Compare commits
No commits in common. "acef21593ba3332bc54a34e4d913fe8dd64a86d6" and "8042630cca0cf94976860978c1df8864a75f27da" have entirely different histories.
acef21593b
...
8042630cca
11
CLAUDE.md
11
CLAUDE.md
|
|
@ -154,15 +154,10 @@ The project uses a structured label system to organize issues:
|
||||||
- Python API improvement: `system:python-binding`, `priority:tier1-active`, `Minor Feature`
|
- Python API improvement: `system:python-binding`, `priority:tier1-active`, `Minor Feature`
|
||||||
- Performance work: `system:performance`, `priority:tier1-active`, `Major Feature`, `workflow:needs-benchmark`
|
- Performance work: `system:performance`, `priority:tier1-active`, `Major Feature`, `workflow:needs-benchmark`
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**⚠️ CRITICAL BUG**: The Gitea MCP tool (v0.07) has a label application bug documented in `GITEA_MCP_LABEL_BUG_REPORT.md`:
|
**Note**: The Gitea MCP tool has unreliable label application. The `add_issue_labels` and `replace_issue_labels` functions often apply wrong labels even with correct IDs.
|
||||||
- `add_issue_labels` and `replace_issue_labels` behave inconsistently
|
|
||||||
- Single ID arrays produce different results than multi-ID arrays for the SAME IDs
|
|
||||||
- Label IDs do not map reliably to actual labels
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Workaround Options:**
|
**STRONGLY RECOMMENDED**: Apply labels manually via web interface:
|
||||||
1. **Best**: Apply labels manually via web interface: `https://gamedev.ffwf.net/gitea/john/McRogueFace/issues/<number>`
|
`https://gamedev.ffwf.net/gitea/john/McRogueFace/issues/<number>`
|
||||||
2. **Automated**: Apply labels ONE AT A TIME using single-element arrays (slower but more reliable)
|
|
||||||
3. **Use single-ID mapping** (documented below)
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Label ID Reference** (for documentation purposes - see issue #131 for details):
|
**Label ID Reference** (for documentation purposes - see issue #131 for details):
|
||||||
```
|
```
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Binary file not shown.
Loading…
Reference in New Issue