Skip to content

⚡ Bolt: 노드 검색 필터링 성능 최적화#428

Open
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
bolt-optimize-search-12005743876759900241
Open

⚡ Bolt: 노드 검색 필터링 성능 최적화#428
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
bolt-optimize-search-12005743876759900241

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

💡 What: frontend/src/App.tsx 파일 내 searchMatchedNodeIds의 React Flow 노드 검색 로직을 최적화했습니다. 이 과정에서 메모리 할당을 유발하는 배열 스프레드, flatMap(), 문자열 결합을 제거하고 단순 제어문으로 교체했습니다.
🎯 Why: 대용량 ERD 그래프에서 검색 필터를 사용할 때 매 렌더링마다 모든 노드와 컬럼 데이터를 단일 문자열로 결합하는 방식이 메모리 가비지 컬렉션 부하를 크게 일으켰기 때문입니다.
📊 Impact: 불필요한 객체 할당과 GC 호출이 크게 감소하며, 부분 일치 시 나머지 필드에 대한 문자열 연산을 건너뛰어 렌더링 및 검색 반응성이 향상됩니다.
🔬 Measurement: 개발 서버 실행 후 복잡도가 높은 데이터베이스를 시뮬레이션하거나 다수의 테이블이 존재하는 ERD에서 검색 입력 시 메인 스레드 멈춤이나 프레임 저하가 개선되었는지 확인할 수 있습니다.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 12005743876759900241 started by @seonghobae

- 검색 필터링 중 배열 생성, `flatMap()`, 문자열 결합(`join()`)에 의한 메모리 할당 및 GC 부하를 줄이기 위해 `App.tsx`의 `searchMatchedNodeIds` 내부 로직 최적화
- `useMemo` 블록 내에서 `for` 루프와 조기 반환(`break`)을 사용하여 검색 성능 개선
- 최적화 관련 학습 내용을 `.jules/bolt.md` 저널에 기록
@google-labs-jules

Copy link
Copy Markdown

👋 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.

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jul 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: 762a41366e86caf380d8ec948bfa06a4e040ac72
  • Workflow run: 28683781552
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/bolt.md, frontend/src/App.tsx.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports test coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports docstring coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/bolt.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Optimized search logic with no material issues found
  • Head SHA: 762a41366e86caf380d8ec948bfa06a4e040ac72
  • Workflow run: 28683781552
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file: bolt.md"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: bolt.md"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Frontend: App.tsx"]
  S2 --> I2["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Frontend: App.tsx"]
  R2 --> V2["frontend tests"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/bolt.md, frontend/src/App.tsx.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports test coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports docstring coverage as not applicable because no supported changed source files or package manifests were found.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .jules/bolt.md to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Optimized search logic with no material issues found
  • Head SHA: 762a41366e86caf380d8ec948bfa06a4e040ac72
  • Workflow run: 28683781552
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file: bolt.md"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: bolt.md"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Frontend: App.tsx"]
  S2 --> I2["browser runtime and bundle"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Frontend: App.tsx"]
  R2 --> V2["frontend tests"]
Loading

@github-actions github-actions Bot enabled auto-merge (squash) July 3, 2026 22:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant