Skip to content

Benchmark: sentry PR 80528 - #10

Open
celmis-codereviewer wants to merge 1 commit into
cr-base-80528from
cr-pr-80528
Open

Benchmark: sentry PR 80528#10
celmis-codereviewer wants to merge 1 commit into
cr-base-80528from
cr-pr-80528

Conversation

@celmis-codereviewer

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmark reproduction of getsentry#80528

Since we'll be doing more with issue occurrences split out the concept
of incidents into it's own logic module, as well as incident_occurrence
into it's own module
celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

celmis-codereviewer

This comment was marked as outdated.

@celmis-codereviewer celmis-codereviewer left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💬 COMMENT — findings to consider

Full findings and scope are in the review summary comment on this pull request — one persistent comment, updated in place on every run.

return {
"id": str(monitor_environment.monitor.guid),
"slug": str(monitor_environment.monitor.slug),
"name": monitor_environment.monitor.name,

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why: config is copied from monitor_environment.monitor.config on line 159 and updated on line 161, but line 167 passes monitor_environment.monitor.config instead of config into the returned dictionary.

🟠 Unused config dictionary copy returns original property in context payload

In get_monitor_environment_context, a shallow copy of monitor_environment.monitor.config is created as config and updated with human-readable schedule_type display text. However, line 167 returns the original monitor_environment.monitor.config dictionary instead of config, so the schedule_type display update is discarded when building the monitor context.

Suggested change
"name": monitor_environment.monitor.name,
"config": config,

agent: defect · rule: defect.copy-paste · confidence: 0.95

@celmis-codereviewer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

🤖 Code Review for PR #10

💬 COMMENT — findings to consider

Findings

  • 🟠 Error: 1

Scope

  • Files changed: 4
  • Lines: +289 / -264

Performance

  • Analysis time: 352.9s · agents: cve, structural, contract, security, defect · tokens: 33,764/12,616

Powered by Code Analyzer · context: tree-sitter graph + cve, structural, contract, security, defect

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.

2 participants