feat(open-in): ✨ add Ghostty terminal detection on macOS

[HayWolf]

Summary

为 macOS 平台的「在外部应用中打开」列表增加 Ghostty 终端检测与支持。

Changes

后端 (Rust)

• src-tauri/src/commands/system.rs: 在 WORKSPACE_OPEN_APP_SPECS 中新增 Ghostty 条目（Ghostty.app），优先查找 /Applications/Ghostty.app
• 将 Ghostty 加入树形路径打开行为匹配，打开文件时启动到所在文件夹

前端 (TypeScript)

• src/modules/workbench-shell/ui/project-panel.tsx: 新增 Ghostty 图标回退（蓝色渐变，标签 G）

Test Plan

• macOS 上安装 Ghostty 后，project panel 的 open in 列表中出现 Ghostty
• 点击 Ghostty 后在该终端中打开当前目录/文件所在目录
• 未安装 Ghostty 时不显示

🤖 Generated with TiyCode

[github-actions]

AI Code Review Summary

PR: #161 (feat(open-in): ✨ add Ghostty terminal detection on macOS)
Preferred language: English

Overall Assessment

No blocking issue was detected in the reviewed diff; keep focused regression testing before merge.

Major Findings by Severity

No major issues identified from the reviewed diff.

Actionable Suggestions

• Align the ghostty fallback label with the multi-letter convention used by other entries (e.g., 'GH' instead of 'G').

Potential Risks

• Potential hidden risks remain in edge cases not covered by the current diff context.

Test Suggestions

• Consider adding a unit test that validates all entries in APP_ICON_FALLBACKS follow the label convention (e.g., labels are non-empty and follow expected length).

File-Level Coverage Notes

• src-tauri/src/commands/system.rs: No issues. The addition is well-formed and follows the existing patterns for adding a macOS terminal application.
• src/modules/workbench-shell/ui/project-panel.tsx: The change is functionally correct and adds expected support for the ghostty terminal type. The only minor concern is the single-letter label inconsistency, which does not affect behavior. (Consider adding a unit test for APP_ICON_FALLBACKS to verify all keys have multi-letter labels if the convention is important.)

Inline Downgraded Items (processed but not inline)

• None

Coverage Status

• Target files: 2
• Covered files: 2
• Uncovered files: 0
• No-patch/binary covered as file-level: 0
• Findings with unknown confidence (N/A): 0

Uncovered list:

• None

No-patch covered list:

• None

Runtime/Budget

• Rounds used: 1/4
• Planned batches: 2
• Executed batches: 2
• Sub-agent runs: 2
• Planner calls: 1
• Reviewer calls: 2
• Model calls: 3/64
• Structured-output summary-only degradation: NO

[github-actions]

Automated PR review completed.

• Findings kept: 0
• Findings with unknown confidence: 0
• Inline comments attempted: 1
• Target files: 2
• Covered files: 2
• Uncovered files: 0
  See the summary comment for detailed analysis and coverage details.

[github-actions]

Automated review completed for this PR diff. No concrete inline issue was selected after aggregation.