fix: use per-review comment fetching for Forgejo compatibility

Forgejo doesn't have the flat GET /pulls/{number}/comments endpoint
(returns 404). Replace pulls.listReviewComments() with a 2-phase
approach: fetch reviews first, then pulls.listCommentsForReview()
per-review in parallel. Updates tests to mock the new per-review API.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

src/forgejo/data/fetcher.ts

@@ -210,14 +210,16 @@ export async function fetchForgejoData({
   let rawReviews: GitHubReview[] = [];
 
   if (isPR) {
-    // Fetch PR details, files, commits, comments, reviews, and inline comments in parallel
+    // Phase 1: Fetch PR details, files, commits, comments, and reviews in parallel.
+    // Note: Forgejo doesn't have a flat /pulls/{number}/comments endpoint for
+    // review comments (returns 404). Instead, fetch review comments per-review
+    // in phase 2 after we have the review IDs.
     const [
       prResponse,
       filesResponse,
       commitsResponse,
       commentsResponse,
       reviewsResponse,
-      reviewCommentsResponse,
     ] = await Promise.all([
       octokits.rest.pulls.get({ owner, repo, pull_number: number }),
       octokits.rest.pulls.listFiles({
@@ -244,23 +246,35 @@ export async function fetchForgejoData({
         pull_number: number,
         per_page: 100,
       }),
-      octokits.rest.pulls.listReviewComments({
-        owner,
-        repo,
-        pull_number: number,
-        per_page: 100,
-      }),
     ]);
 
     const pr = prResponse.data;
     const files = filesResponse.data;
     const commits = commitsResponse.data;
 
+    // Phase 2: Fetch inline comments for each review in parallel.
+    // Forgejo uses GET /repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{index}/reviews/{id}/comments
+    const reviewCommentArrays = await Promise.all(
+      reviewsResponse.data.map(async (review) => {
+        try {
+          const { data } = await octokits.rest.pulls.listCommentsForReview({
+            owner,
+            repo,
+            pull_number: number,
+            review_id: review.id,
+          });
+          return data;
+        } catch {
+          // Some reviews (e.g. pending) may not have accessible comments
+          return [];
+        }
+      }),
+    );
+    const allReviewCommentData = reviewCommentArrays.flat();
+
     // Map REST responses to internal types
     rawComments = mapRestComments(commentsResponse.data);
-    const mappedInlineComments = mapRestReviewComments(
+    const mappedInlineComments = mapRestReviewComments(allReviewCommentData);
-      reviewCommentsResponse.data,
-    );
     rawReviews = mapRestReviews(reviewsResponse.data, mappedInlineComments);
 
     // Map REST file objects to GitHubFile type

test/forgejo-data-fetcher.test.ts

@@ -29,11 +29,25 @@ function createMockOctokits({
   filesData?: Record<string, unknown>[];
   commitsData?: Record<string, unknown>[];
   commentsData?: Record<string, unknown>[];
-  reviewsData?: Record<string, unknown>[];
+  reviewsData?: (Record<string, unknown> & { id?: number })[];
-  reviewCommentsData?: Record<string, unknown>[];
+  reviewCommentsData?: (Record<string, unknown> & {
+    pull_request_review_id?: number | null;
+  })[];
   issueData?: Record<string, unknown>;
   userData?: Record<string, unknown>;
 } = {}) {
+  // Build per-review mock: listCommentsForReview returns comments matching
+  // the requested review_id (Forgejo doesn't have a flat review-comments endpoint).
+  const allReviewComments = reviewCommentsData ?? [];
+  const listCommentsForReviewMock = jest
+    .fn()
+    .mockImplementation((params: { review_id: number }) => {
+      const matching = allReviewComments.filter(
+        (c) => c.pull_request_review_id === params.review_id,
+      );
+      return Promise.resolve({ data: matching });
+    });
+
   return {
     rest: {
       pulls: {
@@ -41,9 +55,7 @@ function createMockOctokits({
         listFiles: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({ data: filesData ?? [] }),
         listCommits: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({ data: commitsData ?? [] }),
         listReviews: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({ data: reviewsData ?? [] }),
-        listReviewComments: jest
+        listCommentsForReview: listCommentsForReviewMock,
-          .fn()
-          .mockResolvedValue({ data: reviewCommentsData ?? [] }),
       },
       issues: {
         get: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({ data: issueData ?? {} }),
@@ -114,7 +126,7 @@ const mockIssueRestResponse = {
 
 describe("fetchForgejoData", () => {
   describe("PR data fetching", () => {
-    it("should fetch PR details, files, commits, comments, reviews, and inline comments in parallel", async () => {
+    it("should fetch PR details, files, commits, comments, and reviews in parallel then per-review comments", async () => {
       const mockOctokits = createMockOctokits({
         prData: mockPrRestResponse,
         filesData: mockFilesRestResponse,
@@ -128,7 +140,7 @@ describe("fetchForgejoData", () => {
         isPR: true,
       });
 
-      // Verify all six REST calls were made
+      // Verify phase 1 REST calls (parallel)
       expect(mockOctokits.rest.pulls.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
         owner: "test-owner",
         repo: "test-repo",
@@ -158,12 +170,7 @@ describe("fetchForgejoData", () => {
         pull_number: 42,
         per_page: 100,
       });
-      expect(mockOctokits.rest.pulls.listReviewComments).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
+      // Phase 2: per-review comment fetching (no reviews in this test → no calls)
-        owner: "test-owner",
-        repo: "test-repo",
-        pull_number: 42,
-        per_page: 100,
-      });
     });
 
     it("should map PR fields to GitHubPullRequest type", async () => {
@@ -412,7 +419,9 @@ describe("fetchForgejoData", () => {
       expect(mockOctokits.rest.pulls.listFiles).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
       expect(mockOctokits.rest.pulls.listCommits).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
       expect(mockOctokits.rest.pulls.listReviews).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
-      expect(mockOctokits.rest.pulls.listReviewComments).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
+      expect(
+        mockOctokits.rest.pulls.listCommentsForReview,
+      ).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
     });
 
     it("should map issue fields to GitHubIssue type", async () => {