feat: consolidate theme, update deps, add description field.

[missionmike]

Thank you for submitting a PR! Please review & check the boxes below:

• I have filled in the "Description" section below.
• I have provided manual testing steps and screenshots (if applicable).
• My code is covered by automated tests.

Description

This PR introduces a description field on Companies to allow users to describe the company in brief.

Additionally, dependencies are updated, and most importantly: the theme repository has been integrated directly into this repository for simplified maintenance and development.

Steps to Test

Spin up local, npm run check then npm run build and npm cypress:run for integration tests (all handled within this PR's GitHub Actions workflows anyway).

description field support doesn't have an integration test yet, but I've tested locally and on the test env.

---

Important

Consolidates theme repository, adds Company description field, updates dependencies, and enhances theme components with tests.

• Theme Consolidation:
  • Integrates theme repository into the main repository for easier maintenance.
  • Adds ThemeDavids and ThemeDefault components in theme/davids/ThemeDavids.tsx and theme/default/ThemeDefault.tsx.
• Database Changes:
  • Adds description field to Company model in prisma/schema.prisma and prisma/migrations/20250815004328_support_company_description/migration.sql.
• Components and Features:
  • Adds QRGenerator component in theme/davids/components/QRGenerator.tsx for generating QR codes.
  • Implements SkillsSection, Summary, and WorkExperienceSection components in theme/davids/components/.
  • Adds MUIThemeProvider in theme/default/MUIThemeProvider.tsx for theme management.
• Testing:
  • Extensive tests added for components like SkillsExperience, CertificationsSection, FeaturedProjects, and more.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Updates package.json to remove @ampdresume/theme dependency and add qrcode.
  • Fixes ESLint configuration in .eslintrc.json.

^{This description was created by for 2eb5d21. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
ampdresume	Ready	Preview	Comment	Aug 16, 2025 0:32am

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 2eb5d21 in 3 minutes and 47 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 11129 lines of code in 301 files
• Skipped 3 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 13 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. src/theme/default/components/pdf/Education.tsx:9

• Draft comment:
  Using .map for side effects; consider using .forEach instead.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. src/theme/default/components/Summary.tsx:54

• Draft comment:
  When truncating long summaries, consider appending an ellipsis ('...') to indicate content is omitted.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. prisma/migrations/20250815004328_support_company_description/migration.sql:1

• Draft comment:
  Typographical note: The comment "-- AlterTable" may be intended to read "-- Alter Table" (with a space) for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is purely informative and suggests a typographical change for clarity. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or address a potential issue with the code's functionality. It doesn't align with the rules for useful comments.

4. src/app/edit/components/RichTextEditor/plugins/ColorPlugin.tsx:9

• Draft comment:
  Typo: It looks like 'LOW_PRIORIRTY' might be a misspelling. Consider renaming it to 'LOW_PRIORITY' if that's what was intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

5. src/app/edit/components/RichTextEditor/plugins/ToolbarPlugin.tsx:29

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: It looks like 'LOW_PRIORIRTY' might be meant to be 'LOW_PRIORITY'. Please correct the spelling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

6. src/app/edit/components/RichTextEditor/plugins/ToolbarPlugin.tsx:127

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The parameter LOW_PRIORIRTY appears to be misspelled. It should likely be LOW_PRIORITY.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

7. src/app/edit/components/RichTextEditor/plugins/YouTubePlugin.tsx:9

• Draft comment:
  Typographical note: The function name is spelled as 'YoutubePlugin' in the code, but the file name and other references (e.g. YouTubeIcon) use 'YouTube'. Consider updating the function name to 'YouTubePlugin' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

8. src/app/edit/components/RichTextEditor/plugins/YouTubePlugin.tsx:59

• Draft comment:
  Typographical consistency: The placeholder text uses "Add Youtube URL" (with a lowercase 't') whereas the rest of the component uses "YouTube" (with an uppercase 'T'). Consider updating the placeholder to "Add YouTube URL".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

9. src/app/edit/components/RichTextEditor/useKeyBindings.tsx:4

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: 'LOW_PRIORIRTY' appears to be misspelled. Did you mean 'LOW_PRIORITY'?
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

10. src/theme/components/Skills/SkillsExperience.tsx:43

• Draft comment:
  Typo/lexicon issue: The comment on lines 40-42 refers to a property named 'yearStart', but the code uses 'yearStarted'. Consider harmonizing the naming to improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% This is a new file being added. The mismatch between documentation and code could be confusing for future developers. However, the comment is about documentation alignment rather than a functional issue. The code itself works correctly. Documentation improvements are nice but not critical enough to block a PR. The mismatch could indicate a deeper issue where the data structure isn't well defined. Maybe the example is outdated and showing an old version of the API? While that's possible, we don't have enough context about the API. The code is clearly using 'yearStarted' successfully, so the example is likely just outdated. This comment should be deleted. While it points out a real documentation inconsistency, it's not critical enough to warrant a PR comment. The code itself is functional.

11. src/theme/default/components/WorkExperience/Projects.tsx:6

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing "renders as list of all projects" to "renders a list of all projects" for improved clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about the grammar, it's an extremely minor documentation issue that doesn't affect code functionality or understanding. Documentation nitpicks like this create noise in PR reviews and don't meaningfully improve code quality. The meaning is perfectly clear even with the minor grammatical error. The grammar error could potentially confuse non-native English speakers. Documentation quality is part of code quality. While documentation quality matters, this error is so minor that it doesn't impact understanding, and fixing it doesn't meaningfully improve the codebase. PR comments should focus on more substantial issues. Delete this comment as it's too minor and doesn't meet the bar for PR comments. We should focus on more substantial issues.

12. src/theme/default/components/pdf/Skills.test.tsx:28

• Draft comment:
  The comment says "Check for React's experience" but the test is actually verifying the 'React Redux' skill. Consider updating the comment to "Check for React Redux's experience".
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While technically correct, this is an extremely minor documentation issue. The test is still clear and functional. The rules state not to make purely informative comments or obvious/unimportant changes. This feels like a nitpick that doesn't materially improve code quality or prevent bugs. The comment is factually correct and does point out an inconsistency. Poor test documentation could lead to confusion for future developers. While accurate, the inconsistency is minor and the test's intention remains clear from the surrounding context and code. This type of minor documentation fix creates noise without adding significant value. Delete this comment as it violates the rule about not making purely informative comments and addresses an unimportant documentation issue.

13. src/util/structure.ts:38

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The comment refers to a property 'yearStart', but the code accesses 'yearStarted'. Please ensure the property name is consistent with the documentation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50% The inconsistency could be confusing for future developers. However, the example in the comment is just illustrative and doesn't need to match exactly. The actual property name yearStarted is more grammatically correct. The code itself works fine regardless of this documentation mismatch. This feels like a nitpick that doesn't require a code change. The inconsistency could genuinely confuse developers who are trying to understand the expected input format. Documentation should be accurate. While accuracy is important, this is just an illustrative example showing the general structure. The actual property name is clear from the code, and the example still effectively demonstrates the transformation concept. This comment should be deleted as it's too minor and doesn't require any actual code changes. The documentation example is clear enough despite the slight naming difference.

Workflow ID: wflow_bBSAUaTxuRoZIWaL

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}