Skip to content

Improvement: Cache rclone version command result#12

Closed
insign wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
version-cache-improvement-1325462771431874723
Closed

Improvement: Cache rclone version command result#12
insign wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
version-cache-improvement-1325462771431874723

Conversation

@insign
Copy link
Contributor

@insign insign commented Feb 8, 2026

Implemented caching for the version() method in src/Rclone.php. Previously, calling version() would execute the rclone version command every time, which is inefficient. Now, the result is cached in a static property. The cache is invalidated if the rclone binary path is changed via setBIN(). A new test file tests/Unit/VersionTest.php was added to verify the behavior and ensure it handles missing binaries gracefully.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 1325462771431874723 started by @insign

- Add `version_cache` static property to `Rclone` class.
- Cache the result of `version()` method to avoid redundant shell executions.
- Invalidate cache when `setBIN()` is called.
- Add `tests/Unit/VersionTest.php` to verify functionality.
@google-labs-jules
Copy link

👋 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 @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

@insign
Copy link
Contributor Author

insign commented Feb 8, 2026

Rejecting this PR for the following reasons:

  1. Targets wrong branch: PR targets main (v3.x stable) but all new development goes on the v4 branch per ADR-009
  2. Incompatible with v4 architecture: The code modifies self::$BIN directly on Rclone, but v4 delegates to ProcessManager::setBin() — the cache invalidation logic doesn't apply
  3. Test doesn't verify caching: No assertion that the command runs only once (the core promise of the feature)
  4. Suboptimal implementation: Caches string and numeric results separately instead of caching the command output once
  5. Marginal value: version() is rarely called in hot paths

The idea itself isn't bad, but it would need to be rewritten from scratch for v4's architecture. If needed in the future, it can be reimplemented properly on the v4 branch.

@insign insign closed this Feb 8, 2026
@insign insign deleted the version-cache-improvement-1325462771431874723 branch February 8, 2026 17:06
@google-labs-jules
Copy link

Rejecting this PR for the following reasons:

  1. Targets wrong branch: PR targets main (v3.x stable) but all new development goes on the v4 branch per ADR-009
  2. Incompatible with v4 architecture: The code modifies self::$BIN directly on Rclone, but v4 delegates to ProcessManager::setBin() — the cache invalidation logic doesn't apply
  3. Test doesn't verify caching: No assertion that the command runs only once (the core promise of the feature)
  4. Suboptimal implementation: Caches string and numeric results separately instead of caching the command output once
  5. Marginal value: version() is rarely called in hot paths

The idea itself isn't bad, but it would need to be rewritten from scratch for v4's architecture. If needed in the future, it can be reimplemented properly on the v4 branch.

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I apologize for targeting the wrong branch and missing the architectural context of v4. I will close this attempt and switch to the v4 branch to implement the improvement correctly, addressing the caching logic and test verification as suggested.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant