feat: delete-all button and language dropdown for multi-message code blocks by Neil-Tomar · Pull Request #550 · Java-Discord/JavaBot

Neil-Tomar · 2026-07-04T15:41:04Z

What

Multi-message formatted code blocks now have two interactions, backed by a small message-linking helper:

Delete-all button — removes every message of the block in one click
Language dropdown (ephemeral) — re-colors every chunk to a chosen language

How

LinkedMessages resolves the block from the component's message (getHistoryBefore/After), touching only the bot's own messages.
FormatCodeInteractionHandler handles the delete button and the language dropdown.
Permission: requester / staff / owner (same rule as the existing delete button).

Open questions

The language dropdown is ephemeral per your suggestion, so it's a one-time picker that's gone on reload — happy to make it a permanent public control instead.
Rare edge case: two simultaneous formats could interleave bot messages; the resolver is best-effort there.

…ching Delete-all button removes every message of a block; ephemeral language dropdown re-colors every chunk. Only the bot's own messages are touched.

danthe1st · 2026-07-05T16:56:16Z

+	 * @return an action row containing the language dropdown
+	 */
+	public static ActionRow buildLanguageMenu(long requesterId, int total) {
+		return ActionRow.of(languageMenu(ComponentIdBuilder.build(COMPONENT_ID, requesterId, total)));


I noticed it's possible to do the following:

User A runs the format code command

User B runs the format code command

User A deletes the code they formatted

User A changes the language from their ephemeral message

In this case, the language of the code block of user B is changed. Could you prevent this in one of the following ways?

In LinkedMessages.resolveAfter, check that the last message contains the delete button with the delete button with the correct requestor (= current user) and that no other messages have a delete button

Change the ephemeral message to be sent after the formatted codeblocks, use resolveBefore and add an additional argument containing the message ID of the first code block message to the ID here. If this doesn't match, it is a failure.

I think the first approach is easier to do so I recommend that one.

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:24:47Z

+				}, () -> Responses.error(event.getHook(), "Could not update the code block — it may have changed or no longer be yours.").queue());
+	}
+
+	private static boolean ownsBlock(List<Message> messages, long userId) {


Could you please change this name to something more descriptive like isCodeBlockMessagesOwnedBy or isFormattedCodeMessagesOwnedBy?

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:27:46Z

+		boolean lastIsUsers = buttonsOf(last).stream().anyMatch(button -> isDeleteButtonOf(button, userId));
+		boolean noOtherHasButton = messages.size() <= 1 ;
+		for (Message message : messages.subList(0,messages.size()-1)){
+			for(Button button: buttonsOf(message)){


Formatted code block messages shouldn't have any componens except for the last message. I think the following would be easier:

for (int i = 1; i < messages.size(); i++) { if (!message.getComponents().isEmpty()) { return false; } } return messages.size() >= 1 && hasDeleteButtonOf(messages.getFirst(), userId)

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:28:52Z

+		for (Message message : messages.subList(0,messages.size()-1)){
+			for(Button button: buttonsOf(message)){
+				if(isDeleteButton(button)){
+					noOtherHasButton = true;


Here you are basically requiring that there is a delete button but you are excluding the chronologically first message from the list using subList which makes no sense.

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:31:09Z

@@ -105,9 +110,46 @@ public void handleStringSelectMenu(@NonNull StringSelectInteractionEvent event,
 		event.deferEdit().queue();

 		LinkedMessages.resolveAfter(event.getMessage(), Integer.parseInt(id[2]),


Could you please document that resolveAfter and resolveBefore return the messages ordered from newest to oldest?

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:32:52Z

+		return lastIsUsers && noOtherHasButton;
+	}
+
+	private static List<Button> buttonsOf(Message message) {


I don't think you'll need a buttonsOf method, you can just create a method like hasDeleteButtonOf that checks whether there is a delete button of a given user. Such a method could then just iterate over the components/buttons and checks for the delete button.

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:33:38Z

+				}, () -> Responses.error(event.getHook(), "Could not update the code block — it may have changed or no longer be yours.").queue());
+	}
+
+	private static boolean ownsBlock(List<Message> messages, long userId) {


If this method requires a certain order of the messages, please document this in a Javadoc.

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:37:42Z

+	}
+
+	private static boolean isDeleteButtonOf(Button button, long userId) {
+		return isDeleteButton(button)


I think it would be easier to use ComponentIdBuilder.split and:

verify that there are sufficiently many elements

verify that the element at index 1 equals COMPONENT_ID

verify that the element at index 1 equals String.valueOf(userId)

danthe1st · 2026-07-08T19:39:45Z

+						messages.forEach(message ->
+								message.editMessage(withLanguage(message.getContentRaw(), language)).queue());
+					} else {
+						Responses.error(event.getHook(),"Could not update the code block — it may have changed or no longer be yours.").queue();


"no longer be yours" is a bit confusing in my opinion. What about "The code block could not be updated. The messages may have been deleted."

Also, I assume you are not able to delete it because the original message is ephemeral? Is this correct (this is perfectly fine)?

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:24:46Z


 		if (messages.size() > MAX_MESSAGES) {
-			Responses.errorWithTitle(event.getHook(), "Output Too Large", "The formatted result is too large to send. Please provide a smaller code snippet or use a paste service instead."
+			Responses.errorWithTitle(event.getHook(), "Code out of Bound", "The formatted result is too large to send. Please provide a smaller code snippet or use a paste service instead."


I think you meant to say Code Out of Bounds (plural).

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:26:31Z

-	private static void sendChunksInOrder(MessageChannel channel, List<String> messages, int index, Message target, @Nonnull CommandInteraction event) {
+	private static void sendChunksInOrder(MessageChannel channel, List<String> messages, int index, Message target, @Nonnull CommandInteraction event, long firstMessageID) {
 		if (index >= messages.size()) {
+			event.getHook().sendMessage("Your message has been set. If needed, you can change the language used for syntax highlighting below.")


sent, not set.

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:27:08Z

+					.queue();
 			return;
 		}
 		var action = channel.sendMessage(messages.get(index))


Would it be possible to specify the type explicitly here instead of using var?

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:31:58Z

+	@Contract("_,_,_ -> new")
+	static @NotNull ActionRow buildActionRow(@NotNull Message target, long requesterId, int total) {
+		return ActionRow.of(
+				FormatCodeInteractionHandler.createDeleteAllButton(requesterId, total),


I think it would make sense to add the first message ID to the delete button and verify that it is actually the first message before deleting. I think that should allow you using (almost) the same logic for finding and checking the messages.

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:38:17Z

+	public static Button createDeleteAllButton(long requesterID, int total) {
+		return Button.secondary(ComponentIdBuilder.build(COMPONENT_ID, requesterID, total), "\uD83D\uDDD1\uFE0F");
+	}
+


Could you please move the delete logic together and the language change logic together? e.g. first the methods for creating and handling the delete button and then the methods for creating and handling the language menu.

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:39:37Z

+		}, () -> Responses.errorWithTitle(event.getHook(), "Undefined Behavior", "Could not update the code block").queue());
+	}
+
+	private boolean canManage(Member member, long requesterId) {


Could you please rename this method isMemberAuthorizedToDeleteMessagesOf? Also, I think the isOwner check is redundant (but I don't have a problem with you keeping this).

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:41:19Z

+
+		LinkedMessages.resolveBefore(event.getMessage(), Integer.parseInt(id[2]),
+				messages -> event.getChannel().purgeMessages(messages),
+				() -> Responses.errorWithTitle(event.getHook(), "Undefined Behavior", "Could not delete the code block").queue());


I don't think the "Undefined Behavior" adds much of value. I think it's better to not use a title here.

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:44:19Z

+			if (messages.getLast().getIdLong() == Long.parseLong(id[3])) {
+				messages.forEach(message -> message.editMessage(withLanguage(message.getContentRaw(), language)).queue());
+			} else {
+				Responses.errorWithTitle(event.getHook(), "Merge Conflict", "The code block could not be updated. The messages may have been deleted.").queue();


This isn't really a merge conflict. If the titles don't add much of value, please don't specify them.

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T16:48:02Z

+		Language language = Language.fromString(values.getFirst());
+		event.deferEdit().queue();
+
+		LinkedMessages.resolveAfter(event.getMessage(), Integer.parseInt(id[2]), messages -> {


Are you sure resolveAfter is still correct when you are sending the ephemeral message after the codeblocks?

Note: This is assuming you are changing the interaction to use deleteOriginal() to move the message below.

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T17:06:40Z

-	private static void sendChunksInOrder(MessageChannel channel, List<String> messages, int index, Message target, @Nonnull CommandInteraction event) {
+	private static void sendChunksInOrder(MessageChannel channel, List<String> messages, int index, Message target, @Nonnull CommandInteraction event, long firstMessageID) {
 		if (index >= messages.size()) {
+			event.getHook().sendMessage("Your message has been set. If needed, you can change the language used for syntax highlighting below.")


If you want to send the ephemeral response after the code block messages, I think you can do the following:

// use deleteOriginal() to delete the intermediate message sent by deferReply(false) event.getHook().deleteOriginal().queue(_ -> event.getHook().sendMessage("Your message has been sent. If needed, you can change the language used for syntax highlighting below.") ... .queue(); );

Otherwise you would need to check the last message and not the first message I think (the goal is to check the message that is furthest from the anchor).

danthe1st · 2026-07-09T17:08:39Z

+		Language language = Language.fromString(values.getFirst());
+		event.deferEdit().queue();
+
+		LinkedMessages.resolveAfter(event.getMessage(), Integer.parseInt(id[2]), messages -> {


Note: This is assuming you are changing the interaction to use deleteOriginal() to move the message below.

feat: link multi-message code blocks for delete-all and language swit…

c42529c

…ching Delete-all button removes every message of a block; ephemeral language dropdown re-colors every chunk. Only the bot's own messages are touched.

Neil-Tomar requested a review from a team as a code owner July 4, 2026 15:41

danthe1st requested changes Jul 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

refactor: address review feedback

50e3fdf

Neil-Tomar requested a review from danthe1st July 5, 2026 13:24

danthe1st requested changes Jul 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...a/net/discordjug/javabot/systems/user_commands/format_code/FormatCodeInteractionHandler.java Outdated

Comment thread ...a/net/discordjug/javabot/systems/user_commands/format_code/FormatCodeInteractionHandler.java Outdated

fixed small mistakes.

87a9552

Neil-Tomar requested a review from danthe1st July 5, 2026 16:34

danthe1st requested changes Jul 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Neil-Tomar requested a review from danthe1st July 6, 2026 12:57

danthe1st requested changes Jul 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

fixed issues with approach 2

8dece97

Neil-Tomar force-pushed the feat/format-code-message-linking branch from 43bd07e to 8dece97 Compare July 9, 2026 07:48

danthe1st requested changes Jul 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

danthe1st reviewed Jul 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

		@@ -105,9 +110,46 @@ public void handleStringSelectMenu(@NonNull StringSelectInteractionEvent event,
		event.deferEdit().queue();

		LinkedMessages.resolveAfter(event.getMessage(), Integer.parseInt(id[2]),

Uh oh!

Conversation

Neil-Tomar commented Jul 4, 2026

What

How

Open questions

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

danthe1st Jul 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

danthe1st Jul 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading