Skip to content

fix(plugins): suppress metadata cache hit scan spans#86796

Open
galiniliev wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
galiniliev:bug-043-plugin-metadata-cache-hit-spans
Open

fix(plugins): suppress metadata cache hit scan spans#86796
galiniliev wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
galiniliev:bug-043-plugin-metadata-cache-hit-spans

Conversation

@galiniliev

@galiniliev galiniliev commented May 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

What problem does this PR solve?

  • Plugin metadata cache hits still emit plugins.metadata.scan diagnostics spans, flooding the timeline on hot paths even when the cached snapshot is reused.

Why does this matter now?

  • Redacted profiler evidence showed this path on gateway hot workloads.

What is the intended outcome?

  • Reduce repeated hot-path work while preserving current behavior contracts.

What is intentionally out of scope?

  • Broader profiler reruns and unrelated perf stacks are out of scope for this PR.

What does success look like?

  • Focused regression tests pass and the changed path avoids the repeated work described in the linked issue.

What should reviewers focus on?

  • Whether the cache/lazy path preserves existing contracts and invalidation boundaries.

Linked context

Which issue does this close?

Closes #86790

Which issues, PRs, or discussions are related?

Related #

Was this requested by a maintainer or owner?

Local performance bug extraction from redacted profiler evidence.

Real behavior proof (required for external PRs)

Behavior addressed: Plugin metadata cache hits still emit plugins.metadata.scan diagnostics spans, flooding the timeline on hot paths even when the cached snapshot is reused.

Real environment tested: Local OpenClaw source worktree on Linux with Node v24.15.0; focused Vitest regression tests and diff hygiene were run in the isolated bug branch worktree.

Exact steps or command run after this patch:

node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/plugins/plugin-metadata-snapshot.memo.test.ts --reporter=verbose
git diff --check
.agents/skills/autoreview/scripts/autoreview --mode local

Evidence after fix:

node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/plugins/plugin-metadata-snapshot.memo.test.ts --reporter=verbose

Result: 1 file passed, 28 tests passed.

git diff --check

Result: passed.

.agents/skills/autoreview/scripts/autoreview --mode local

Result: clean, no accepted/actionable findings reported.

Observed result after fix: Focused regression coverage passed and autoreview reported no accepted/actionable findings.

What was not tested: No live long-running profiler rerun was performed after the patch.

Proof limitations or environment constraints: The original evidence is from redacted local profiler artifacts; this PR includes focused seam proof rather than a full live profiler replay.

Before evidence (optional but encouraged):

Timeline proof showed plugins.metadata.scan count=25478, sumMs=281718, maxMs=360.577. Source evidence pointed at loadPluginMetadataSnapshot cache-hit handling in src/plugins/plugin-metadata-snapshot.ts.

Tests and validation

Which commands did you run?

node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run src/plugins/plugin-metadata-snapshot.memo.test.ts --reporter=verbose
git diff --check
.agents/skills/autoreview/scripts/autoreview --mode local

What regression coverage was added or updated?

src/plugins/plugin-metadata-snapshot.ts; src/plugins/plugin-metadata-snapshot.memo.test.ts

What failed before this fix, if known?

The profiler/timeline evidence showed the hot-path behavior described in the linked issue.

If no test was added, why not?

Focused regression coverage was added or updated.

Risk checklist

Did user-visible behavior change? (Yes/No)

No

Did config, environment, or migration behavior change? (Yes/No)

No

Did security, auth, secrets, network, or tool execution behavior change? (Yes/No)

No

What is the highest-risk area?

Preserving existing hot-path behavior while reducing repeated work.

How is that risk mitigated?

Focused regression tests plus autoreview.

Current review state

What is the next action?

Maintainer review and CI.

What is still waiting on author, maintainer, CI, or external proof?

Full live profiler replay was not run locally.

Which bot or reviewer comments were addressed?

Local autoreview findings were addressed before opening this PR where applicable.

@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added size: XS maintainer Maintainer-authored PR labels May 26, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 26, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed May 29, 2026, 1:15 AM ET / 05:15 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

PR surface: Source -9, Tests +30. Total +21 across 2 files.

Reproducibility: unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Result: rating does not apply to this item.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Risk before merge

  • [P1] No close action taken because the review did not complete.

Maintainer options:

  1. Decide the mitigation before merge
    Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
  2. Pause or close
    Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

  • [P1] Review did not complete, so no work-lane recommendation was made.
Review details

Best possible solution:

Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. Retry the review first so ClawSweeper can evaluate the actual issue and fix direction.

AGENTS.md: unclear because the file could not be read completely.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 8eb5ff08c86b.

Label changes

Label changes:

  • remove P2: Current review triage priority is none.

Label justifications:

  • rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.
Evidence reviewed

PR surface:

Source -9, Tests +30. Total +21 across 2 files.

View PR surface stats
Area Files Added Removed Net
Source 1 1 10 -9
Tests 1 30 0 +30
Docs 0 0 0 0
Config 0 0 0 0
Generated 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Total 2 31 10 +21

What I checked:

  • failure reason: codex execution failed.
  • codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
  • codex stdout: Per-item Codex failure; continuing with the rest of the shard.

Likely related people:

  • unknown: Codex failed before it could trace repository history. (role: review did not complete; confidence: low)
What the crustacean ranks mean
  • 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
  • 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
  • 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
  • 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
  • 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
  • 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
  • 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works
  • ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
  • Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
  • A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
  • PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
  • Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
  • Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
  • Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
  • Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. P2 Normal backlog priority with limited blast radius. labels May 26, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented May 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

ClawSweeper PR egg

🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat.

Where did the egg go?
  • The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
  • Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
  • This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request May 26, 2026
Open
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item. and removed rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. labels May 29, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

maintainer Maintainer-authored PR P2 Normal backlog priority with limited blast radius. rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item. size: XS

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Bug]: Plugin metadata cache hits flood diagnostics scan spans

2 participants

@galiniliev @RomneyDa