Bare `#NNNNN` auto-linkifies against the current repo, breaking cross-repo issue/PR references
- 主要言語
- Shell
- スター
- 11.2k
- フォーク
- 1.9k
- 平均マージ
- 14時間 16分
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 6
説明
### Summary
In the CLI's rendered output, a bare `#NNNNN` is auto-linkified as an issue/PR mention resolved against the **current repository's** remote. When the number actually refers to a *different* repository, this produces an incorrect link.
### Environment
- GitHub Copilot CLI v1.0.64 (Linux)
### Example
While working in repository `owner/repoA`, referring to an upstream pull request from another project as `#205054` renders as a link to `https://github.com/owner/repoA/issues/205054` — a bogus URL (there is no such issue in `repoA`; the real reference is `other-org/other-repo#205054`).
### Expected
One of:
- Don't auto-linkify a bare `#NNNNN` unless it resolves to an existing issue/PR in the current repo, **or**
- Provide a setting to disable issue/PR auto-linkification, **or**
- Only auto-linkify qualified references (`owner/repo#NNNN`).
### Impact
Easy to hit whenever working in one repo (e.g. a fork or mirror) while citing issues/PRs from another (e.g. an upstream project). The generated links are misleading. Minor but common.
### Workarounds
Full URL (`https://github.com/org/repo/pull/NNNN`), a qualified `owner/repo#NNNN`, or wrapping the literal in backticks (`` `#NNNN` ``) so it isn't linkified.
### Note
`#` is documented in the CLI help as "mention issues and pull requests". The request is to make a bare cross-repo number either non-linkified or configurable.
コントリビューションガイド
調査の方向性
No source file or test is identified in the issue. Start by locating the CLI's rendered-output handling for issue and pull-request auto-linkification, then reproduce the cross-repository `#205054` example; done means bare references no longer produce misleading current-repository links, with the selected behavior covered by tests.
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- shell
- 領域
- cli
- issue の種類
- バグ
- 難易度
- 4/5
- 見積もり時間
- 3〜5日
- 活発さ
- 静か
- 明瞭さ
- 説明が足りない
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 35/100