Correct module cache hashing docs - #3869
Conversation
Code reviewReviewed this doc-only change against the actual implementation. Verified accurate: The updated wording ("Input files are content-hashed concurrently on every fingerprint calculation, up to No issues found. This is a minimal, well-scoped documentation correction with no code changes, so there are no architectural or design concerns to raise here. |
|
CI diagnosis: the docs deployment and review pass. Ubuntu/Windows/macOS .NET jobs fail only on current-main |
|
Shared RunReportTests failure is fixed on current main by merged PR #3844. Refreshed this branch onto current main for a clean CI cycle; no duplicate patch or stale-run rerun. |
7179f6a to
1b94c42
Compare
|
@codex review |
|
@claude review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code review
Re-reviewed after the rebase onto current main (no diff content changed since the prior review — still the single-sentence correction in docs/docs/how-to/module-caching.md).
Verified accurate against current main: pulled src/ModularPipelines/Caching/ModuleCacheFileHasher.cs directly from main and confirmed HashAsync always SHA-256 hashes file contents via Parallel.ForEachAsync with MaxDegreeOfParallelism = _maximumConcurrency (bound by MaximumHashConcurrency, matching the option name used in the doc's config sample). There's no persistent mtime/size index that short-circuits hashing — the before/after FileInfo comparison in that method is a race-guard that re-hashes if the file changed mid-read, not a skip-hash cache. So the old wording ("persistent modification-time and size index; changed files are hashed concurrently") was inaccurate, and the new wording ("Input files are content-hashed concurrently on every fingerprint calculation, up to MaximumHashConcurrency files at a time") correctly describes the implementation.
No issues found. This is a minimal, correctly-scoped documentation fix with no code changes — nothing architectural to flag here.
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
|
CI diagnosis: the docs-only diff cannot affect the core test host. The Ubuntu RunCoreUnitTests process exited abruptly with code 134 after ~2 minutes, with no failed-test summary and no hang dump; all other current-head checks and reviews pass. Triggered the single allowed failed-job rerun for this infrastructure/test-host crash. |
|
Correction: GitHub reported the workflow rerun was already running, so this agent did not create a duplicate rerun. |
|
Refreshed docs-only branch onto current main in c1b8ac0 after the one allowed CI rerun also hit the core-test host failure. Validation: git diff --check clean; PR delta remains only docs/docs/how-to/module-caching.md. |
Code reviewRe-checked after the latest rebase onto Re-verified against current No issues found. Minimal, correctly-scoped documentation fix — nothing architectural to flag. |
Closes #3806.
Corrects the module-caching guide to describe actual behavior: input files are content-hashed on every fingerprint calculation, with concurrency bounded by MaximumHashConcurrency.
Validation: git diff --check