fix(core): add uniqueness guard to edit tool

[Shivangisharma4]

Fixes #18917 by adding a check in calculateExactReplacement to prevent multiple occurrences from being incorrectly replaced if they exceed 'expectedReplacements'.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Shivangisharma4, 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 resolves an issue where the edit tool could incorrectly replace multiple instances of a string when only a specific number of replacements were intended. By introducing a check for expected_replacements, the tool now ensures that replacements only occur if the number of exact matches does not exceed the expected count, thus preventing erroneous modifications.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: Implemented a uniqueness guard in the calculateExactReplacement function to prevent unintended multiple replacements when the number of exact occurrences exceeds the expected_replacements parameter.

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 introduces a safety guard in the edit tool's calculateExactReplacement function. The change correctly prevents replacements when the number of found occurrences exceeds the expected number, avoiding unintended modifications. The implementation is clear and effectively addresses the issue described, improving the robustness of the exact replacement strategy.

[bdmorgan]

/gemini I am concerned that this fix only guards the exact matching strategy. If the exact match fails (e.g., due to a single space difference), the tool falls back to the flexible strategy, which still applies all matches it finds without a guard. It seems to me that the PR should apply the same uniqueness guard to the flexible and regex matching strategies. This would ensure that the tool doesn't "fail open" by falling back to an unguarded strategy when a guarded one found too many matches. Please re-review with this in mind

CC: @Shivangisharma4

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a fix to the edit tool to prevent incorrect replacements when the number of found occurrences exceeds the expected number. The change adds a guard in calculateExactReplacement to check for this condition and return the original content, which correctly prevents the generation of a misleading diff for user confirmation. The fix is well-targeted and effectively resolves the described issue.

[bdmorgan]

LGTM