Skip to content

refactor(queue): drop indexmap, group_by_scope returns a Vec<(K, V)>#1445

Draft
jd wants to merge 1 commit into
devs/jd/worktree-rust-port/share-styledglyph-across-queue-show-status--8ed9bb5ffrom
devs/jd/worktree-rust-port/drop-indexmap-group-scope-returns-vec-k-v--7085cf29
Draft

refactor(queue): drop indexmap, group_by_scope returns a Vec<(K, V)>#1445
jd wants to merge 1 commit into
devs/jd/worktree-rust-port/share-styledglyph-across-queue-show-status--8ed9bb5ffrom
devs/jd/worktree-rust-port/drop-indexmap-group-scope-returns-vec-k-v--7085cf29

Conversation

@jd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jd jd commented May 19, 2026

group_by_scope in queue status returned IndexMap<String, Vec<&Batch>> because the human renderer needs first-seen
insertion order (mirrors Python dict iteration). That's one
hashmap-shaped use of the only IndexMap in the codebase — and
the typical input size is 1–3 scopes per repo.

At that N, the hashing/bucketing overhead of IndexMap is dead
weight versus a Vec<(K, V)> with a linear iter_mut().find()
on insert. Same wire shape from the caller's side (still iterable
by (scope, batches)), one fewer crate in Cargo.lock.

indexmap survives transitively (it's an internal dep of
jsonschema), so the lockfile loses one direct line but keeps the
package — that's fine, the goal here is to shed a direct
dependency we control, not to fight upstream graphs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 noreply@anthropic.com

Depends-On: #1444

`group_by_scope` in `queue status` returned `IndexMap<String,
Vec<&Batch>>` because the human renderer needs first-seen
insertion order (mirrors Python dict iteration). That's one
hashmap-shaped use of the only `IndexMap` in the codebase — and
the typical input size is 1–3 scopes per repo.

At that N, the hashing/bucketing overhead of `IndexMap` is dead
weight versus a `Vec<(K, V)>` with a linear `iter_mut().find()`
on insert. Same wire shape from the caller's side (still iterable
by `(scope, batches)`), one fewer crate in `Cargo.lock`.

`indexmap` survives transitively (it's an internal dep of
`jsonschema`), so the lockfile loses one direct line but keeps the
package — that's fine, the goal here is to shed a *direct*
dependency we control, not to fight upstream graphs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Change-Id: I7085cf297a6a294217b0a6656a4bc224a1dd2c58
@jd
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

jd commented May 19, 2026

This pull request is part of a Mergify stack:

# Pull Request Link
1 test(queue): add live smoke test for queue show #1408
2 feat(rust): port queue show to native Rust #1399
3 test(skill): port the skill-references test to Rust #1414
4 test(freeze): add live smoke test for freeze list #1434
5 feat(rust): port freeze list to native Rust #1435
6 test(freeze): add live smoke test for freeze create/update/delete #1436
7 feat(rust): port freeze create/update/delete to native Rust #1437
8 refactor(rust): dedupe emit-helper boilerplate across command crates #1438
9 refactor(rust): share test scaffolding via mergify-test-support crate #1439
10 refactor(core): introduce CommandContext for the queue+freeze prelude #1441
11 refactor(ci): consolidate the CI-env scrubber into a shared testing module #1442
12 refactor: drop stale Phase X.Y doc markers and one inline color branch #1443
13 refactor(tui): share StyledGlyph across queue show/status renderers #1444
14 refactor(queue): drop indexmap, group_by_scope returns a Vec<(K, V)> #1445 👈
15 refactor(ci): swap uuid for getrandom in the GHA heredoc delimiter #1446
16 refactor(config): standardize the workspace on serde_yaml_ng for YAML parsing #1447

@mergify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mergify Bot commented May 19, 2026

Merge Protections

Your pull request matches the following merge protections and will not be merged until they are valid.

🔴 ⛓️ Depends-On Requirements

Waiting for

This rule is failing.

Requirement based on the presence of Depends-On in the body of the pull request

🔴 👀 Review Requirements

Waiting for

  • #approved-reviews-by>=2
This rule is failing.
  • any of:
    • #approved-reviews-by>=2
    • author = dependabot[bot]
    • author = mergify-ci-bot
    • author = renovate[bot]

🔴 🔎 Reviews

Waiting for

  • #review-requested = 0
This rule is failing.
  • #review-requested = 0
  • #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0
  • #review-threads-unresolved = 0

🟢 🤖 Continuous Integration

Wonderful, this rule succeeded.
  • all of:
    • check-success=ci-gate

🟢 Enforce conventional commit

Wonderful, this rule succeeded.

Make sure that we follow https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/

  • title ~= ^(fix|feat|docs|style|refactor|perf|test|build|ci|chore|revert|ui)(?:\(.+\))?:

🟢 📕 PR description

Wonderful, this rule succeeded.
  • body ~= (?ms:.{48,})

@mergify mergify Bot requested a review from a team May 19, 2026 15:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant