# Pull Request Template
## Description
This PR includes the following updates:
1. Updated the design system color tokens by introducing new tokens for
surfaces, overlays, buttons, labels, and cards, along with refinements
to existing shades.
2. Refreshed both light and dark themes with adjusted background,
border, and solid colors.
3. Replaced static Inter font files with the Inter variable font
(including italic), supporting weights from 100–900.
4. Added custom font weights (420, 440, 460, 520) along with custom
typography classes to enable more fine-grained and consistent typography
control.
## Type of change
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
---------
Co-authored-by: Pranav <pranav@chatwoot.com>
CSAT scores are helpful, but on their own they rarely tell the full
story. A drop in rating can come from delayed timelines, unclear
expectations, or simple misunderstandings, even when the issue itself
was handled correctly.
Review Notes for CSAT let admins/report manager roles add internal-only
context next to each CSAT response. This makes it easier to interpret
scores properly and focus on patterns and root causes, not just numbers.
<img width="2170" height="1680" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/56df7fab-d0a7-4a94-95b9-e4c459ad33d5"
/>
### Why this matters
* Capture the real context behind individual CSAT ratings
* Clarify whether a low score points to a genuine service issue or a
process gap
* Spot recurring themes across conversations and teams
* Make CSAT reviews more useful for leadership reviews and
retrospectives
### How Review Notes work
**View CSAT responses**
Open the CSAT report to see overall metrics, rating distribution, and
individual responses.
**Add a Review Note**
For any CSAT entry, managers can add a Review Note directly below the
customer’s feedback.
**Document internal insights**
Use Review Notes to capture things like:
* Why a score was lower or higher than expected
* Patterns you are seeing across similar cases
* Observations around communication, timelines, or customer expectations
Review Notes are visible only to administrators and people with report
access only. We may expand visibility to agents in the future based on
feedback. However, customers never see them.
Each note clearly shows who added it and when, making it easy to review
context and changes over time.
These fixes are all auto generated and can be merged directly
Fixes the following issues
1. Event used on components should be hypenated
2. Attribute orders in components
3. Use `unmounted` instead of `destroyed`
4. Add explicit `emits` declarations for components, autofixed [using
this
script](https://gist.github.com/scmmishra/6f549109b96400006bb69bbde392eddf)
We ignore the top level v-if for now, we will fix it later
Due to the pattern `**/specs/*.spec.js` defined in CircleCI, none of the
frontend spec in the folders such as
`specs/<domain-name>/getters.spec.js` were not executed in Circle CI.
This PR fixes the issue, along with the following changes:
- Use vitest instead of jest
- Remove jest dependancies
- Update tests to work with vitest
---------
Co-authored-by: Muhsin Keloth <muhsinkeramam@gmail.com>
# Replace the deprecated `eventBus` with mitt.js
## Description
Since eventBus and it's respective methods are deprecated and removed
from all future releases of vue, this was blocking us from migrating.
This PR replaces eventBus with
[mitt](https://github.com/developit/mitt). I have created a wrapper
mitt.js to simulate the same old event names so it's backwards
compatible, without making a lot of changes.
Fixes # (issue)
## Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality not to work as expected)
- [ ] This change requires a documentation update
## How Has This Been Tested?
1. Made sure all the places we're listening to bus events are working as
expected.
2. Respective specsf or the events from mitt.
## Checklist:
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my code
- [x] I have commented on my code, particularly in hard-to-understand
areas
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
- [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my
feature works
- [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
- [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream
modules
