tighten range validation and stale draft handling around publish, refresh, and navigation.

[mariusvniekerk]

This change is part of the following stack:

• feat: publish inline reviews with forgejo #295 ◀
  • feat: support gitlab inline review publishing #296
    • feat: publish github inline review drafts #297

_{Change managed by git-spice.}

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (0a05603)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All review agents found no actionable issues at or above medium severity.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (52ebd12)

No Medium, High, or Critical issues found across the reviews.

All agents reported the code is clean.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (79ab0f9)

All reviewed agents report no Medium, High, or Critical issues.

No findings to include.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (008f993)

No Medium, High, or Critical issues were found.

The only reported finding was Low severity and is omitted per the review rules.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (9dacaa0)

Medium-risk issue found.

Medium

• internal/platform/forgejo/diff_review.go:83 - ListMergeRequestReviewThreads dereferences review.ID without checking whether review is nil. A Forgejo-compatible server could return a reviews array containing null, causing a panic during sync or PR detail refresh and creating a remote denial-of-service risk against the local dashboard.

  Suggested fix: validate each review before dereferencing it, either by skipping nil entries or returning a provider error.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (ddf3e90)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

The only finding was Low severity and has been omitted per instructions.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (4716152)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

The only reported issue was Low severity, so it is omitted per the review rules.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (5fa8c5a)

No Medium, High, or Critical issues found.

Both completed reviews report the code is clean.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (5fa8c5a)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All reviewed agents found the changes clean.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (9a56ce9)

High severity issue found: Forgejo review publishing can apply approvals to an unreviewed head commit.

High

• internal/platform/forgejo/diff_review.go:31
  Forgejo review publication only sets CommitID from the first inline comment. If a maintainer publishes an approve/request-changes review with no inline comments, commitID remains empty and CreatePullReview is called without pinning the review to the reviewed head SHA.

  A PR author could push or force-push after the maintainer reviewed the diff but before approval publication, causing the approval to apply to a newer unreviewed commit.

  Remediation: require and pass the expected PR head SHA for every Forgejo review publish, including body-only reviews. Reject publication when the stored draft/diff head no longer matches the current PR head SHA.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (03884ca)

No Medium, High, or Critical issues found.

All reviewers reported the changes as clean.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (bfc6890)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

Security review found no issues; the other reviews did not provide actionable findings above the reporting threshold.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (3688fbe)

Clean: no Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

Security review found no issues; the skipped review produced no findings to merge.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

Note: gemini review skipped (agent quota exhausted)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (c7efae1)

Summary verdict: No medium-or-higher issues were reported.

All review agents found the code clean or reported no actionable findings at Medium severity or above.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (49f413a)

Summary verdict: No actionable Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

No Medium-or-higher findings to include.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (1c5fbbc)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All review agents found no reportable issues.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (19e0f03)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All agents agree the reviewed code is clean.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (c2541eb)

No medium-or-higher issues were found across the reviews.

All agents reported the reviewed diff as clean for reportable findings.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (7998775)

Verdict: No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All review outputs are clean or contain no actionable findings above the requested severity threshold.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (b1c5ae1)

No Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All review agents provided no actionable findings at or above the requested severity threshold.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (0d3d217)

Medium issue found: the new review capabilities are wired for Forgejo but not the analogous Gitea path.

Medium

• internal/platform/forgejo/client.go:131
  The new inline review draft and review thread capabilities are enabled only for Forgejo, even though Gitea already uses the same gitealike pull review surface in this repo. This leaves Gitea users without the new review publishing/thread recovery path, contrary to the provider support rule that new features work across supported providers where the API allows.

  Fix: Move the shared review draft/thread implementation into the gitealike layer, or add equivalent Gitea client support and capability wiring. Only disable it per provider if Gitea lacks a required endpoint.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)

[roborev-ci]

roborev: Combined Review (fee8f60)

No actionable Medium, High, or Critical findings were reported.

All review outputs are clean or contain no file/line findings to include.

---

Synthesized from 3 reviews (agents: codex, gemini | types: default, security)