⚡ Bolt: [performance improvement] content-visibility 최적화 - #76
Conversation
오프스크린 요소들의 렌더링 최적화를 위해 `.section`에 `content-visibility: auto`를 적용하였으며, 초기 렌더링 시 스크롤바가 튀는 현상(layout shift)을 방지하기 위해 각 섹션별 예상 높이를 `contain-intrinsic-size`로 명시했습니다.
|
👋 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. |
오프스크린 요소들의 렌더링 최적화를 위해 `.section`에 `content-visibility: auto`를 적용하였으며, 초기 렌더링 시 스크롤바가 튀는 현상(layout shift)을 방지하기 위해 각 섹션별 예상 높이를 `contain-intrinsic-size`로 명시했습니다.
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?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 head2cff895a5c05c7dea2f44dcf1ba88e5d2c2e5a39. -
Head SHA:
2cff895a5c05c7dea2f44dcf1ba88e5d2c2e5a39 -
Workflow run: 29200978717
-
Workflow attempt: 1
Coverage evidence
Coverage Evidence
- Head SHA:
2cff895a5c05c7dea2f44dcf1ba88e5d2c2e5a39 - Required test evidence: supported repository test suites must pass.
- Required docstring evidence: repository-owned docstring gates must pass when configured; otherwise docstring coverage is advisory.
Implementation completeness scan
$ python3 /home/runner/work/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/scripts/ci/implementation_completeness_scan.py --repo-root . --changed-files /tmp/tmp.ImzCTPuDkh
# Implementation Completeness Scan
- Checked runtime source files: 2
- Declaration handling: typing.Protocol, abc.ABC, @abstractmethod, and @overload placeholders are treated as contracts, not executable missing implementations.
- Result: PASS
- Reason: no executable placeholder implementations were found in changed runtime source files.
- Result: PASS
Python coverage with missing-line report
$ bash -c PYTHONPATH=.\ uv\ run\ --with\ coverage\ --with\ pytest\ coverage\ run\ -m\ pytest\ \&\&\ uv\ run\ --with\ coverage\ coverage\ report\ --show-missing
Using CPython 3.12.3 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment at: /home/runner/work/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/.venv
Downloading pygments (1.2MiB)
Downloaded pygments
Installed 13 packages in 12ms
============================= test session starts ==============================
platform linux -- Python 3.12.3, pytest-9.1.1, pluggy-1.6.0
rootdir: /home/runner/work/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io
configfile: pyproject.toml
plugins: cov-7.1.0
collected 0 items / 1 error
==================================== ERRORS ====================================
_____________ ERROR collecting pr-head/test_content_visibility.py ______________
ImportError while importing test module '/home/runner/work/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io/pr-head/test_content_visibility.py'.
Hint: make sure your test modules/packages have valid Python names.
Traceback:
/usr/lib/python3.12/importlib/__init__.py:90: in import_module
return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
test_content_visibility.py:2: in <module>
from playwright.async_api import async_playwright
E ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'playwright'
=========================== short test summary info ============================
ERROR test_content_visibility.py
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interrupted: 1 error during collection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=============================== 1 error in 0.23s ===============================
- Result: FAIL (exit 2)
Python docstring coverage advisory
$ bash -c python3\ -m\ interrogate\ .\ \|\|\ true
RESULT: FAILED (minimum: 80.0%, actual: 0.0%)
- Result: PASS
Coverage Decision
- Result: FAIL
- Test evidence: not proven passing
- Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
- Failure count: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Test: test_content_visibility.py"]
S2 --> I2["regression suite"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Test: test_content_visibility.py"]
R2 --> V2["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode reviewed the current-head mergeability evidence and changed-file flow before approval, then found merge conflicts on the affected path. Findings1. HIGH Merge Conflict Guidance - Resolve the PR branch against the latest base branch
gh pr checkout 76 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files>
# merge path: git commit
# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217
Merge Conflict Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["required checks"]
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["required checks"]
Merge Conflict Guidance
gh pr checkout 76 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files>
# merge path: git commit
# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217 |
오프스크린 요소들의 렌더링 최적화를 위해 `.section`에 `content-visibility: auto`를 적용하였으며, 초기 렌더링 시 스크롤바가 튀는 현상(layout shift)을 방지하기 위해 각 섹션별 예상 높이를 `contain-intrinsic-size`로 명시했습니다.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode reviewed the current-head mergeability evidence and changed-file flow before approval, then found merge conflicts on the affected path.
Findings
1. HIGH Merge Conflict Guidance - Resolve the PR branch against the latest base branch
- Problem: GitHub reports mergeStateStatus
DIRTYfor this pull request. - Root cause: Branch
bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217cannot be merged cleanly intomain; the changed-file flow below shows which review/runtime path is blocked by the conflict. - Fix: Merge or rebase the latest
mainintobolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217, resolve conflict markers in the PR branch, rerun the focused checks, and push the same branch. - Repair commands:
gh pr checkout 76 --repo ContextualWisdomLab/ContextualWisdomLab.github.io
git fetch origin main
git merge --no-ff origin/main # or: git rebase origin/main
git status --short
# resolve files, then git add <resolved-files>
# merge path: git commit
# rebase path: git rebase --continue
git push origin HEAD:bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217
# rebase path only: git push --force-with-lease origin HEAD:bolt-content-visibility-16875104628533786217- Regression test: Keep OpenCode approval gated on mergeability so model-output failures cannot approve a conflicted PR.
Merge Conflict Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["required checks"]
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: mergeStateStatus is
DIRTY; mergeable isCONFLICTING. - Head SHA:
03f5d0f350752486aabc4ee9a1a2ad8690be22bd - Workflow run: 29201278312
- Workflow attempt: 1
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file (3 files)"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> Conflict["Merge conflict blocks this path"]
Conflict --> V1["required checks"]
|
Closing as superseded by merged PR #75 on current Current main already preserves the unique behavior from this branch:
This branch is conflicting and its added Playwright test is not wired to the repository dependency contract, which caused the logged |
해당 작업이 이미 반영되어 본 PR이 무의미해진 것을 확인했습니다. 현재 작업을 중단하고 저장소를 초기화하겠습니다. |
1 participant
💡 What
긴 페이지 렌더링을 최적화하기 위해, 화면 밖에 있는
.section컨테이너들에content-visibility: auto속성을 적용했습니다. 또한 레이아웃 시프트를 방지하기 위해contain-intrinsic-size를 통해 각 섹션별 고유 높이 예상값을 할당했습니다. 구형 브라우저를 위한 길이 기반 폴백 속성도 함께 제공합니다.🎯 Why
정적 페이지에 매우 긴 콘텐츠(히어로, 소개, 문제의식 등 10개 이상의 섹션)가 포함되어 있어, 화면 밖 콘텐츠까지 모두 레이아웃 및 페인팅을 처리하면 초기 메인 스레드를 블로킹할 수 있습니다. 화면 밖에 있는 콘텐츠의 렌더링을 지연시키면 Time to Interactive(TTI)와 First Contentful Paint(FCP) 성능을 비약적으로 개선할 수 있습니다.
📊 Impact
content-visibility사용 시 필연적으로 발생하는 레이아웃 튐 현상을 측정된contain-intrinsic-size값을 통해 해결🔬 Measurement
content-visibility: auto및contain-intrinsic-size가 할당되었는지 확인했습니다.PR created automatically by Jules for task 16875104628533786217 started by @seonghobae