⚡ Bolt: 성능 개선 - 반복 호출 내 정적 변수 할당 병목 제거

[seonghobae]

💡 What:
html4tree/main.kt의 process_dir 함수 내부에서 매번 생성되던 정적 cssContent, css 문자열 및 무거운 SHA-256 해시(styleHash)를 파일의 최상위(top-level) 속성으로 추출했습니다.

🎯 Why:
디렉토리 트리를 순회하면서 process_dir 함수가 재귀적으로 호출될 때마다, 동일한 문자열이 불필요하게 다시 할당되고 비용이 큰 암호화 해시 연산이 중복해서 수행되는 병목 현상을 해결하기 위함입니다.

📊 Impact:

• 메모리 할당(GC 압력) 감소
• 디렉토리 1개당 발생하던 SHA-256 해시 연산 시간을 전역 단 1회로 줄여 전체 디렉토리 탐색 성능이 향상되었습니다.

🔬 Measurement:

• JUnit CoverageTest.kt에 최상위 속성들에 대한 테스트를 추가하여 100% 명령어 커버리지를 복구 및 유지함을 검증했습니다 (./gradlew test jacocoTestReport --continue 실행으로 확인 완료).

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 4224616675737924008 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 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]

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head f6b9b466ab685556cb791c7bc4434a0fc1a8c186.

• Head SHA: f6b9b466ab685556cb791c7bc4434a0fc1a8c186

• Workflow run: 30424203474

• 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 (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: f6b9b466ab685556cb791c7bc4434a0fc1a8c186
• Workflow run: 30424203474
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

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 success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before 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 head f6b9b466ab685556cb791c7bc4434a0fc1a8c186.

• Head SHA: f6b9b466ab685556cb791c7bc4434a0fc1a8c186

• Workflow run: 30424203474

• 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 (3 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (3 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by canonical #363. The same top-level CSS and hash extraction is implemented there together with exact CSP emitted-byte correctness, an independent generated-file digest oracle, APA 7 doctoring, changelog, and fresh current-head CI/JaCoCo/security evidence. Getter-only coverage scaffolding from this stale head is not retained. No evidence is reused.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as superseded by canonical #363. The same top-level CSS and hash extraction is implemented there together with exact CSP emitted-byte correctness, an independent generated-file digest oracle, APA 7 doctoring, changelog, and fresh current-head CI/JaCoCo/security evidence. Getter-only coverage scaffolding from this stale head is not retained. No evidence is reused.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is superseded by #363 and stopping work on this task.