Add pull request comment count link and add back in description section

[donokuda]

Note: This pull request targets @grokys'sfeature/pr-conversationbranch

---

@jcansdale and I had a chat in Slack about implementing a few changes:

• Bring back the "View on GitHub" link
• adding a link with the comment count of the pull request
• Add back in the pull request description
• Collapsing the description reviewers, and checks section so that the changed files are quickly accessible
• Make hash-link at top of pull request page navigate to dotcom
• Allow pull request title to wrap

There are still a few things that need to be hooked up such as:

• Re-implementing the "View on GitHub" link
• Returning the correct comment count

@jcansdale or @grokys, would one of you be able to check this branch out and hook up the last remaining items?

[StanleyGoldman]

Also, what did we decide to do with the pull request number link in the document view?

[meaghanlewis]

@StanleyGoldman I don't think that we decided but in my opinion it would make sense that it would open up the browser and would have the same action as clicking the View on GitHub link.

I'm also inclined to keep the View Conversation link rather than showing the comment count as a link because the conversation view includes a description, commit history and comments.

[jcansdale]

@meaghanlewis,

I'm also inclined to keep the View Conversation link rather than showing the comment count as a link because the conversation view includes a description, commit history and comments.

The problem with the current implementation of the conversation view is that it's some way from having feature parity with dotcom. If a user needs to edit a pull request description, toggle a check box or insert an image they'll still need to use dotcom.

The idea of using the comment count link is that we currently tease the user with a comment count in the pull request list, but after they open the detail view they can only see inline comments. The conversation view is good for viewing/adding commands, so having this link fills in some desperately missing functionality.

I've wired up the todos from @donokuda's pull request description. Could you give a try and see how it feels?

[jcansdale]

@donokuda,

I've hooked up the todo items to see how this configuration feels. Here are by initial impressions after dogfooding it for a little while.

1. Mirroring the comment icon/number from the pull request list on the pull request detail view makes for a natural feeling flow. The user is no longer teased with the comment number and then left with no obvious place to find them. The mirroring makes is obvious where to click in order see them.

2. I'm glad the View on GitHub link is back in an obvious place. For this pull request, I needed to use it almost immediately to check the boxes on the todo list. I also used it to edit the description and copy/paste into this comment. We're some way from feature parity with dotcom, so View on GitHub is still an important part of many workflows.

3. Auto-collapsing the Reviewers and Checks sections hides some important parts of the UI.

• The Reviewers section contains the Add your review button and hiding it by default would make it less discoverable.
• The Checks sections contains the status for each build and the link to its logs. Dotcom shows a high level summary of the build (All checks have passed), but we don't currently surface an equivalent to this. I'd be reluctant to auto-collapse this section until we have an equivalent.

4. Auto-collapsing the Description section does make the Changes tree more prominent an easy to find. In the previous iteration, I missed having some way to show the description on a side pane. This is useful when cross referencing code with what is written in the description (e.g. working through a todo list). It's also useful for small pull requests where the description is a short summary and a full page would be overkill.

[StanleyGoldman]

Formatting issue:

[jcansdale]

@StanleyGoldman if we're going to be consistent with VSCode (which has an almost identical UI for this), #2229 link would open the pull request on github.com.

I think it makes sense to be consistent if there isn't a clear reason why alternative behavior is better.

[StanleyGoldman]

Oh I think the action is fine. I was just pointing at the formatting error as the number is cut off.

[jcansdale]

I don't think there was an action before. ;-)

[jcansdale]

@StanleyGoldman here we go:

[donokuda]

This all looks good 😍and thanks @StanleyGoldman for spotting that formatting issue 🙏

Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to take a look at. Otherwise, the changes look good to me 👍

[meaghanlewis]

Thanks for those fixes @jcansdale! This PR looks good to me too.

[jcansdale]

I think this is good to go!