🧪 [테스트 개선] _load_cached_analysis 오류 처리 테스트 추가

[seonghobae]

🎯 What: _load_cached_analysis 함수의 오류 처리(OSError 및 json.JSONDecodeError)에 대한 테스트 코드가 없었던 부분을 보완했습니다.
📊 Coverage: 이제 잘못된 형식의 캐시 파일(malformed JSON)을 읽으려 할 때와 존재하지 않는 파일을 읽으려 할 때 발생하는 예외가 올바르게 처리(None 반환)되는지 검증합니다.
✨ Result: 테스트 커버리지가 향상되었으며, 캐시 읽기 실패 시 분석이 중단되지 않고 캐시 미스로 처리되는 동작을 확실하게 검증합니다.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 5045940468306221828 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 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.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 1 minute

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 @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 26d9a66d-efb9-4420-a489-be4e6bea49cd

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between acdbea6 and 4d5cb0d.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• apps/desktop/package.json
• services/analysis-engine/tests/test_api.py

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 4d5cb0d3df8b34a35f094e7abb02ffed3a73c85b.

• Head SHA: 4d5cb0d3df8b34a35f094e7abb02ffed3a73c85b

• Workflow run: 31330601149

• 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["Test: test_api.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_api.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 4d5cb0d3df8b34a35f094e7abb02ffed3a73c85b
• Workflow run: 31330601149
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head 4d5cb0d3df8b34a35f094e7abb02ffed3a73c85b.

• Head SHA: 4d5cb0d3df8b34a35f094e7abb02ffed3a73c85b

• Workflow run: 31330601149

• 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["Test: test_api.py"]
  S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_api.py"]
  R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]

Loading