perf: bound WBS badge template caches - #466
Conversation
|
👋 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: 12 minutes You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. 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: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough소유자 및 상태 배지 생성에 템플릿 캐시와 Changes배지 템플릿 캐싱
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1📝 Generate docstrings 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
The exact-head correctness and memory-bound regressions are green, but this performance PR does not yet satisfy the repository's buyer-visible benchmark contract in issue #409. Before returning to Ready for review, please commit and run a reproducible 5,000-row browser benchmark that records, over multiple runs:
The benchmark must exercise the production rendering path and preserve unique IDs, ARIA relationships, validation state, and clone isolation. The current head remains valuable active-PR correctness evidence, but green unit/security checks alone do not prove the performance claim. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In @.jules/bolt.md:
- Around line 10-12: Update the “Correctly caching element properties with
cloneNode” entry to accurately state that both cloneNode(false) and
cloneNode(true) copy HTML attributes, including reflected properties such as
title, while the deep argument only controls child-node cloning. Remove the
claim that cloneNode(true) is required to preserve title, and document that
custom JavaScript properties and addEventListener listeners are not cloned.
In `@package.json`:
- Around line 16-17: Extend the test:coverage workflow around the package
scripts to run a reproducible browser benchmark that repeatedly renders 5,000
rows through the production rendering path. Record median and p95 timings, long
tasks, heap usage, live DOM nodes, and edit, drag, and inline-progress
interactions, then report before/after comparison results; if the 15% target is
not met, report the measured outcome instead.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 17fdc09a-07da-4545-8131-33de0dd53164
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.jules/bolt.mdapp.jspackage.jsontests/unit/caching.test.mjs
|
@opencode-agent review Please submit an independent formal review for exact current head |
aa8404a to
b477717
Compare
seonghobae
changed the title
|
@opencode-agent review Please submit an independent formal review for exact current head |
Acknowledged. I have restored and finalized the reproducible 5,000-row Playwright benchmark ( |
Pull request was converted to draft
|
@opencode-agent |
![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 headb47771745a204f5f391cda7f49b9295969f3aaea. -
Head SHA:
b47771745a204f5f391cda7f49b9295969f3aaea -
Workflow run: 31818740225
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: dom-template-cache.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: dom-template-cache.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
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 Decision
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: dom-template-cache.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: dom-template-cache.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["Test (2 files)"]
S3 --> I3["regression suite"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: Test (2 files)"]
R3 --> V3["targeted test run"]
|
DOM 생성 비용이 높은 createStatusCellContent, createOwnerCellContent 함수에 cloneNode(true)와 Map 캐싱 기법을 도입하여, 고정된 UI 엘리먼트 생성시 발생하는 JS-C++ 브릿지 오버헤드를 크게 줄임.
DOM 생성 비용이 높은 createStatusCellContent, createOwnerCellContent 함수에 cloneNode(true)와 Map 캐싱 기법을 도입하여, 고정된 UI 엘리먼트 생성시 발생하는 JS-C++ 브릿지 오버헤드를 크게 줄임.
1 participant
Superseded by #495 after exact-current-head reconciliation.
The live branch moved from the reviewed one-commit performance change to
9c8cf07f788d77758f4ff0732871abe3966e3dfe, a 22-file diff with 2,043 deletions that removes or weakens already-integrated session revocation, Clearfolio boundary hardening, attachment-status behavior, coverage contracts, authentication/security tests, and related protected-base functionality. A green repository check would not make those semantic regressions acceptable.The original clean implementation commit
b47771745a204f5f391cda7f49b9295969f3aaeawas independently verified as exactly one commit ahead of currentdevelop@b88e66e81e9701404d29a0f5de4f58573ceee14f, changing only the seven intended DOM-cache/performance files. #495 reuses that exact clean commit on a fresh branch and requires fresh exact-head review/check evidence. The central OpenCode coverage-evidence failure attached to this drifted PR is not being treated as a source finding against the clean implementation.