Commit Graph

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
didericis cd9f023f3d docs: name bot-bottle, not ./cli.py, in every instruction
prd-number-check / require-numbered-prds (pull_request) Successful in 11s
tracker-policy-pr / check-pr (pull_request) Successful in 14s
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 59s
test / integration-docker (pull_request) Successful in 1m6s
test / coverage (push) Successful in 21s
test / image-input-builds (push) Successful in 44s
test / image-input-builds (pull_request) Successful in 1m15s
test / unit (push) Successful in 57s
test / coverage (pull_request) Successful in 20s
lint / lint (push) Successful in 1m3s
Update Quality Badges / update-badges (push) Successful in 1m12s
test / integration-docker (push) Successful in 1m0s
`doctor` told users to run `./cli.py backend setup`. cli.py is a four-line
wrapper at the repo root that calls bot_bottle.cli:main, and it does not ship —
[tool.setuptools.packages.find] includes only bot_bottle*, so anyone who
installed rather than cloned has no such file. Confirmed against a real
install: the user's tree contains exactly one executable, `bot-bottle`, and no
cli.py anywhere, while doctor recommended `./cli.py` three times. Invisible in
development, where ./cli.py works fine from a checkout, which is why only a
clean-install test surfaced it.

The two entry points are the same code, so the fix is to name the one that
always exists. 141 replacements across 45 files: the runtime messages that
caused this, plus README, docs, PRDs, research notes and test prose, so nothing
teaches the invocation a user cannot run.

scripts/demo.sh is deliberately untouched — it *executes* ./cli.py from a
checkout, where that is the correct and available path.

Verified end to end: a sandbox install now reports
"Run: bot-bottle backend setup --backend=firecracker", and bot-bottle is on
that user's PATH. Unit suite unchanged against the pre-existing baseline.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEfZZhakx13bxTfXcZCoS5
2026-07-27 10:20:17 -04:00
didericis-codex c08b09dc9f refactor!: rename project to bot-bottle
Assisted-by: Codex
2026-05-28 17:56:14 -04:00
didericis 8cd867f3d2 docs(research): claude-code pane in the dashboard
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 17s
test / integration (pull_request) Successful in 1m8s
test / unit (push) Successful in 17s
test / integration (push) Successful in 1m2s
Survey the three realistic ways to surface a claude-code session
inside the dashboard TUI:

  1. Handoff — drop curses, foreground claude, restore on exit
     (the existing `e`/`p` pattern, extended). Minimal code,
     side-by-time rather than side-by-side.
  2. Embedded emulator — own a PTY, parse claude-code's ANSI
     stream via `pyte`, paint it into a curses pane. Real
     "pane in the dashboard" but a six-week build with one new
     dep and several integration trap-doors (alt-screen, resize,
     input routing, multi-PTY state).
  3. External multiplexer — delegate pane creation to tmux /
     iTerm / wezterm when detected. Tiny code, but splits the
     operator's mental model and gives up layout control.

Recommendation: ship Option 1 first; defer Option 2 to "only if
Option 1 is observably insufficient"; treat Option 3 as a
niche augmentation for power users.

Calls out four followups worth verifying before committing
(PTY behavior at small sizes, attach-to-existing-exec, SIGWINCH
handling, `-it` vs `-i` for the embedded path).
2026-05-26 02:51:08 -04:00