fix(actions): copy edits before preview

[IlyasYOY]

Closes: #2701

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Code action previews no longer mutate shared edit data, preserving the original edits when previewing multiple actions.

• Tests

  • Added tests that validate preview behavior to prevent regressions related to edit data mutation.

[ibhagwan]

Tysm @IlyasYOY!

We’ll let code rabbit review this, if the CI passes I’ll merge it soon.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: fb6e28f4-76fc-47cd-9d0c-e56c129e731e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 17ef12d and 0135a48.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• lua/fzf-lua/previewer/codeaction.lua
• tests/codeaction_spec.lua

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• lua/fzf-lua/previewer/codeaction.lua

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• tests/codeaction_spec.lua

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A bug fix in the code action previewer prevents in-place mutations of text edits by deep-copying the edits before applying them. A new test verifies that the original edits remain unchanged after previewing.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Code Action Previewer Fix lua/fzf-lua/previewer/codeaction.lua	Deep-copies text_edits before passing them to vim.lsp.util.apply_text_edits, preventing the LSP utility from mutating the original edits table.
Code Action Test tests/codeaction_spec.lua	Adds a test that constructs LSP-style overlapping edits, runs preview_action_tuple, and asserts the original text_edits table remains unchanged (deep equality check).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

🐇 I copied the edits, kept the originals neat,
No in-place surprise, no mutation to greet,
The preview hops lightly and leaves things intact,
Tests give a nod — the rabbit's got your back! 🎉

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: copying text edits before passing them to the preview function to prevent mutations.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR fixes the LSP code action breakage caused by fzf-lua's ui.select registration by deep-copying text edits before preview, preventing unwanted mutations [#2701].
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are directly related to fixing the issue: modifying the preview function to copy edits and adding a test to validate the fix.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[ibhagwan]

Fix this lint and we’re gtg

tests/codeaction_spec.lua:40:3 [Warning] Duplicate field `lsp_get_clients`. (duplicate-set-field)
      utils.lsp_get_clients = function(opts)

Since this is a shim adding a disable warning the line above should suffice.

[IlyasYOY]

@ibhagwan sorry, missed the lint step, fixed and repushed.

I suppressed diagnostics, because I need to set the field to create a stub for test.

[ibhagwan]

Tysm @IlyasYOY for your effort!