mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-08 01:57:31 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
2cbfc35a07
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External review waits check current GitHub review and publication bindings. > - The GitHub service rebuilds the same seven-table Drizzle query on each check. > - A sampled production window attributed 6.3% of SQL serialization CPU to this query shape. > - This pull request prepares that query once per exact database or transaction object. > - Each call still reads current provenance, review, connection and publication state. > - The local service benchmark reduces median client CPU per read by 24.35%. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Repeated `readInheritedGitHubReviewWait` calls from external review wait reads and attention retention. **Subsystem affected** Server GitHub chat review waits. **Current behavior** Every call constructs and serializes the same joined SELECT. The database driver already supports prepared statements. That setting does not reuse the JavaScript query template. **Proposed behavior** Compile the existing selector once for each supplied database, transaction or savepoint object. Bind company, issue, agent and comment IDs on each execution. Keep every current database read and check. **Reason and benefit** Remove repeated query construction and serialization CPU. Do not cache rows or authorization decisions. Exact open-PR searches found no duplicate query-template change. ## What Changed - Add an exact-handle `WeakMap` for the GitHub review selector and execute it with fresh placeholders. - Preserve the SQL projection, joins, JSON types, latest-review order and all current authority checks. - Extend real PostgreSQL tests for new bindings, warm-cache revocation, latest heads and transaction/savepoint rollback. - Capture prepared executions in the existing test helper. - Add an actual-service benchmark and a report with every timing sample and setup failure. ## Verification - `github-review-wait.test.ts`: 16 tests passed on real PostgreSQL. - `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts -t 'reads small current external review waits without saved prompts'`: four affected cases passed; 269 unrelated cases skipped. - Pinned baseline: `e54f9fbf828e06e385e0c62dc381ccb46190aa30`. Final source SHA256: `fe647e7fe2aed82609e8f1d66a0109e7a10ee28313ae2ef218ba3ab39b5cd105`. - Exclusive-window benchmark: 500 warmups per version, nine alternating pairs of 100 complete service reads on disposable PostgreSQL. Median client CPU: 1.00336 → 0.75908 ms/read (24.35% less). Median wall time: 2.87089 → 2.38731 ms/read (16.84% less). CPU excludes the PostgreSQL process. - Every generated SQL statement, parameter, query count and complete result matched. Warm joined-selector compilations per ten service reads: 10 → 0. - See `doc/performance/2026-11-04-prepared-github-review-wait.md` for reproduction, all samples and measurement limits. - Setup record: loopback required execution outside the sandbox. The fresh embedded-Postgres dependency lacked macOS dylib aliases; aliases to existing identical bytes restored the fixture. The SDK import needed a current workspace SDK/shared build. A broad external-chat suite run was interrupted and replaced by the affected test filter. Those attempts are not counted as passing suites. - Greptile: 5/5 on current head `d2e6ae8814c3a56c380bd5d60c47e6f98642f085`, with no actionable issues or inline comments. - Current-head CI is green at `d2e6ae8814c3a56c380bd5d60c47e6f98642f085`: 52 successful checks, three intentional skips and the successful Snyk status. This includes typecheck, build, the full test matrix, end-to-end shards and the aggregate gate. - Combined local validation at `4ab58ff70b` includes both measured production templates and final test fixes. Full recursive `pnpm -r typecheck` passed in 39.864 seconds. Three real PostgreSQL files passed 35/35 tests (five chat cases, 16 GitHub review cases and 14 shared prepared-query cases). The combined build passed earlier with the same production template bytes. - The initial combined typecheck failed on a separate chat test typing error and build setup. The later passing run resolves that attempt. The original full local `pnpm test:run` was deliberately interrupted after six chat shards passed and partial general tests ran; it is not a passing full local suite. Each PR has independent current-head CI for broad coverage. The initial loopback sandbox restriction was resolved by an escalated run of the same source. - Local benchmark/test dependencies were locked at the baseline; the rebase adds the upstream lockfile refresh and UI paste fix only. ## Risks - A prepared query captures its session. The exact supplied handle is the cache key so transactions and savepoints do not borrow the root session. - Placeholder mistakes could cross bindings. Tests alternate independent company/issue/agent/comment fixtures on the same handle. - The benchmark has one synthetic eligible fixture with warm sequential reads. It does not predict production endpoint latency or whole-server CPU savings. - No schema, index, database driver setting or public API changes. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex. The context-window size is not exposed by the session. Used reasoning, tool calls, source editing and code execution. Independent Codex review found no correctness issues. ## 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>