Add files via upload

[sonyccd]

No description provided.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
openhamprep	Building	Preview, Comment	Jan 15, 2026 2:52am

[supabase]

Updates to Preview Branch (sonyccd-patch-1) ↗︎

Deployments	Status	Updated
Database	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:22:46 UTC
Services	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:22:46 UTC
APIs	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:22:46 UTC

Tasks are run on every commit but only new migration files are pushed.
Close and reopen this PR if you want to apply changes from existing seed or migration files.

Tasks	Status	Updated
Configurations	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:22:54 UTC
Migrations	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:23:04 UTC
Seeding	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:23:12 UTC
Edge Functions	✅	Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:23:17 UTC

---

View logs for this Workflow Run ↗︎.
Learn more about Supabase for Git ↗︎.

[claude]

PR Review: Add files via upload

Thank you for the contribution! I've reviewed this PR and have some feedback.

Summary

This PR adds a PDF documentation file (openhamprep-event-system-v1.5.pdf, 642KB) to the docs/ directory.

---

Observations & Concerns

1. Missing PR Description ⚠️

The PR body is empty. For maintainability and future reference, please add:

• What this document contains (event system architecture, specifications, etc.)
• Why it's being added to the repository
• Who the intended audience is (developers, contributors, stakeholders)
• How it relates to existing or planned features

2. Binary File in Git Repository ⚠️

Adding a 642KB PDF to git has implications:

• Repository bloat: Binary files aren't efficiently stored in git history. Every revision creates a full copy.
• Review difficulty: Binary files can't be meaningfully code-reviewed via GitHub's diff interface.
• Alternative approaches to consider:
  • Host documentation on a wiki, Google Docs, or documentation platform
  • Convert to Markdown format (e.g., docs/event-system.md) for version control benefits
  • Store in external documentation hosting (GitHub Wiki, Read the Docs, etc.)
  • Add link to external PDF storage in a markdown file instead

3. Documentation Standards

Based on the repository's documentation pattern, I notice:

• Existing docs are Markdown: All other docs (TESTING.md, DEPLOYMENT_STEPS.md, OAUTH_SETUP.md, etc.) are in Markdown format
• Consistency: Maintaining documentation in a consistent format improves searchability and contributes to a better developer experience
• Accessibility: Markdown is indexed by GitHub's search, readable in CLI/IDE, and easier to maintain

4. Commit Message ℹ️

The commit message "Add files via upload" is not descriptive. According to CONTRIBUTING.md:

• Expected format: docs(event-system): add event system architecture documentation v1.5
• This helps with git history readability and changelog generation

5. No .gitignore Entry for PDFs

The .gitignore doesn't exclude PDFs, which means this is intentional. However, consider if documentation PDFs should be generally excluded with an allowlist approach.

---

Recommendations

Option A: Convert to Markdown (Preferred)

• Extract content from PDF into docs/event-system.md
• Benefits: searchable, diffable, consistent with existing docs
• Preserves version control benefits

Option B: External Hosting

• Upload PDF to GitHub Releases, Google Drive, or documentation platform
• Add link in docs/event-system.md with summary/overview
• Benefits: keeps repo lightweight

Option C: Keep PDF (If necessary)

• Add comprehensive PR description explaining why PDF format is required
• Update README.md to reference the new documentation
• Consider adding to .gitignore pattern and use Git LFS for large binaries

---

Questions

1. What does this event system documentation cover? Is it related to planned features?
2. Is there a reason this needs to be in PDF format vs. Markdown?
3. Should this be linked from the main README under "Documentation"?

---

Additional Notes

• ✅ File placement: docs/ is the correct location
• ✅ No code changes: No risk of introducing bugs
• ⚠️ No tests needed: Documentation change, but consider adding a link in README
• ℹ️ Security: PDF files can contain malicious content. Ensure this file is from a trusted source.

Please update the PR description and consider the recommendations above. Happy to discuss the best approach for your use case!

[sentry]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 87.01%. Comparing base (629ef6d) to head (61be88d).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #163   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.01%   87.01%           
=======================================
  Files         119      119           
  Lines       14891    14891           
  Branches     2302     2302           
=======================================
  Hits        12958    12958           
  Misses       1933     1933           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	87.01% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.