fix: pushPerson parameter

[RuffaloLavoisier]

Modify a fixed argument to a function parameter.

[gemini-code-assist]

Hello @RuffaloLavoisier, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

Summary of Changes

This pull request addresses an issue where a fixed argument was being used instead of a parameter in the pushShortcut function call within the ChatRepository.kt file. The change replaces the hardcoded PushReason.OutgoingMessage with the pushReason parameter, allowing for more flexibility in specifying the reason for the shortcut push.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: The pull request fixes an issue where the incorrect PushReason was being passed to the pushShortcut function.
• Parameterization: The pushShortcut function call now uses the pushReason parameter instead of a hardcoded value.

Changelog

• app/src/main/java/com/google/android/samples/socialite/repository/ChatRepository.kt
  • Replaced the fixed argument PushReason.OutgoingMessage with the pushReason parameter in the pushShortcut function call.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

A parameter's plight,
A fixed value, not right,
Flexibility's key,
Now all can agree,
Code's better, shining bright.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request modifies a function argument to a parameter, enhancing code flexibility. The change appears straightforward and well-scoped.

Merge Readiness

The code change is a simple parameter replacement and appears safe to merge. I am unable to approve the pull request, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging.

[gemini-code-assist]

The change from a fixed PushReason.OutgoingMessage to a parameter pushReason makes the function more versatile. Ensure that all call sites are updated to pass the correct pushReason value. Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the pushReason parameter for better readability.

Suggested change

	notificationHelper.pushShortcut(detail.firstContact, pushReason)
	notificationHelper.pushShortcut(detail.firstContact, pushReason) // Use the provided push reason

[RuffaloLavoisier]

@yaraki
Hi there.
Would removing the unused parameters be a better approach? Something doesn’t seem right—could someone review this?

[yaraki]

@yaraki Hi there. Would removing the unused parameters be a better approach? Something doesn’t seem right—could someone review this?

I no longer work on this project. @ashnohe Can you help?