feat(gemtracker.lic): v1.0.0 initial creation

[Nisugi]

Gems yeah. Runs in the background watching for gem appraisals. Has api that can be plugged into other scripts to capture loresong value. Saves to DB. Pretty reports. Google Sheets integration

GemTracker.record_loresing(gem_id:, gem_name:, quality:, value:, purified: false)

---

Important

Introduces gemtracker.lic script for tracking and analyzing gem appraisals in Gemstone, with optional Google Sheets integration.

• Behavior:
  • Adds gemtracker.lic script to track gem appraisals in the Gemstone game.
  • Supports commands for statistics, searching, and exporting gem data.
  • Integrates with Google Sheets for data export.
• Database:
  • Creates appraisals table in SQLite database with columns for gem details and appraisal metadata.
  • Supports migrations to add rarity, quality, purified, and gem_id columns.
• Functions:
  • GemTracker.record_loresing() for recording loresong values.
  • GemTracker.run() to start tracking in the background.
  • GoogleSheets.push() to export data to Google Sheets.
• Misc:
  • Includes error handling for missing gems and Google Sheets API issues.
  • Provides a detailed setup guide for Google Sheets integration.

^{This description was created by for e935df0. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to e935df0 in 2 minutes and 34 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 1535 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. scripts/gemtracker.lic:250

• Draft comment:
  The method name 'record_loresing' is a bit ambiguous. If this is intentional, consider adding a comment to clarify its purpose.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

2. scripts/gemtracker.lic:1010

• Draft comment:
  Consider replacing the fixed sleep interval in the main loop with a blocking or timeout‐based wait on the queue to reduce unnecessary CPU wake-ups.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

3. scripts/gemtracker.lic:548

• Draft comment:
  When exporting the matrix to CSV, ensure that fields containing commas or quotes are properly escaped to avoid CSV format issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

4. scripts/gemtracker.lic:163

• Draft comment:
  The downstream hook uses gsub(/<.+?>/, '') to strip tags. Verify that this regex handles nested or multiple tags correctly and doesn’t remove unintended content.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

5. scripts/gemtracker.lic:1080

• Draft comment:
  In the Google Sheets service initialization, consider adding more robust error handling for File.open and authorization to facilitate debugging issues with keyfile access.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50% None

6. scripts/gemtracker.lic:140

• Draft comment:
  Typo: The comment on line 140 says "Purified flag for loresinging integration". It appears that "loresinging" may be a misspelling (possibly intended to be "loresing" to match the method name "record_loresing"). Please clarify or correct the term for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 15% vs. threshold = 50% This comment is about a potential typo in a comment (not code). The automated tool is suggesting the comment text "loresinging" should be "loresing" to match the method name. However, "loresinging" could be the actual correct term in the game context (Gemstone), and the method name might be abbreviated. Looking at line 249, it says "Public API for other scripts (like purify.lic)" - this suggests "loresing" might be related to "purify" functionality. Without knowing the game domain, I cannot be certain which is correct. The comment is purely stylistic/consistency-related and doesn't affect functionality. According to the rules, I should only keep comments with STRONG EVIDENCE they are correct. This is speculative about what the "correct" terminology should be. I might be missing game-specific context where "loresinging" is the established term and the method name is just abbreviated for brevity. The comment is also very minor - it's about consistency in a comment, not actual code functionality. This type of nitpicky comment about comment wording is likely not valuable. Even if there is inconsistency between "loresinging" and "loresing", this is an extremely minor issue in a comment that doesn't affect code behavior. The author may have intentionally used "loresinging" as the full term while abbreviating the method name. Without strong evidence this is wrong, this comment should be deleted. This comment is speculative about terminology and only affects comment text, not code. It's a minor stylistic suggestion without strong evidence of being correct. According to the rules, comments that are not clearly necessary should be removed.

Workflow ID: wflow_RuE7cE0qrfX2kgZb

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}