fix(antigravity): prefer userTier.name over legacy planInfo.planName

[n3wr1ch]

Summary

Fixes #368 — Ultra subscribers are incorrectly displayed as "Pro" in the Antigravity plugin.

Problem

The GetUserStatus response contains two separate tier identifiers:

Field	Ultra subscriber value	Source
planStatus.planInfo.planName	"Pro" ❌	Windsurf/Codeium legacy
userTier.name	"Google AI Ultra" ✅	Google subscription system

The plugin was reading planInfo.planName, which always returns "Pro" for all paid tiers regardless of whether the user is on Pro or Ultra.

Fix

Prefer userTier.name when available, falling back to planInfo.planName for backward compatibility:

var ut = data.userStatus.userTier
if (ut && ut.name) {
  plan = ut.name
} else {
  var ps = data.userStatus.planStatus || {}
  var pi = ps.planInfo || {}
  plan = pi.planName || null
}

Tests

• ✅ Added: "prefers userTier.name over legacy planInfo.planName for Ultra subscribers"
• ✅ Added: "falls back to planInfo.planName when userTier is absent"
• ✅ Added: "falls back to planInfo.planName when userTier.name is empty"
• ✅ All 53 existing tests pass without modification

---

Summary by cubic

Fixes incorrect plan labels in the Antigravity plugin by preferring userTier.name over the legacy planInfo.planName. Ultra subscribers now display as "Google AI Ultra" instead of "Pro", with guards for empty or non-string values.

• Bug Fixes
  • Prefer userTier.name; fall back to planStatus.planInfo.planName for backward compatibility.
  • Add typeof/trim guards to ignore invalid labels; add tests for Ultra, missing userTier, and empty userTier.name.

^{Written for commit cb63b20. Summary will update on new commits.}

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes incorrect tier display in the Antigravity plugin by using Google’s userTier.name when available, instead of the legacy planStatus.planInfo.planName field that reports "Pro" for all paid tiers.

Changes:

• Update LS GetUserStatus parsing to prefer userTier.name with a fallback to planInfo.planName.
• Extend the Antigravity test fixture to support userTier overrides.
• Add tests covering: prefer userTier.name, fallback when userTier is missing, and fallback when userTier.name is empty.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
plugins/antigravity/plugin.js	Switch plan label source to userTier.name first, with legacy fallback.
plugins/antigravity/plugin.test.js	Add fixture override + new test cases validating tier selection behavior.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

The test asserts result.plan twice with the same expectation; the second expect(result.plan).toBe("Pro") is redundant and makes the test noisier without adding coverage. Consider keeping a single assertion (and the explanatory comment if desired).

Suggested change

expect(result.plan).toBe("Pro")

[Copilot]

userTier.name is accepted as-is when truthy; if it’s non-string (e.g. an object) or whitespace-only, plan may become an unexpected type/blank label. To keep plan reliably a meaningful string, gate on typeof ut.name === "string" and use ut.name.trim() (falling back when the trimmed value is empty). Consider applying the same string/trim normalization to pi.planName for consistency with other plugins.

Suggested change

	if (ut && ut.name) {
	plan = ut.name
	} else {
	var ps = data.userStatus.planStatus || {}
	var pi = ps.planInfo || {}
	plan = pi.planName || null
	var userTierName =
	ut && typeof ut.name === "string" && ut.name.trim() ? ut.name.trim() : null
	if (userTierName) {
	plan = userTierName
	} else {
	var ps = data.userStatus.planStatus || {}
	var pi = ps.planInfo || {}
	plan =
	typeof pi.planName === "string" && pi.planName.trim() ? pi.planName.trim() : null

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 2 files

[validatedev]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work!

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[robinebers]

LGTM