fix(server): confirmation comment only says Re-running scan when a scan is actually queued

.changeset/silver-hawks-run.md

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+"layne": patch
+---
+
+fix(server): confirmation comment only says "Re-running scan..." when a scan is actually queued
+
+The issue_comment handler only re-enqueues a scan when the latest check
+run conclusion is 'failure'. However the confirmation comment always
+ended with "Re-running scan..." regardless of whether a scan was queued.
+Users who approved an exception while the check run was in a success or
+neutral state (or when no check run existed) saw a misleading message.
+The suffix is now conditional on the scan actually being enqueued.

src/__tests__/server.test.ts

@@ -1142,6 +1142,39 @@ describe('issue_comment handler', () => {
     expect(scanQueue.add).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
   });
 
+  it('confirmation comment says "Re-running scan..." when check run is in failure state', async () => {
+    (getLatestCheckRun as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mockResolvedValue({ conclusion: 'failure' });
+
+    await processWebhookRequest(webhookRequest(
+      commentPayload(), { event: 'issue_comment' }
+    ));
+
+    const [call] = (createPrComment as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mock.calls as [{ body: string }][];
+    expect(call[0].body).toContain('Re-running scan');
+  });
+
+  it('confirmation comment does NOT say "Re-running scan..." when check run did not fail', async () => {
+    (getLatestCheckRun as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mockResolvedValue({ conclusion: 'success' });
+
+    await processWebhookRequest(webhookRequest(
+      commentPayload(), { event: 'issue_comment' }
+    ));
+
+    const [call] = (createPrComment as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mock.calls as [{ body: string }][];
+    expect(call[0].body).not.toContain('Re-running scan');
+  });
+
+  it('confirmation comment does NOT say "Re-running scan..." when there is no check run', async () => {
+    (getLatestCheckRun as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mockResolvedValue(null);
+
+    await processWebhookRequest(webhookRequest(
+      commentPayload(), { event: 'issue_comment' }
+    ));
+
+    const [call] = (createPrComment as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mock.calls as [{ body: string }][];
+    expect(call[0].body).not.toContain('Re-running scan');
+  });
+
   it('does not store exceptions or enqueue scan when PR is already merged', async () => {
     (getPullRequest as ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>).mockResolvedValueOnce({
       state:  'closed',

src/server.ts

@@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ async function handleIssueComment(payload: Record<string, unknown>): Promise<{ s
   });
 
   const checkRunData = checkRun as { conclusion?: string } | null;
+  let scanEnqueued = false;
   if (checkRunData?.conclusion === 'failure') {
     const jobId = getJobId(repo.full_name, issueData.number, headSha);
     await enqueueScan({
@@ -276,16 +277,17 @@ async function handleIssueComment(payload: Record<string, unknown>): Promise<{ s
       jobId,
       action: 'issue_comment',
       triggeredByException: true,
-    }).catch(err => console.error(`[server] Failed to enqueue scan: ${(err as Error).message}`));
+    }).then(() => { scanEnqueued = true; }).catch(err => console.error(`[server] Failed to enqueue scan: ${(err as Error).message}`));
   }
 
   const idList = parsed.ids.join(', ');
+  const confirmationSuffix = scanEnqueued ? ' Re-running scan...' : '';
   await createPrComment({
     installationId: (installation as { id: number }).id,
     owner:          repo.owner.login,
     repo:           repo.name,
     prNumber:       issueData.number,
-    body:           `✅ Exception recorded for ${idList} by @${commenter}: "${parsed.reason}". Re-running scan...`,
+    body:           `✅ Exception recorded for ${idList} by @${commenter}: "${parsed.reason}".${confirmationSuffix}`,
   }).catch(err => console.error(`[server] Failed to post confirmation: ${(err as Error).message}`));
 
   return { status: 200, body: 'Accepted' };