Merge beta to master #17383
Merge beta to master #17383
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several enhancements to NVDA, including support for new braille displays, improved accessibility features in Microsoft Office applications, and overall performance improvements. Key updates involve automatic detection of braille displays, new braille modes, audio ducking capabilities, and various bug fixes. Additionally, modifications to the XLIFF file reflect updated metadata and clearer release notes. Changes to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
user_docs/en/changes.md (5)
Line range hint
1-1: Consider adding a title headerThe file would benefit from having a clear title header like "# NVDA Changelog" at the top to immediately identify its purpose.
# NVDA Changelog
Line range hint
1-50: Improve version header formatting consistencyThe version headers use inconsistent formatting - some use ## while others use ###. Consider standardizing all version headers to use ## for better hierarchy.
- ### 2024.1 + ## 2024.1
Line range hint
1-10000: Add release dates to version headersConsider adding release dates to each version header to make it easier to track when changes were made. This helps with version history tracking.
Example:
## 2024.1 (January 2024)
Line range hint
1-10000: Improve section organization with consistent headersThe sections under each version (New Features, Changes, Bug Fixes, etc.) should consistently use ### level headers for better organization and readability.
Line range hint
1-10000: Consider adding a table of contentsGiven the length of the changelog, adding a table of contents at the top would help with navigation. This could be generated automatically from the headers.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
user_docs/en/changes.md(1 hunks)user_docs/en/changes.xliff(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
user_docs/en/changes.md (3)
Pattern **/*: Focus on code smells, logic errors, edge cases, missing test cases, security flaws and serious issues. Avoid commenting on minor issues such as linting, formatting and style issues. This project uses tabs instead of spaces, do not suggest usage of spaces over tabs. Are there any 'red flags' in this code that might warrant closer investigation from a security standpoint? Explain what makes them suspicious. When providing code suggestions, particularly when requested, ensure GitHub's suggestion format is used, i.e.: suggestion <code changes>
Pattern **/*.md: Focus on grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Also consider readability and clarity of contents. Ensure that changes follow the style of one sentence per line, suggest changes if this is not met.
Pattern user_docs/en/changes.md: Ensure each change log entry references an issue or pull request number. Change log entries can also include a reference to a GitHub author. Examples of valid change log entries: * Item with sub-items (#123, @username): * sub-item * bar (#342) * Item with. Multiple lines. (#143)
user_docs/en/changes.xliff (1)
Pattern **/*: Focus on code smells, logic errors, edge cases, missing test cases, security flaws and serious issues. Avoid commenting on minor issues such as linting, formatting and style issues. This project uses tabs instead of spaces, do not suggest usage of spaces over tabs. Are there any 'red flags' in this code that might warrant closer investigation from a security standpoint? Explain what makes them suspicious. When providing code suggestions, particularly when requested, ensure GitHub's suggestion format is used, i.e.: suggestion <code changes>
🔇 Additional comments (2)
user_docs/en/changes.xliff (2)
5104-5112: LGTM! Clear and precise release note.
The updated text provides better clarity by:
- Explicitly stating it's a patch release
- Clearly identifying the specific bug being fixed
3-3: Verify the referenced commit exists.
The file reference has been updated to point to a new commit. Let's verify this commit exists and is accessible.
✅ Verification successful
Commit reference is valid and accessible
The referenced commit 907d34e2dd91c8accf8988c8e1c699089ff3241c exists in the repository and is accessible, confirming that the file reference update is valid.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the referenced commit exists in the repository
# Expected: The commit should exist and be accessible
git rev-parse --verify 907d34e2dd91c8accf8988c8e1c699089ff3241c^{commit}
Length of output: 117
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation