Fix a bug that already adopted branch names are not shown properly

[draftcode]

No description provided.

[aviator-app]

Current Aviator status

Aviator will automatically update this comment as the status of the PR changes.
Comment /aviator refresh to force Aviator to re-examine your PR (or learn about other /aviator commands).

This PR was merged using Aviator.

---

See the real-time status of this PR on the Aviator webapp.

Use the Aviator Chrome Extension to see the status of your PR within GitHub.

[aviator-app]

✅ FlexReview Status

Common Owner: aviator-co/engineering (expert-load-balance assignment)
Owner and Assignment:

• ✅ aviator-co/engineering (expert-load-balance assignment)
  • Slack: #av-slack-testing
  • Assigned: simsinght, tulioz
  Owned Files

  • 🔒 internal/actions/adopt_tree_selector.go

Review SLO: 7 business hours if PR size is <= 200 LOC for the first response.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @draftcode, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a display bug within the AdoptTreeSelectorModel where certain adopted branch names would not appear if their associated TitleLine was empty. The change introduces a robust fallback mechanism: if a branch's specific title line is not available, its short name is used instead. This guarantees that all adopted branches are always visible and correctly rendered within the user interface, improving clarity and user experience.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: Branch Name Display: Resolved an issue where already adopted branch names were not displayed correctly if their TitleLine property was empty.
• Fallback Mechanism: Implemented a fallback to use the short branch name (branch.Short()) for display purposes if the TitleLine is not explicitly provided.
• Improved UI Consistency: Ensures that all adopted branches are consistently rendered within the AdoptTreeSelectorModel, preventing blank entries for branches lacking a custom title.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request fixes a bug where already adopted branch names were not displayed correctly in the adoption UI. The change correctly falls back to using the short branch name if a title line is not available for a branch. The fix is correct and addresses the issue. I've added one suggestion to improve the readability of the code by refactoring a conditional block.