df:azdo-pr-comments

Azure DevOps PR Comments

Read, assess, and post code-level comments on Azure DevOps pull requests.

API Reference

The az repos pr CLI does not support PR threads. Use az devops invoke for all thread operations.

Detect project and repositoryId from git remote or az devops configure --list.

Fetch all threads

az devops invoke \
  --area git \
  --resource pullRequestThreads \
  --route-parameters \
    project=<project> \
    repositoryId=<repo-name-or-id> \
    pullRequestId=<pr-id> \
  -o json

Create thread on file/line

az devops invoke \
  --area git \
  --resource pullRequestThreads \
  --route-parameters \
    project=<project> \
    repositoryId=<repo-name-or-id> \
    pullRequestId=<pr-id> \
  --http-method POST \
  --in-file <(cat <<'EOF'
{
  "comments": [
    {
      "parentCommentId": 0,
      "content": "Comment text (markdown supported)",
      "commentType": 1
    }
  ],
  "threadContext": {
    "filePath": "/path/to/file.vue",
    "rightFileStart": { "line": 31, "offset": 1 },
    "rightFileEnd": { "line": 38, "offset": 1 }
  },
  "status": 1
}
EOF
)

Thread status: 0 = unknown, 1 = active, 2 = fixed, 3 = won't fix, 4 = closed, 5 = by design, 6 = pending

Line targeting:

• rightFileStart/rightFileEnd - new code (most common)
• leftFileStart/leftFileEnd - deleted code
• Single line: same start and end
• Omit threadContext entirely for a general (non-file) comment

Reply to existing thread

az devops invoke \
  --area git \
  --resource pullRequestThreadComments \
  --route-parameters \
    project=<project> \
    repositoryId=<repo-name-or-id> \
    pullRequestId=<pr-id> \
    threadId=<thread-id> \
  --http-method POST \
  --in-file <(cat <<'EOF'
{"content": "Reply text"}
EOF
)

Verify success: Response contains "id": field. Do NOT retry if first attempt returns valid JSON with an ID.

Posting: Comment Text Style

When posting review comments to PRs, be concise:

• State the issue directly - no header, no title, no label prefix
• File context is already visible in the PR UI, don't repeat it
• No dramatic impact predictions ("will cause X", "breaks Y")
• No bold wrapping of the whole message
• One sentence is ideal, two max

# Good
Orphaned `</a>` tags after refactoring.

# Good
`useI18n()` not called - `t` will be undefined.

# Bad
**C1. Broken HTML in PharmacistsCarousel**
Orphaned `</a>` tags and bare HTML attributes not attached to any element.
**Will cause template compilation error or mangled rendering.**

Assessing: Reading Existing Comments

Parse threads

Extract code comments (threads with file context):

jq '[.value[] | select(.threadContext.filePath) | select(.status == "closed" | not) | {
  id: .id,
  file: .threadContext.filePath,
  line: .threadContext.rightFileStart.line,
  status: .status,
  comment: .comments[0].content,
  author: .comments[0].author.displayName
}]'

Assess each comment

For each active/pending comment:

1. Read the file at the specified path
2. Check the referenced line (account for line shifts from subsequent commits)
3. Determine status:
   • Addressed - code changed to address the feedback
   • Partially addressed - some changes, not fully resolved
   • Not addressed - original code unchanged
   • Unable to assess - file deleted, heavily refactored, or comment unclear
4. Provide brief assessment (1-2 sentences)

Determine PR ID

Priority:

1. Explicit argument
2. Auto-detect from current branch:

   az repos pr list --source-branch "$(git branch --show-current)" --status active --query '[0].pullRequestId' -o tsv
   

3. Ask user