1 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	7a0c9c23cf	perf(github): reduce inherited review-wait transfer (#17893) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review tasks can retain a passive wait after a review is published. > - The wait check reads current requester, task, agent, repository, and publication bindings. > - It also transfers the complete assessment for one commit comparison. > - Large review summaries and findings add repeated database transfer. > - This pull request selects only the typed reviewed commit value. > - The wait keeps its existing checks and transfers less data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The inherited GitHub review-wait check in the server. **Current behavior** The joined query selects the complete assessment JSON. The caller uses only `assessment.reviewedCommit`. **Proposed behavior** Select `assessment->'reviewedCommit'`. Keep its JSON type and the strict comparison with the head SHA. Keep all joins, filters, ordering, and publication checks. **Reason and benefit** The synthetic PostgreSQL 17 fixture reduces one result DataRow from 6,874 bytes to 423 bytes (93.85%). This measurement excludes response metadata, TLS, and TCP. It does not predict a monthly bill or deployed savings. **Breaking changes** None. No public API, stored data, schema, or execution policy changes. **Additional context** Related work: #17562 narrowed a different external-review candidate query. This PR changes the inherited published-review lookup. The duplicate search found no matching open change. ## What Changed - Select the commit as JSON, rather than text, to preserve strict comparison for legacy numeric, object, array, missing, and null values. - Add real PostgreSQL regressions for narrow responses, unchanged stored assessments, revocation, tenant and agent bindings, and a newer queued head. - Add a synthetic benchmark that captures the real baseline and treatment SQL, compares outputs, and measures raw DataRow bytes. - Document the read contract and benchmark command. ## Verification - Baseline: `663fe667d66d3863d0919a8724f1d99500feef0b`. - `vitest run server/src/__tests__/github-review-wait.test.ts`: 14 tests passed on disposable PostgreSQL 17.11. - Restoring the baseline query makes the response-size regression fail: 8,823 column-value bytes exceed the 1,000-byte bound. Restoring treatment passes. - Benchmark: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-github-review-wait.ts --baseline-ref=663fe667d66d3863d0919a8724f1d99500feef0b`. - The benchmark compares every unchanged SQL column and full service output. It also compares 15 JSON cases and live connection revocation. - Two warmups and seven alternating samples had overlapping latency ranges. No latency improvement is claimed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - Twenty existing published-review consumer regressions passed on PostgreSQL 17.11. These cover continued review, a newer head, publication state, and a connection-disable race at final commit. - Final-head focused tests passed again after the benchmark-only review fix. - Final benchmark treatment: `d94410a6e6bb83e727afdf09cff450a91a89edd6`, with an empty source diff. DataRow bytes remained 6,874 to 423. Warm medians were 3.11 ms before and 3.43 ms after, with overlapping ranges. This proves byte reduction, not a latency improvement. - A provenance check with one staged and one unstaged source edit confirmed that the benchmark records both from the documented server working directory. Those temporary edits were removed. - All final-head CI checks passed for `d94410a6e6bb83e727afdf09cff450a91a89edd6`. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads or recommendations. The independent Paperclip review also scored this commit 5/5. - The first local embedded PostgreSQL attempt failed before assertions because the host exhausted System V semaphores. A direct `initdb` reproduced `could not create semaphores: No space left on device`. The passing focused proof used an owned disposable Docker PostgreSQL 17 container. `pnpm test:run` was not completed locally because of that host limit. The full final-head CI suite passed. - The final CI aggregate briefly reported `in_progress` after all of its steps and the workflow had completed successfully. One rerun of only that aggregate produced a terminal success. The test matrix was not rerun. - The initial frozen install hit the existing upstream patch/lock configuration mismatch. A cached non-frozen local install succeeded. The generated lock change is excluded from this PR. ## Risks The selected commit must retain its JSON type. Using `->>` could turn numeric `1` into text and accept a malformed assessment against head `1`. The regression covers this case. The complete assessment remains available for actual review and publication. Existing fresh authority checks remain in place. No migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, accessed through Codex. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. Used repository inspection, code execution, and PostgreSQL validation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-27 12:05:01 -05:00