Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

feat(review): incremental re-review — review only new commits on synchronize, with a dedicated finding-resolution check [v0.9]

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#667 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
12/100
Tipo di issue
Funzionalità
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Tranquilla
Stack tecnologico
github, github-actions, java
Ambito
backend, devtools

Direzione di ricerca

Start with review/ReviewContextLoader.java (the stale-head guard near lines 498-515) and review/FollowUpAnalyzer.java, then review/ai/FindingVerificationService as the model for the new resolution check. The work spans the dashboard/ReviewSession migration, the webhook synchronize routing and prompt changes, so it needs design agreement first. Done means an incremental compare path with full-diff fallbacks, behind a REVIEW_INCREMENTAL_ENABLED gate, matching existing follow-up tests.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

enhancement java
Problem Statement

Every synchronize event re-reviews the full PR diff, no matter how small the push. Prompt size therefore grows with PR size, not push size, and the same already-reviewed hunks are re-sent (and re-billed) every round. Previous findings are condensed to fit (DiffBudgetPlanner.boundPreviousFindings, capped at 25% of the per-call budget — added after this repo's own release PR hit ~437K tokens in that block), but the diff itself has no such incremental treatment.

Proposed Solution

Bound follow-up rounds by push size:

  • Persist the last-reviewed head SHA on ReviewSession. On synchronize, fetch GET /compare/{lastReviewedHead}...{newHead} instead of the full /pulls/{n}/files. Fall back to a full review whenever the compare fails or is misleading (force-push/rebase, base branch changed, no completed prior round) — the existing stale-head guard (ReviewContextLoader.java:498-515) already detects head movement mid-review.
  • Dedicated resolution-check call, modeled on FindingVerificationService (blocking concise call, JSON verdicts keyed by id, fail-open, ledger-gated, salvage-on-truncation): input = condensed open findings (the entryLinesOnly shape from DiffBudgetPlanner.java:441: id, risk, file:line, title, plus suggestion_old) + only the new hunks touching those findings' files; output = resolved / unresolved / superseded per id. This takes over the previous_findings_status duty from the main review call, so the reviewer prompt no longer needs the reconciliation rule block (PrReviewPrompts.java:550-586) or the full previous-findings context — a second large prompt section shrinks.
  • The review call runs over the incremental diff only → prompt size is bounded by the push, giving the predictable prompt sizes this roadmap is after. FollowUpAnalyzer thread matching, supersede logic, and the batch-scoping rules for statuses (FindingPipeline.scopeStatusesToBatch) are reused: the resolution-check call may only resolve findings whose touching hunks it actually saw.
  • Escape hatches: manual /review keeps forcing a full-diff pass; a periodic full pass (e.g. every Nth round, or when ready_for_review fires) catches cross-commit interactions that incremental rounds can miss. Document the tradeoff.
Why a dedicated call beats the current reconciliation

Today reconciliation quality depends on the full re-review happening to look at the right places, and statuses must be carefully scoped per batch. A dedicated call sees exactly the pairs that matter (finding ↔ new hunks in its file) and nothing else — cheaper, more reliable, and it removes the largest conditional sections from the reviewer prompt.

Touchpoints

dashboard/ReviewSession (+ head SHA column/migration), review/ReviewContextLoader.java (compare-based incremental load + fallbacks), new review/ai/ResolutionChecker service + prompts (+ content test), review/FollowUpAnalyzer.java, review/FindingPipeline.java, review/DiffBudgetPlanner.java (call reservation), webhook/WebhookController.java (synchronize routing).

Acceptance criteria
  • Push of K lines to an N-thousand-line PR produces prompts sized by K, not N (token metrics).
  • Force-push/rebase and missing-history cases demonstrably fall back to full review.
  • Resolution statuses match current behavior on the existing FollowUpAnalyzer test scenarios; a finding is never marked resolved by a call that didn't see its file's new hunks.
  • Feature gate (REVIEW_INCREMENTAL_ENABLED), default off for one release.
Alternatives Considered
  • Keep full-diff rounds and rely on tighter condensation — bounds the findings block but never the diff; cost still scales with PR size.
Lingua principale
Java
Stelle
35
Fork
7
Merge medio
9h 23m
PR unite (30g)
154

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di devops-thiago/ThrillhouseBot

Tutte le issue di devops-thiago/ThrillhouseBot

Issue simili

Altre issue su Java

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.