⚡ Bolt: iter_json_objects JSON 파싱 성능 병목 해결 (O(N^2) 제거) - #53
Conversation
- `json.JSONDecoder().raw_decode` 호출 시 반환되는 새로운 `end` 인덱스를 캡처하고 반영하도록 수정.
- 이전에는 새로운 인덱스를 무시(`_`)하여 거대한 JSON 객체 내에서 중첩된 `{` 기호마다 중복 스캔과 파싱이 발생, O(N^2)의 심각한 성능 저하 초래.
- 테스트 결과, 큰 JSON 입력에 대해 0.73초 이상 걸리던 파싱이 0.02초대로 개선됨 (약 35배 속도 향상).
- 코드 가독성과 안정성을 유지하면서 100% 테스트 커버리지 유지.
|
👋 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. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR optimizes JSON object extraction in the CI normalization script by correctly advancing the scan index after json.JSONDecoder().raw_decode(...), removing an O(N²) parsing hotspot when processing large/deeply nested JSON outputs.
Changes:
- Capture and use the
endindex returned bydecoder.raw_decode(text, index)to jump past fully-parsed JSON objects. - Add documentation/notes describing the performance pitfall and the index-advancement fix.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py | Advances index to raw_decode’s returned end position to avoid redundant nested-parsing attempts (O(N²) → O(N)). |
| .jules/bolt.md | Records the learning/action about raw_decode end-index advancement for performance. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues. FindingsNo blocking findings. SummaryInspected changed files and verified structural integrity. No actionable issues found. Verification posture: Linter/static: Passed, TDD/regression: Not applicable, Coverage: Not applicable, Docstring coverage: Not applicable, DAG: Not applicable, PoC/execution: Not applicable, DDD/domain: Not applicable, CDD/context: Not applicable, Similar issues: Not applicable, Claim/concept check: Not applicable, Standards search: Not applicable, Compatibility/convention: Not applicable, Breaking-change/backcompat: Not applicable, Performance: Not applicable, Developer experience: Improved, User experience: Not applicable, Security/privacy: Not applicable. Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/bolt.md, scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py.
Change Flow DAGflowchart 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["CI script: opencode_review_normalize_output.py"]
S2 --> I2["review and security gate shell path"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: CI script: opencode_review_normalize_output.py"]
R2 --> V2["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
|
![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 reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.
Findings
No blocking findings.
Summary
Inspected changed files and verified structural integrity. No actionable issues found. Verification posture: Linter/static: Passed, TDD/regression: Not applicable, Coverage: Not applicable, Docstring coverage: Not applicable, DAG: Not applicable, PoC/execution: Not applicable, DDD/domain: Not applicable, CDD/context: Not applicable, Similar issues: Not applicable, Claim/concept check: Not applicable, Standards search: Not applicable, Compatibility/convention: Not applicable, Breaking-change/backcompat: Not applicable, Performance: Not applicable, Developer experience: Improved, User experience: Not applicable, Security/privacy: Not applicable.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .jules/bolt.md, scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py.
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 proves 100% test coverage.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence proves 100% docstring coverage.
DAG: Change Flow DAG maps .jules/bolt.md through bounded evidence, review risk, 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, and current-head workflow evidence 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 and compatibility 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, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: changed files did not identify a user-facing UI surface; bounded evidence was reviewed for UX impact.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.
- Result: APPROVE
- Reason: No blockers found
- Head SHA:
e2158e5e35d0f51b4d41fe69465864aa9958b33c - Workflow run: 28126613384
- Workflow attempt: 1
💡 What:
scripts/ci/opencode_review_normalize_output.py의iter_json_objects함수가json.JSONDecoder().raw_decode(text, index)를 호출할 때 반환되는 끝 인덱스(end index)를 무시하여 발생하던 심각한 성능 문제를 최적화했습니다. 이제 반환된 인덱스를 캡쳐하고 그 위치로index를 점프시킨 뒤 파싱을 계속합니다.🎯 Why: 기존 코드에서는
value, _ = decoder.raw_decode(...)와 같이 새로 파싱을 완료한 위치를 무시하여, 큰 JSON 객체 내부의 수많은 중첩된{기호마다 반복적으로 JSON 파싱을 시도하는 O(N^2) 동작이 발생했습니다.📊 Impact: 테스트 스크립트 측정 결과, 크고 복잡한 JSON 데이터를 포함한 출력 로그를 처리할 때 파싱 시간이 약 0.73초에서 0.02초로 35배 이상 획기적으로 개선되었습니다.
🔬 Measurement: Python의
time모듈로 스크립트를 작성하여 테스트를 수행했으며,python3 -m coverage run -m pytest tests/를 통해 모든 유닛 테스트가 통과하고 테스트 커버리지가 100% 유지됨을 확인했습니다.PR created automatically by Jules for task 9877770323694698055 started by @seonghobae