Label each cache percentage with the window it measures - #99
Conversation
The Charts page shows two cache figures that differ in both metric and window, stacked, with nothing on the row saying which is which. Token mix is cache read plus write over 7 days; the model rows are cache read alone over 30. They can legitimately diverge for two separate reasons, and a reader comparing them had no way to know either. The model rows now carry "· 30 days" next to the percentage, because their "Cost by model · 30 days" header is several rows away and the 7-day card sits directly above them. The token mix figure is left alone: its title is in the same row, so repeating the window there just stuttered "7 days" twice across one header. Rendering it settled that; it read worse than the problem. Cursor's activity shares are also untouched. They are a composition that sums to 100% inside its own card, so they cannot be mistaken for a rate from a different one. The multi-plan notice now says the split is over the last 30 days, which it never stated.
|
Warning Review limit reachedYou’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy. Next review available in: 22 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
Deploying with
|
| Status | Name | Latest Commit | Preview URL | Updated (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ Deployment successful! View logs |
ceiling | 7bf7d4a | Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL |
Jul 21 2026, 09:51 PM |
Undoes an error in #99. `docs/images/ceiling-charts-comparison.png` was swept in by a `git add -A` while it was still being edited locally. #99 was a one-file copy change and had no business carrying an image, and the committed copy was **already stale** by the time it merged — the local file had been modified again since. Nothing in the repo references the file (checked `.md`, `.html`, `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.json`, `.rs`), so removing it breaks nothing. It stays a local working file until the screenshots being prepared are final — likely as part of SOU-294, which needs a refreshed Charts shot anyway. No code change. Co-authored-by: tsouth89 <tsouth89@users.noreply.github.com>
Release prep. Version bumped in all five tracked locations (`version.env` incl. BUILD_NUMBER 100→101, both Rust manifests, `package.json`, `tauri.conf.json`) plus `Cargo.lock`. ## What ships **Added** — multi-plan disclosure (SOU-297 step 1, #97/#98). Codex records the plan behind each request, so when a machine's totals span more than one plan the Charts page says so rather than letting them read as the signed-in account's. **Fixed** - Codex cache rate double-counted cached input, showing ~49% for a model that was really ~97% (SOU-295, #96). - Archived Codex sessions were missing from the Charts page, reset windows, and API value card (SOU-296, #96). - Cache percentages now say which window they measure (SOU-300, #99). Also folds in a one-line doc fix flagged during the #90 review: `CostUsageReport.current_windows` said "token totals" after it started carrying cost too. ## Note for release notes The archived-sessions fix will **increase** existing users' totals if they archive Codex tasks — on the maintainer's machine 81 of 97 rollouts were archived and therefore invisible. That is a correction, not a regression, and the notes say so. ## Validation `local-check.ps1 -All -Version 1.4.0` passes; release-doctor reports all five version locations at 1.4.0 and the changelog entry present, with only the expected pre-tag warnings (no local tag, no local assets dir). Co-authored-by: tsouth89 <tsouth89@users.noreply.github.com>
1 participant
Closes SOU-300. Sequenced after SOU-295 as the ticket required — labelling a wrong number more precisely would not have helped.
The problem
Two cache figures sit stacked on the Charts page and differ in both metric and window:
They can legitimately diverge for two independent reasons, and nothing on the row said either. That ambiguity is what made the (genuinely broken) 49% figure read as merely inconsistent rather than wrong.
What changed
Model rows now carry
· 30 daysbeside the percentage. Their "Cost by model · 30 days" header is several rows away, and the 7-day card sits directly above them — this is the case the ticket was actually about.Token mix is deliberately left alone. I tried adding
· 7 daysthere and rendered it: the title is in the same row, so the header stuttered "7 days" twice. It read worse than the problem it solved.Cursor activity shares untouched — a composition summing to 100% within its own card can't be mistaken for a rate from a different one.
The multi-plan notice now states its split is over the last 30 days, which it never said.
Verified against the real stylesheet before and after; the redundant version is why the token-mix change was dropped. Frontend 278 passed,
tsc --noEmitclean. No backend change.