fix: fix duplicate android hosts in header

[0xbrayo]

Important

Fixes duplicate Android host entries in Header.vue by reordering conditions in the loop processing types_by_host.

• Behavior:
  • Fixes duplicate Android host entries in Header.vue by reordering conditions in the loop processing types_by_host.
  • Ensures Android hosts are added first, followed by non-unknown hosts without Android types.

^{This description was created by for c2c68b6. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to c2c68b6 in 1 minute and 45 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 35 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 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. src/components/Header.vue:160

• Draft comment:
  Reorder of condition fixes duplicate host entries: now only the Android view is added if available.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment seems to be purely informative, explaining what a change does without suggesting any action or asking for confirmation. It doesn't align with the rules for useful comments.

2. src/components/Header.vue:160

• Draft comment:
  Consider using strict inequality (!==) when comparing hostname to 'unknown' for improved type safety.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% The diff shows that the code block containing hostname != 'unknown' was moved from one location to another (from before the android check to inside an else-if). The comparison operator != itself was not modified - it was already using != before this PR. The comment is suggesting a code quality improvement (using strict equality !== instead of loose equality !=), but this is not related to the changes made in this PR. According to the rules, I should only keep comments that are about changes made in the diff. Since the comparison operator was not changed, this comment is about unchanged code and should be deleted. While the suggestion to use strict equality is generally good practice, the comparison operator itself wasn't changed in this PR - only the code block was moved. However, one could argue that since the line was touched/moved, it's fair game for improvement suggestions. Even though the line was moved, the actual comparison operator was not modified. The rules explicitly state "If the comment is about unchanged code, this should be False, and the comment should be deleted." The comparison operator != is unchanged code - only its location changed. This is a style suggestion on pre-existing code, not a comment about the actual changes made. This comment should be deleted because it's about unchanged code (the comparison operator itself wasn't modified, only the code block was moved). The comment is a code quality suggestion on pre-existing code rather than feedback on the actual changes made in this PR.

Workflow ID: wflow_GoZLsMHMqmccTYfi

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 26.30%. Comparing base (291da6f) to head (c2c68b6).
⚠️ Report is 34 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #725      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   25.98%   26.30%   +0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          27       29       +2     
  Lines        1643     1684      +41     
  Branches      279      288       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          427      443      +16     
- Misses       1190     1219      +29     
+ Partials       26       22       -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.