⚡ Bolt: 가상화된 목록 내 중복된 날짜 파싱 최적화 - #252
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. |
…g-1487762667035523101
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 23 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: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Comment |
…g-1487762667035523101
![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 headceb8e2caedf15e5c2eb0aba4b3ea13883ff774a2. -
Head SHA:
ceb8e2caedf15e5c2eb0aba4b3ea13883ff774a2 -
Workflow run: 30822501524
-
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: event-list.tsx"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: event-list.tsx"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
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: event-list.tsx"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: event-list.tsx"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
|
|
Superseded by #267, which includes the same |
Understood. Acknowledging that this PR has been closed as it is superseded by #267. Stopping work on this task. |
1 participant
💡 What:
EventList컴포넌트 내 가상화된Row목록 렌더링 시 매번 발생하는 불필요한new Date(sessionStartedAt)할당을 제거하고, 부모 컴포넌트에서useMemo로 단 1회 파싱하여 밀리초 숫자를 하위 컴포넌트로 전달하도록 개선했습니다.🎯 Why: 가상화된 리스트 스크롤 시 화면에 보이는 Row 수(overscan 포함)에 비례하여 초당 수십~수백 번의 무거운 날짜 파싱 연산과 객체 할당이 반복 발생하며, 이는 메모리 스래싱 및 가비지 컬렉션 부하를 일으켜 렌더링 지연을 초래합니다.
📊 Impact: 가상화 스크롤 시 Row 렌더링 비용을 감소시키고 불필요한 GC 오버헤드를 유의미하게 제거합니다 (복잡도를 O(스크롤 프레임 당 렌더링 Row 수)에서 O(1) 할당으로 개선).
🔬 Measurement: 세션 타임라인 이벤트 리스트 페이지 렌더링 및 스크롤을 시도하여 자연스러운 렌더링을 확인하고, 리액트 프로파일러로 Row의 Render Duration 감소를 확인합니다.
PR created automatically by Jules for task 1487762667035523101 started by @seonghobae