Log leaf-node reduction at INFO level - #103
Merged
anhnh2002 merged 2 commits intoSep 7, 2026
Merged
Conversation
CI lints every changed file in full. Replace typing.Dict/List/Set with builtin generics, iterate acyclic_graph.values() where the key was unused (PERF102), and apply ruff format; no behavior change.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When the candidate set crosses
LEAF_REDUCTION_THRESHOLD(400), the pruning to graph roots can shrink it dramatically. On a C++ repository I was looking at (umoria), from 770 to 27 nodes. That reduction is currently logged at DEBUG, so at normal verbosity there is no indication it happened; only the collapsed count shows up downstream.This change raises the message to
INFO, includes the threshold so the number can be put in context, and adds a second line with the resulting count.This is a small part of #101, which I closed after the discussion there.