perf(chore): simplify sent grouping, memoize email rows, remove local artifacts - #1214
perf(chore): simplify sent grouping, memoize email rows, remove local artifacts#1214seonghobae wants to merge 16 commits into
Conversation
- boolean 존재 여부만 추적하는 딕셔너리를 set으로 변경하여 의미를 명확히 하고 메모리 사용량을 약간 절감
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 24 seconds Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (14)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe email API now tracks sent threads with a set. ChangesEmail updates
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
seonghobae
changed the title
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
- boolean 존재 여부만 추적하는 딕셔너리를 set으로 변경하여 의미를 명확히 하고 메모리 사용량을 약간 절감
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current-head maintenance verification completed: production changes are scoped to sent-thread membership representation, memoized row construction, and removal of committed local artifacts. Required GitHub Actions are green. Requesting central review evidence refresh for this immutable head.
|
@coderabbitai review Please re-review the immutable current head |
|
✅ Action performedFull review finished. Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 42 minutes. |
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Current head d5d56fd4f2ce97e7428ba22b73a4a0c4fc10fbb3 has no unresolved review thread and every repository-local required workflow is successful. Re-triggering current-head OpenCode evidence and merge scheduling without changing the immutable head.
seonghobae
left a comment
seonghobae
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Commercialization-loop current-head revalidation: d5d56fd4f2ce97e7428ba22b73a4a0c4fc10fbb3 remains mergeable, has zero review threads, and all six repository-local workflows are successful. Re-triggering the central independent-review and guarded merge scheduler for this exact head.
|
@coderabbitai review Please perform a complete review of the current head |
|
✅ Action performedFull review finished. Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 4 minutes. |
|
@coderabbitai review The included-review cooldown has elapsed. Please perform the complete current-head review for |
|
✅ Action performedFull review finished. Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 30 seconds. |
|
@coderabbitai review The included-review cooldown is now clear. Please perform the complete current-head review for |
|
✅ Action performedFull review finished. Your included review limit is currently reached under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. This review may still proceed through usage-based billing if eligible. Your next included review will be available in 48 minutes. |
|
PR governance metadata gate is not ready for
|
- GitHub Actions trivy-fs job failed with CVE-2026-69153 in postcss. Bumping it to patched version 8.5.25.
💡 무엇을: - WebDAV 경로 처리 시 url 디코딩 전에 %2e, %2f, %5c 등의 path traversal 우회 문자가 있는지 검사하도록 변경했습니다. - Admin 권한의 경우 override 세션 대신 오직 server 세션만 허용되도록 검증을 강화했습니다. - OAuth Redirect URI에 대해 사전에 구성된 환경변수(ALLOWED_OAUTH_REDIRECT_URIS) 화이트리스트 검증을 추가했습니다. - OIDC JWKS 공개키를 캐싱하기 전에 명시적으로 RS256 알고리즘(alg) 검증을 추가했습니다. 🎯 왜: - STRIX 보안 진단에서 지적된 인증, 인가 및 path traversal 관련 취약점을 완화하기 위함입니다. - 공격자가 임의의 리디렉션 URI, 잘못된 JWKS 키, 혹은 조작된 경로를 악용하는 것을 방지합니다. ✅ 검증 방법: - backend tests 를 수행하여 보안 검증 및 기능 호환성을 확인했습니다.
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.
Review outcome
1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
-
Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was
failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head. -
Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.
-
Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports
successwith required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence. -
Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking
needs.coverage-evidence.result == successbefore posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present. -
Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
-
Reason: coverage-evidence result was
failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head956e080c95e60d2f53a922659cc9df35695a4b16. -
Head SHA:
956e080c95e60d2f53a922659cc9df35695a4b16 -
Workflow run: 30878336892
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Backend (15 files)"]
S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (15 files)"]
R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: README.md"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: README.md"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["Frontend (9 files)"]
S4 --> I4["browser runtime and bundle"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Frontend (9 files)"]
R4 --> V4["frontend tests"]
Evidence --> S5["CI script (2 files)"]
S5 --> I5["review and security gate shell path"]
I5 --> R5["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
R5 --> V5["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass. Review outcome1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence
Coverage evidenceCoverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (2 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (2 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Backend (15 files)"]
S2 --> I2["API and service runtime"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Backend (15 files)"]
R2 --> V2["backend tests"]
Evidence --> S3["Docs: README.md"]
S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs: README.md"]
R3 --> V3["docs review"]
Evidence --> S4["Frontend (9 files)"]
S4 --> I4["browser runtime and bundle"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Frontend (9 files)"]
R4 --> V4["frontend tests"]
Evidence --> S5["CI script (2 files)"]
S5 --> I5["review and security gate shell path"]
I5 --> R5["Review risk: CI script (2 files)"]
R5 --> V5["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
|
|
Closing this branch instead of weakening the gates. Against current |
1 participant
변경 사항
backend/api/emails.py의has_sent_message를 값이 항상True인 딕셔너리에서 집합으로 변경해 존재 여부 추적 의도를 명확히 했습니다.frontend/src/components/EmailList.tsx의 이메일 행 배열을useMemo로 구성해 동일한 목록·선택·콜백 입력에서는 기존 요소 배열을 재사용하도록 했습니다.frontend/dev.log)와 일회성 수동 스크린샷 스크립트(screenshot.mjs)를 제거했습니다.검증
기존 #1191의 EmailList 변경은 이 PR이 대체합니다.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Performance
Chores