Tighten --only filter resolution for functions deployment

[taeold]

When using --only functions:SELECTOR during function deploys, resolve ambiguous selectors by checking if SELECTOR matches a known codebase name:

• If yes: target only that codebase
• If no: treat as function ID in default codebase

This prevents unnecessary codebase scanning and runtime config fetches for non-targeted codebases.

Example: With codebases 'default' and 'other':
firebase deploy --only functions:other

Before: scans both 'other' codebase AND 'default' for 'other-*' functions
After: scans only 'other' codebase

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @taeold, 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 refines the behavior of the firebase deploy --only functions:SELECTOR command by introducing a more precise mechanism for resolving ambiguous selectors. The system now intelligently determines whether a selector refers to a specific codebase or a function ID within the default codebase, based on the project's validated function configurations. This enhancement significantly improves deployment efficiency by ensuring that only the relevant codebases and functions are processed, thereby reducing overhead and speeding up deployments.

Highlights

• Improved --only filter resolution: The --only functions:SELECTOR argument now intelligently resolves ambiguous selectors for function deployments.
• Codebase-aware targeting: If the SELECTOR matches a known codebase name, the deployment will exclusively target that specific codebase, preventing broader scans.
• Default codebase fallback: If the SELECTOR does not correspond to a known codebase name, it is correctly interpreted as a function ID within the default codebase.
• Enhanced efficiency: This refinement eliminates unnecessary scanning of non-targeted codebases and avoids redundant runtime configuration fetches, streamlining the deployment process.

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 tightens the logic for resolving --only functions:SELECTOR filters, making it more deterministic and efficient. When a selector matches a known codebase name, it now correctly targets only that codebase, avoiding unnecessary scans of others. The changes are well-implemented and include corresponding test updates. I've provided a couple of suggestions: one to improve performance and code clarity by using a Set for codebase name lookups, and another to update some documentation comments that are now outdated due to the new, less ambiguous logic.