⚡ Bolt: O(N) 렌더링 성능 향상을 위한 DOM 템플릿 캐싱 - #369
Conversation
Cached unattached template nodes and instantiated them via `.cloneNode(false)` in table cell generation functions (`createTextCellContent`, `createOwnerCellContent`, `createStatusCellContent`, `createActualProgressCellContent`). This reduces DOM instantiation and JS-to-C++ bridge overhead in the hot O(N) render loop.
|
👋 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. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 55 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. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Cached unattached template nodes and instantiated them via `.cloneNode(false)` in table cell generation functions (`createTextCellContent`, `createOwnerCellContent`, `createStatusCellContent`, `createActualProgressCellContent`). This reduces DOM instantiation and JS-to-C++ bridge overhead in the hot O(N) render loop.
![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 head0b8fd97f75e2e9e1d04da27a7e50140f68e16ebb. -
Head SHA:
0b8fd97f75e2e9e1d04da27a7e50140f68e16ebb -
Workflow run: 30405368643
-
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: app.js"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: app.js"]
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: app.js"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: app.js"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
|
Understood. Acknowledging that this work is now obsolete and stopping work on this task. |
1 participant
💡 무엇을
O(N) 렌더링 루프에서 호출되는
createTextCellContent,createOwnerCellContent,createStatusCellContent,createActualProgressCellContent함수들에서 DOM 요소를 반복적으로 생성(document.createElement)하는 대신, 초기화된 템플릿 노드를 캐싱하고.cloneNode(false)를 사용하도록 최적화했습니다.🎯 왜
Vanilla JS/HTML 환경에서 반복적인 요소 렌더링은 주요 병목 지점 중 하나입니다. 수천 개의 셀을 동적으로 생성할 때마다 JavaScript 엔진과 브라우저의 C++ DOM 엔진 사이를 오가는 것은 상당한 비용(GC 및 할당)을 초래합니다. 캐싱된 템플릿 노드를 복제하면 이 비용을 현저히 줄일 수 있습니다.
📊 영향
대량의 WBS 작업을 렌더링하거나 필터링, 정렬 등 UI를 재구성할 때 발생하는 병목을 제거하여, 테이블 렌더링 성능이 크게 향상되고 메인 스레드 멈춤 현상(Jank)이 줄어듭니다.
🔬 측정
이 변경 사항은 의도된 최적화만 수행하며, 화면에 렌더링되는 시각적 결과물과 기능에는 전혀 변화가 없음을 Playwright 스크립트를 통한 Frontend Verification과 E2E 테스트로 검증했습니다.
PR created automatically by Jules for task 431750420509886502 started by @seonghobae