[REFACTOR] 프론트 lint 오류 및 백엔드 테스트 오류 수정#88
Conversation
|
ⓘ Qodo reviews are paused because your trial has ended. Ask your workspace admin to add credits to resume reviews. Manage billing |
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 29 minutes 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 Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough백엔드 컨슈머 테스트에서 ACK 검증을 RedisTemplate에서 BatchAckWorker로 바꾸고, 실패 입력 검증은 필드 누락 바이트 배열과 무상호작용 확인으로 조정했습니다. 프론트엔드는 WebSocket 컨텍스트를 core 타입/전용 훅으로 분리하고, 재연결·메시지 최신화·가격 색상·초기 뷰포트 갱신 시점을 ref/effect 기준으로 재구성했습니다. 또한 CI/CD 워크플로가 추가·정리되었고, README와 troubleshooting 문서가 새 데이터 흐름과 배포 방식에 맞게 갱신되었습니다. Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~25 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant WebSocketProvider
participant Socket
participant connectRef
participant useCoinflowWebSocket
useCoinflowWebSocket->>WebSocketProvider: 메시지 수신 콜백 등록
Socket->>WebSocketProvider: onclose
WebSocketProvider->>WebSocketProvider: 활성 소켓/재연결 여부 확인
WebSocketProvider->>connectRef: connectRef.current()
connectRef->>Socket: 새 연결 시도
관련 이슈: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 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 |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/aggregation/service/TickProcessServiceTest.java (1)
113-114: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low valueACK 검증 전환 자체는 실제 구현과 정확히 일치합니다.
TickProcessService.finalizeProcess가batchAckWorker.addAck(recordId)를 호출하는 구조(비동기 파이프라인 완료 후)를 정확히 검증하고 있습니다.timeout(1000)을 사용한 것도CompletableFuture.allOf(...).thenRun(...)콜백이 별도 스레드에서 비동기로 실행되는 점을 감안하면 적절한 선택입니다.다만 한 가지 짚어보고 싶은 질문이 있습니다: ForkJoinPool.commonPool(혹은 커스텀 executor)에서 콜백이 실행될 때,
timeout()의 폴링 간격과 실제 콜백 지연 사이에 경합이 생길 여지가 있는지 고민해본 적 있나요? 만약 CI 환경에서 스레드풀이 지연되는 상황이 생기면 이 타임아웃 값이 flaky test의 원인이 될 수 있습니다. 매직 넘버1000을 상수화해 의미를 부여하는 것도 고려해볼 만합니다.🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/aggregation/service/TickProcessServiceTest.java` around lines 113 - 114, The ACK verification in TickProcessServiceTest uses a hardcoded timeout value that can make the test flaky under CI or executor delays. Update the verification around batchAckWorker.addAck(recordId) to use a named constant for the timeout instead of the magic number 1000, and keep the async verification behavior intact so the intent is clear and easier to tune if needed.Source: Path instructions
backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/handler/TickRawMessageHandlerTest.java (1)
65-78: 🎯 Functional Correctness | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win파싱 실패와 검증 실패를 분리하세요
backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/handler/TickRawMessageHandlerTest.java:65-78지금 payload는
TickValidator.validate()까지 가는 “유효하지 않은 값”이 아니라, 가격/수량/시간이 빠진 “잘린 바이너리”를 검증합니다.handle()이 예외를 삼켜false만 돌려주기 때문에 통과는 하겠지만, 비즈니스 검증 실패 경로는 이 테스트에서 빠집니다.
파싱 실패 케이스와price=0/quantity<0같은 validator 실패 케이스를 분리하는 쪽이 의도가 더 선명하지 않을까요?🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/handler/TickRawMessageHandlerTest.java` around lines 65 - 78, The current test in TickRawMessageHandlerTest mixes a truncated binary parse failure with validator behavior, so split it into separate cases. Keep one test focused on TickRawMessageHandler.handle() rejecting malformed payload bytes before TickValidator.validate() is reached, and add another test that builds a fully parsed message but uses invalid values like price=0 or quantity<0 to exercise the validator failure path. Use the existing symbols TickRawBinaryCodec, TickRawMessageHandler.handle, and TickValidator.validate to keep each scenario explicit and ensure the parse and business-rule failures are verified independently.Source: Path instructions
frontend/src/components/LiveTicker.tsx (1)
42-64: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win가격 방향 판단 로직을 컴포넌트에서 분리해보는 건 어떨까요?
로직 자체(부등호 비교, null 가드)는 정확합니다. 다만
handleMessage가 "가격 방향을 어떻게 판단할지"와 "언제 상태를 갱신할지"를 동시에 책임지고 있습니다. 순수 함수로 분리하면 렌더링 없이 단위 테스트가 가능해지고,handleMessage는 오케스트레이션에만 집중할 수 있습니다.Q. 실거래 환경에서 틱이 초당 수십~수백 건 유입된다고 가정했을 때, 이 비교 로직이 컴포넌트에 결합되어 있는 것과 순수 함수로 분리되어 있는 것 중 어느 쪽이 회귀 테스트·디버깅 관점에서 유리할까요?
참고로
setPriceColor와setLastMessage를 같은 콜백에서 연달아 호출해도 React 19의 자동 배칭 덕분에 렌더는 1회로 묶입니다. 기존useEffect(lastMessage)2단계 갱신 방식보다 렌더 사이클을 줄인 점은 좋은 개선입니다.♻️ 제안: 순수 함수 추출
+const getPriceDirection = ( + current: number, + previous: number | null +): 'up' | 'down' | null => { + if (previous === null) return null; + if (current > previous) return 'up'; + if (current < previous) return 'down'; + return null; +}; + export const LiveTicker = () => { ... const handleMessage = useCallback((msg: WsMessage) => { if (isKlineEvent(msg) && msg.interval === 'M1') { - const currentPrice = msg.close; - const previousPrice = prevPriceRef.current; - - if (previousPrice !== null) { - if (currentPrice > previousPrice) { - setPriceColor('up'); - } else if (currentPrice < previousPrice) { - setPriceColor('down'); - } - } - - prevPriceRef.current = currentPrice; + const direction = getPriceDirection(msg.close, prevPriceRef.current); + if (direction) setPriceColor(direction); + prevPriceRef.current = msg.close; setLastMessage(msg); }As per path instructions, "UI와 비즈니스 로직이 명확히 분리되어 있는가?"를 점검했습니다.
🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@frontend/src/components/LiveTicker.tsx` around lines 42 - 64, `LiveTicker`의 `handleMessage` 안에 있는 가격 방향 판별(이전 가격과의 비교, null 가드)을 컴포넌트 상태 갱신 로직과 분리하세요. 비교 결과를 반환하는 순수 함수로 추출하고, `handleMessage`는 `setPriceColor`와 `setLastMessage`를 호출하는 오케스트레이션만 담당하도록 바꾸면 됩니다. 추출한 로직은 `handleMessage`, `prevPriceRef`, `setPriceColor`, `setLastMessage`와 분리해서 단위 테스트 가능하게 유지하세요.Source: Path instructions
frontend/src/context/WebSocketContext.tsx (2)
58-61: 🚀 Performance & Scalability | 🔵 Trivial | 🏗️ Heavy lift고정 3초 딜레이, 트래픽/장애 상황에서도 안전할까요?
서버 장애로 재연결이 계속 실패하는 시나리오를 생각해보죠. 지금 구조는 실패 원인과 무관하게 항상 3초 뒤 재시도합니다. 서버가 일시적으로 과부하 상태라면 다수의 클라이언트가 3초 간격으로 동시에 재연결을 시도하면서 "thundering herd" 현상을 유발해 서버 복구를 더 지연시킬 수 있습니다.
지수 백오프(exponential backoff) + 지터(jitter)를 도입하는 것과 현재의 고정 딜레이 방식, 각각의 장단점은 무엇일까요? 구현 복잡도 대비 얻는 안정성 이득을 스스로 따져보시면 좋겠습니다.
🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@frontend/src/context/WebSocketContext.tsx` around lines 58 - 61, The fixed 3-second reconnect delay in WebSocketContext’s reconnect timeout should be replaced with a more resilient retry strategy. Update the reconnect logic around the setTimeout/connectRef.current flow to use exponential backoff with jitter, and reset the delay on a successful connection so repeated failures do not synchronize clients into a thundering herd. Keep the change localized to the WebSocketContext reconnect handling and preserve the existing connection lifecycle behavior.
50-62: 🩺 Stability & Availability | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win재연결 타이머 중복 가능성 짚고 넘어가죠.
ws.current !== socket가드로 stale close 이벤트를 걸러낸 부분은 훌륭합니다. 다만reconnectTimeout.current = setTimeout(...)을 새로 거는 시점에 기존 타이머를clearTimeout하지 않고 그대로 덮어쓰고 있습니다.만약 어떤 이유로든
onclose가 짧은 시간 안에 두 번 이상 트리거되는 상황(예: Strict Mode의 mount/unmount/mount 사이클, 혹은 네트워크 계층에서의 빠른 재연결/재종료)이 겹치면, 이전setTimeout핸들이 유실된 채로 계속 살아있다가 나중에connectRef.current()를 한 번 더 호출할 수 있습니다. 자원 자체는 크지 않지만, "왜 소켓이 예상보다 자주 재연결을 시도하지?"라는 디버깅 난이도를 높이는 요인이 됩니다. 방어적으로 기존 타이머를 정리하는 게 어떨까요?🔧 제안 diff
socket.onclose = () => { if (ws.current !== socket) return; console.log('[WS Provider] Disconnected'); setIsConnected(false); ws.current = null; if (!shouldReconnectRef.current) return; + if (reconnectTimeout.current) { + clearTimeout(reconnectTimeout.current); + } reconnectTimeout.current = setTimeout(() => { console.log('[WS Provider] Attempting reconnect...'); connectRef.current(); }, 3000); };🤖 Prompt for 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. In `@frontend/src/context/WebSocketContext.tsx` around lines 50 - 62, The reconnect logic in WebSocketContext’s onclose handler can leave multiple reconnect timers active because reconnectTimeout.current is overwritten without clearing any existing timeout first. Update the close path to defensively cancel an already scheduled reconnect before setting a new one, and make sure the cleanup path also clears reconnectTimeout.current when the socket is closed or replaced. Use the onclose handler, reconnectTimeout.current, shouldReconnectRef, and connectRef.current as the key spots to adjust.
🤖 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.
Nitpick comments:
In
`@backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/aggregation/service/TickProcessServiceTest.java`:
- Around line 113-114: The ACK verification in TickProcessServiceTest uses a
hardcoded timeout value that can make the test flaky under CI or executor
delays. Update the verification around batchAckWorker.addAck(recordId) to use a
named constant for the timeout instead of the magic number 1000, and keep the
async verification behavior intact so the intent is clear and easier to tune if
needed.
In
`@backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/handler/TickRawMessageHandlerTest.java`:
- Around line 65-78: The current test in TickRawMessageHandlerTest mixes a
truncated binary parse failure with validator behavior, so split it into
separate cases. Keep one test focused on TickRawMessageHandler.handle()
rejecting malformed payload bytes before TickValidator.validate() is reached,
and add another test that builds a fully parsed message but uses invalid values
like price=0 or quantity<0 to exercise the validator failure path. Use the
existing symbols TickRawBinaryCodec, TickRawMessageHandler.handle, and
TickValidator.validate to keep each scenario explicit and ensure the parse and
business-rule failures are verified independently.
In `@frontend/src/components/LiveTicker.tsx`:
- Around line 42-64: `LiveTicker`의 `handleMessage` 안에 있는 가격 방향 판별(이전 가격과의 비교,
null 가드)을 컴포넌트 상태 갱신 로직과 분리하세요. 비교 결과를 반환하는 순수 함수로 추출하고, `handleMessage`는
`setPriceColor`와 `setLastMessage`를 호출하는 오케스트레이션만 담당하도록 바꾸면 됩니다. 추출한 로직은
`handleMessage`, `prevPriceRef`, `setPriceColor`, `setLastMessage`와 분리해서 단위 테스트
가능하게 유지하세요.
In `@frontend/src/context/WebSocketContext.tsx`:
- Around line 58-61: The fixed 3-second reconnect delay in WebSocketContext’s
reconnect timeout should be replaced with a more resilient retry strategy.
Update the reconnect logic around the setTimeout/connectRef.current flow to use
exponential backoff with jitter, and reset the delay on a successful connection
so repeated failures do not synchronize clients into a thundering herd. Keep the
change localized to the WebSocketContext reconnect handling and preserve the
existing connection lifecycle behavior.
- Around line 50-62: The reconnect logic in WebSocketContext’s onclose handler
can leave multiple reconnect timers active because reconnectTimeout.current is
overwritten without clearing any existing timeout first. Update the close path
to defensively cancel an already scheduled reconnect before setting a new one,
and make sure the cleanup path also clears reconnectTimeout.current when the
socket is closed or replaced. Use the onclose handler, reconnectTimeout.current,
shouldReconnectRef, and connectRef.current as the key spots to adjust.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 5a689c42-c0a5-4ae5-9177-6e613e4da49e
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
frontend/package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
backend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/aggregation/service/TickProcessServiceTest.javabackend/coinflow-consumer-app/src/test/java/com/coinflow/handler/TickRawMessageHandlerTest.javafrontend/src/components/Chart/TradingChart.tsxfrontend/src/components/LiveTicker.tsxfrontend/src/context/WebSocketContext.tsxfrontend/src/context/WebSocketContextCore.tsfrontend/src/context/useWebSocketContext.tsfrontend/src/hooks/useCoinflowWebSocket.ts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Caution
Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.
⚠️ Outside diff range comments (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
1-70: 🔒 Security & Privacy | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win워크플로 전체에
permissions블록이 없습니다 — 최소 권한 원칙 위반.
GITHUB_TOKEN의 기본 권한은 organization/repository 설정에 따라write-all일 수 있습니다. 이 워크플로는 checkout과 빌드/린트만 수행하므로 실질적으로 필요한 권한은contents: read정도입니다. 왜 최소 권한을 명시해야 할까요? 서드파티 액션(actions/checkout,setup-node등)이 공급망 공격에 노출될 경우, 기본 권한이 넓을수록 탈취 시 피해 범위가 커지기 때문입니다. 크루는 "이 토큰이 실패했을 때 최악의 시나리오가 무엇인가"를 항상 그려봐야 합니다.🔒 권한 최소화 제안
name: CI + +permissions: + contents: read on:🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.github/workflows/ci.yml around lines 1 - 70, 워크플로 전체에 기본 GITHUB_TOKEN 권한이 명시되어 있지 않아 과도한 권한으로 실행될 수 있습니다. .github/workflows/ci.yml의 최상위 permissions에 contents: read만 추가해 actions/checkout, actions/setup-java, actions/setup-node, 그리고 backend-test/frontend-check 잡이 최소 권한으로 동작하도록 제한하세요.Source: Linters/SAST tools
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/backend-cd.yml (2)
40-47: 🚀 Performance & Scalability | 🔵 Trivial이미지 태그가 항상
latest뿐이라 롤백 지점을 특정할 수 없습니다.
infra/docker/docker-compose-prod.yml의 이미지가${DOCKERHUB_USERNAME}/coinflow-*:latest로만 태깅되는 것으로 보입니다(Context snippet 1). 배포마다latest를 덮어쓰면, 문제가 생겼을 때 "몇 커밋 전 이미지로 되돌릴까?"라는 질문에 답할 수 없습니다. Git SHA나 빌드 번호를 태그에 포함시키는 게 운영 관점에서 훨씬 안전합니다. 지금 스케일에서는 당장 급한 이슈는 아니지만, 인시던트 대응 시나리오를 한 번쯍 그려보시길 권합니다.Also applies to: 64-66
🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.github/workflows/backend-cd.yml around lines 40 - 47, The Docker image tags are only using latest, so rollback points cannot be identified. Update the build/push flow in backend-cd.yml and the image definitions in docker-compose-prod.yml to include a unique tag such as the Git SHA or build number alongside latest, and make sure the docker compose build/push step uses that tag consistently for all coinflow images.
28-32: 🚀 Performance & Scalability | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win
./gradlew build가 테스트를 중복 실행할 가능성이 있습니다.Gradle의 기본 lifecycle에서
build는 통상check(→test)에 의존합니다.ci.yml의backend-testjob에서 이미./gradlew test --continue로 전체 테스트를 돌렸는데, CD에서 다시build를 실행하면 테스트가 한 번 더 수행되어 배포 파이프라인의 리드타임만 늘어납니다. 트레이드오프를 따져보면: 테스트를 CD에서도 돌리는 게 "이 커밋이 정말 안전한지" 재확인하는 안전장치가 될 수도 있지만, 이미 CI가 success 조건으로 게이팅했으므로 중복입니다../gradlew assemble(또는-x test)로 바꿔서 아티팩트 생성만 하는 게 더 효율적입니다.⚡ 중복 테스트 스킵 제안
- name: Build backend JARs run: | cd backend chmod +x ./gradlew - ./gradlew build + ./gradlew build -x test🤖 Prompt for 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. In @.github/workflows/backend-cd.yml around lines 28 - 32, The backend CD workflow’s Build backend JARs step is running `./gradlew build`, which can re-run tests that already passed in CI. Update the Gradle command in the `Build backend JARs` step to use artifact-only execution such as `./gradlew assemble` (or otherwise exclude tests) so the `backend-cd.yml` pipeline only packages the JARs without repeating the `test` lifecycle.
🤖 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 @.github/workflows/backend-cd.yml:
- Around line 16-19: The checkout step in the backend CD workflow is missing the
credential hardening used to prevent token persistence during a secret-handling
deploy pipeline. Update the actions/checkout usage in the Checkout code step to
explicitly disable persisted credentials with persist-credentials set to false,
matching the security posture needed for the workflow that handles
DOCKERHUB_TOKEN and EC2_SSH_KEY.
- Around line 28-32: The CD workflow currently builds artifacts from
github.event.workflow_run.head_sha but the EC2 deploy step later uses git pull
origin master, so the deployed server files can drift from the exact commit that
was built. Update the deploy logic in the workflow job that handles the backend
rollout to use the same SHA checked out for the build, and pass that commit
through to the remote deployment script. Replace the nondeterministic git pull
origin master behavior with a deterministic checkout of the provided SHA before
running docker-compose or related setup, so the build and deployed configuration
always come from the same commit.
In @.github/workflows/ci.yml:
- Around line 25-27: The Checkout code step in both jobs is missing the
`persist-credentials: false` hardening on the `actions/checkout` usage. Update
each checkout invocation in the workflow so the `Checkout code` step explicitly
disables persisted credentials, ensuring the `backend-test` and `frontend-check`
jobs do not leave `GITHUB_TOKEN` in git config for later steps to access.
---
Outside diff comments:
In @.github/workflows/ci.yml:
- Around line 1-70: 워크플로 전체에 기본 GITHUB_TOKEN 권한이 명시되어 있지 않아 과도한 권한으로 실행될 수 있습니다.
.github/workflows/ci.yml의 최상위 permissions에 contents: read만 추가해 actions/checkout,
actions/setup-java, actions/setup-node, 그리고 backend-test/frontend-check 잡이 최소
권한으로 동작하도록 제한하세요.
---
Nitpick comments:
In @.github/workflows/backend-cd.yml:
- Around line 40-47: The Docker image tags are only using latest, so rollback
points cannot be identified. Update the build/push flow in backend-cd.yml and
the image definitions in docker-compose-prod.yml to include a unique tag such as
the Git SHA or build number alongside latest, and make sure the docker compose
build/push step uses that tag consistently for all coinflow images.
- Around line 28-32: The backend CD workflow’s Build backend JARs step is
running `./gradlew build`, which can re-run tests that already passed in CI.
Update the Gradle command in the `Build backend JARs` step to use artifact-only
execution such as `./gradlew assemble` (or otherwise exclude tests) so the
`backend-cd.yml` pipeline only packages the JARs without repeating the `test`
lifecycle.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
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: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 4f11f2cb-aaeb-4efa-9037-8d721bf8994f
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
.github/workflows/backend-cd.yml.github/workflows/backend-ci-cd.yml.github/workflows/ci.ymlREADME.mdbackend/coinflow-consumer-app/README.mddocs/troubleshooting/volumescailing.mddocs/troubleshooting/설계를 변경해보자2.mddocs/troubleshooting/실시간성을 위해 캔들을 어떻게 저장해야 할까?.mddocs/고려사항/decisions_table.mdfrontend/README.md
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .github/workflows/backend-ci-cd.yml
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- docs/고려사항/decisions_table.md
- frontend/README.md
- docs/troubleshooting/설계를 변경해보자2.md
- README.md
- docs/troubleshooting/실시간성을 위해 캔들을 어떻게 저장해야 할까?.md
- docs/troubleshooting/volumescailing.md
1 participant
📌 Summary
프론트 lint 오류와 백엔드 테스트 실패를 수정하고, 브라우저 호환성 데이터를 갱신했습니다.
📚 Changes
📝 Note
📌 Related Issue