fix: handle both array and object response shapes for single-asset share comments

[xxiaoxiong]

Problem

Reported in #67 by @ducknoodledance.

When opening a public single-asset share link, the comments panel is always empty even when comments exist. Project/folder shares work correctly.

Root Cause

Response shape mismatch between API and frontend:

• API (apps/api/routers/comments.py:567) returns a bare array:

  return [_build_comment_response(c, db) for c in top_level]

• Frontend (apps/web/app/share/[token]/page.tsx:204) expected an object:

  .then((data: CommentsResponse) => setComments(data.comments ?? []))

Since data.comments is undefined on an array, it silently falls back to [].

The folder-share viewer uses a different code path that handles the array correctly, which is why project shares work.

Solution

Updated GuestCommentList to handle both response formats:

.then((data: CommentsResponse | GuestComment[]) => {
  // Handle both array (single-asset) and object (folder) response shapes
  setComments(Array.isArray(data) ? data : data.comments ?? [])
})

This approach:

• ✅ Fixes single-asset share comments
• ✅ Preserves folder share compatibility
• ✅ Avoids breaking API changes
• ✅ Follows the frontend fix recommendation from the issue

Testing

Tested with:

• Single-asset public share links with comments
• Folder share links with comments
• Empty comment states

Closes #67

[ravirajsinh45]

Thanks for picking this up @xxiaoxiong! 🙏

We landed essentially the same fix in #70 just before this PR came in — sorry for the duplicated effort, the timing was unfortunate. Both PRs took the same approach (frontend handles both response shapes via Array.isArray), so this one is functionally superseded.

If you'd like to take another swing at it, the proper long-term fix is tracked in #72: normalize the backend so /share/{token}/comments always returns a bare array, then drop the union-type workaround on the frontend. Touches both apps/api/routers/comments.py and apps/web/app/share/[token]/page.tsx. Happy to review if you'd like to take it.

Closing this one as superseded by #70. Thanks again for the contribution!