Most comments from original PR don't seem to be reflected in copied PR

[harding]

I've tried two PRs with Fresh Eyes and very few of the code comments from the original PR seem to be reflected my local Fresh Eyes PR.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Go to https://fresh-eyes.vercel.app and complete all the initial authorization steps
2. Enter the following details: bitcoin / bitcoin / 29242
3. Be redirected to [FreshEyes] Mempool util: Add RBF diagram checks for single chunks against clusters of size 2 harding/bitcoin#2

What I see: my copied version of the PR only has two GitHub inline comments added, each of which refers to a short thread.

What I expect to see: references to at least the two dozen threads that exist on the original PR with its final commits. Ideally, several dozen more references to threads on earlier versions of the commits (although I acknowledge that's more difficult).

[IgboPharaoh]

Thank you very much for taking the time to use our product and for bringing this issue to our attention.

FreshEyes is designed to reproduce the pull request you're working on and aggregate all comments into different sections to streamline the review process:

• Issue comments, review comments, and outdated reviews not attached to any specific code or diff are aggregated into a single inline comment. The FreshEyes bot displays the total count, e.g.,
  There were 8 comments left by 5 reviewers, 1 bot, and the author for this pull request.
  This approach aims to enhance review efficiency by minimising the noise from these comments.

• Comments attached to specific lines of code are not aggregated. Instead, we restructure them by adding links to the comments made by everyone in that thread, as these are considered relevant for the reviewer.

Nevertheless I have taken note of the issue pointed out and also looked at your replicated version. I will replicate the pull request you mentioned to investigate this issue further and work on how we can better structure these comments based on your suggestions.

[IgboPharaoh]

Apologies this is coming late and we've not updated you on the progress of this issue.

Currently, we have a draft pull request aimed towards solving this but it has been put on hold as focus has been directed towards other projects. Please be rest assured this will be addressed in due time.